Supreme Court Magazine Denial Decision Changes Second Amendment Landscape!

[Acer-m14]

mags are not a part of the gun because the gun can shoot one round with out the magazine ..

so not covered under PLCAA

it was the magazines fault ...

So .. just remember for your next auto Vs Deer in the road .. it was the cars fault , and the tires , and the motor and the wiring ..

and sue all of them ..

the deer was under the influence of headlights too LOL ..

sue the headlight makers

 

[Pissed Off Patriot]

So reducing us to a single shot firearm is back on the table again?

Bull shit.

 

[JaguarJaguarGolf]

So if magazines are not a component part of a firearm, they can't be regulated by a law pertaining to firearms.

N'est pas?

 

[SonOfSun]

So if magazines are not a component part of a firearm, they can't be regulated by a law pertaining to firearms.

N'est pas?

Yeah but if they aren't part of a firearm then they don't have 2a protections. This ruling isn't a good thing for us.

 

[spat]

Yeah but if they aren't part of a firearm then they don't have 2a protections. This ruling isn't a good thing for us.

The 2A doesn't say guns.

It says arms. Which generally includes all weapons and accessories.

And if magazines aren't "arms" then neither is ammunition.

I'd also like to seem then explain how the magazine isn't "part of the gun" on an M1 Garand.

 

[Cavalry]

The 2A doesn't say guns.

It says arms. Which generally includes all weapons and accessories.

And if magazines aren't "arms" then neither is ammunition.

I'd also like to seem then explain how the magazine isn't "part of the gun" on an M1 Garand.

A better question would be hot to apply this nonsense to a pistol with a magazine disconnect like a High Power. No magazine, no bang.

 

[spat]

A better question would be hot to apply this nonsense to a pistol with a magazine disconnect like a High Power. No magazine, no bang.

Or in a state where such a feature is mandated (like CA).

 

[Bob]

So reducing us to a single shot firearm is back on the table again?

Bull shit.

Unless you're in California or Massachusetts, which require magazine disconnects. No magazine = no firing pin strike.

I seem to recall there's another case working that angle.

 

[Zerex]

LOOK.....................this idiot is again, writing about something that happened in the distant past...........back in June 2022.

FUCKING 18 MONTHS AGO.

SCOTUS holds on to gun, magazine ban cases pending in conference

I was hoping that after last Thursday’s historic decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol

bearingarms.com

Never listen to this blathering idiot.

 

[Bob]

LOOK.....................this idiot is again, writing about something that happened in the distant past...........back in June 2022.

FUCKING 18 MONTHS AGO.

SCOTUS holds on to gun, magazine ban cases pending in conference

I was hoping that after last Thursday’s historic decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol

bearingarms.com

Never listen to this blathering idiot.

While I agree that he is generally a blathering idiot, what he’s running his mouth about is less than a week old.

There was a petition filed with the US Supreme Court in June of this year. Last Monday, that petition was denied.

Search

 

[Grimscale]

First thing to remember when viewing an Armed Scholar video is that his titles are clickbait bullshit.
He may have intelligence about what the S.C. is doing, but his titles are almost always wrong or misleading.

This was an interlocutory request to the S.C. due to the denial of a dismissal under the PLCAA. He even says the S.C. doesn't typically take interlocutory requests. He also stated that lawsuits frequently happen regardless of the PLCAA.
So this is not really any different, and doesn't make any significant change to the "2nd Amendment landscape".

It's too bad...he does seem quite informed and knowledgeable, but I can't get by the deliberate clickbait headlines to actually watch his stuff anymore.

 

[Acer-m14]

First thing to remember when viewing an Armed Scholar video is that his titles are clickbait bullshit.
He may have intelligence about what the S.C. is doing, but his titles are almost always wrong or misleading.

This was an interlocutory request to the S.C. due to the denial of a dismissal under the PLCAA. He even says the S.C. doesn't typically take interlocutory requests. He also stated that lawsuits frequently happen regardless of the PLCAA.
So this is not really any different, and doesn't make any significant change to the "2nd Amendment landscape".

It's too bad...he does seem quite informed and knowledgeable, but I can't get by the deliberate clickbait headlines to actually watch his stuff anymore.

every time i see his post and titles .. i yell out what supreme court .. you have to watch the vid to find out it was Illinois, or some other state ..

or the SCOTUS

 

[Saltwater60]

Let’s look at this logically and if the standard is will the gun fire without a certain component then no accessory is protected at all outside the receiver, firing mechanism and possibly the barrel. Also I’m sure they forgot that some firearms will not operate without a magazine inserted and if this is the case most or all manufacturers will go this route. I for one want my gun to fire without a magazine inserted into it. Now let’s jump to a revolver and the cylinder would be protected but not speed loaders. A cylinder vs magazine to me serve the same function in general.

 

[Robin]

More bullshit, like trying to stop a pickpocket while his gang ransacks your house.
Robin

 

[spat]

Let’s look at this logically and if the standard is will the gun fire without a certain component then no accessory is protected at all outside the receiver, firing mechanism and possibly the barrel. Also I’m sure they forgot that some firearms will not operate without a magazine inserted and if this is the case most or all manufacturers will go this route. I for one want my gun to fire without a magazine inserted into it. Now let’s jump to a revolver and the cylinder would be protected but not speed loaders. A cylinder vs magazine to me serve the same function in general.

To say nothing of the fact that the 2A protects *arms* not *guns*.

A magazine is certainly a major component of "arms".

Arguing otherwise is saying a sword is protected, but not a scabbard.

 

[Acer-m14]

Arguing otherwise is saying a sword is protected, but not a scabbard.

a Sward with no Scabbard is open carry ..

with a Scabbard is Concealed Carry

just wanted to say so

PS ..

Is my Sword printing ...

 

[Saltwater60]

To say nothing of the fact that the 2A protects *arms* not *guns*.

A magazine is certainly a major component of "arms".

Arguing otherwise is saying a sword is protected, but not a scabbard.

Agreed. What I’m saying is they could sue sight makers, stock makers, and many other component makers. If these companies go out of business you’ll still have a gun that functions on paper but good luck using it or carrying it. Belt and holster makers will be sued too. Can we sue the trench coat makers and boot makers next?

 

[ManualF150]

Agreed. What I’m saying is they could sue sight makers, stock makers, and many other component makers. If these companies go out of business you’ll still have a gun that functions on paper but good luck using it or carrying it. Belt and holster makers will be sued too. Can we sue the trench coat makers and boot makers next?

I saw a person walking around in a black trench coat, with a black derby cap, with dark sunglasses the other day at the store... I wanted to walk up to them and ask them if they had an arsenal behind their trench coat.

It just seemed so stereotypical of someone nefarious.

 

[Saltwater60]

I saw a person walking around in a black trench coat, with a black derby cap, with dark sunglasses the other day at the store... I wanted to walk up to them and ask them if they had an arsenal behind their trench coat.

It just seemed so stereotypical of someone nefarious.

Probably stealing.

 

[ManualF150]

Probably stealing.

They could've fit half the store under their trench coat too...