Skip to main content

So it looks like the first Federal Judge 'step' in the judicial review process says that the NY SAFE ACT is ok, except for the magazine restrictions.

Over the jump for more details.



Right to Keep and Bear Arms is a DKos group of second amendment supporters who have progressive and liberal values. We don't think that being a liberal means one has to be anti-gun. Some of us are extreme in our second amendment views (no licensing, no restrictions on small arms) and some of us are more moderate (licensing, restrictions on small arms.) Moderate or extreme or somewhere in between, we hold one common belief: more gun control equals lost elections.  We don't want a repeat of 1994. We are an inclusive group: if you see the Second Amendment as safeguarding our right to keep and bear arms individually, then come join us in our conversation. If you are against the right to keep and bear arms, come join our conversation. We look forward to seeing you, as long as you engage in a civil discussion.
Federal judge upholds New York’s ban on assault weapons, rejects 7-round magazine limit
Chief U.S. District Judge William M. Skretny said the law, a response to the Sandy Hook shootings that killed 20 children and six adults, is not a violation of the Second Amendment.

The one exception Skretny found was the law’s seven-round limit, which he called “tenuous, strained and unsupported.”
...
“The Court finds that the challenged provisions of the SAFE Act, including the Act’s definition and regulation of assault weapons and its ban on high-capacity magazines, further the state’s important interest in public safety and do not impermissibly infringe on Plaintiff’s Second Amendment rights,” the judge said in his ruling.

Obviously, the pro-gun rights organizations will appeal Judge Skretny's decision.

Will this make it all the way to SCOTUS or will it die before it gets there? Will a different court find the magazine limits constitutional?

This should get interesting.

Thoughts?

1:33 PM PT: Here is a link to the decision itself. It looks like the judge might've meant the 7 rounds in a 10 round magazine section was overturned, not the general mag limit.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Nooooo (17+ / 0-)

    I can't believe that an arbitrarily decided magazine limit wasn't actually constitutional. How could that possibly be? Everyone knows that politicians are carefully crafting and passing gun control laws that useful, practical and are aimed are reducing the most violence possible.

    Look, I tried to be reasonable...

    by campionrules on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 12:29:35 PM PST

  •  Like you said the other day... (16+ / 0-)

    ...the 7-round magazine limit makes many legitimate weapons into paperweights or expensive clubs, so the law is in essence, a back-door ban on weapons that have never had a seven-round magazine ever made for them...

    Dont M1911's have EIGHT- shot magazines? They law simply outlaws them, and they're damn-near antiques!

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 12:33:08 PM PST

    •  Not damn near. Over 100 years old, model wise. (11+ / 0-)

      I love how the 'high capacity' version of the 1911 mag holds...count 'em...ten rounds.

    •  My heart weeps for you, truly. /nt (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Dodgerdog1, Stude Dude
    •  Nonsense (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Glen The Plumber, CenPhx, JR, fcvaguy, coquiero

      you clearly don't know how magazines function, or are you just exaggerating for the gallery.

      Military training and when citing in a new weapon will routinely use magazines that have a specific number of bullets loaded, not the full magazine capacity.

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 04:22:53 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Meh (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        KVoimakas, ER Doc, PavePusher, Shamash

        That's on a case-by-case basis. I've heard that SOP on M-16 magazines was 28 rounds instead of the full 30, but improvements in magazine design made them reliable again with a full 30. Similarly I've never heard of a Glock factory magazine losing reliability with a full load. Now, add after-market parts (such as a Scherer +2 floorplate) and you take your chances.

        In any case, leftykook was right. When the NY SAFE Act first came out, it looked like any magazine holding more than seven rounds was retroactively banned, which would have made most semiautomatic handguns impossible to use legally, at least temporarily until new limited-capacity magazines could be made. The selective enforcement of the magazine ban improves the situation somewhat. Still, this law is a huge overreach, and you can count on the NRA and other groups hammering every Democrat with it in purple districts in 2014.

        ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
        My Blog
        My wife's woodblock prints

        by maxomai on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 06:59:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not what the law here says. (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener, fcvaguy, PinHole

          It says that a magazine may not have more than 7 rounds loaded into it, except at a range or other sanctioned event. The idea that a pistol like the M1911 would be de facto banned because there aren't 7-round magazines made for it is flat-out incorrect: you can still use a standard 10-round magazine, but may not load it with more than 7 rounds.

          This is less onerous than, say, federal waterfowl hunting rules that require shotguns capable of holding more than 3 shells to be mechanically altered to prohibit any more than 3 shells being loaded at a time. It's more like if that law said "use your regular pump shotgun all you like, but don't load more than 3 shells at any one time." That doesn't turn those unmodified pump shotguns into "paperweights."

          "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

          by JR on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:49:52 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  (Though I do use a part of a 12-gauge barrel... (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener, fcvaguy

            ...as a paper towel holder.)

            "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

            by JR on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:50:38 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Well my Step-dad is a hunter... (0+ / 0-)

            ...and he has a Browning Automatic shotgun which holds 7 or 8 shells and he has a gadget that goes into the magazine that takes the place of some of the shells, limiting the gun to three shells....He says that Game Wardens can demand that he show that the plug is installed, or get a ticket...

            "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

            by leftykook on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 06:53:46 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Yep, that's a federal waterfowl hunting law... (0+ / 0-)

              ...(and, in some places, a state one as well), and it's arguably a bigger burden* on the gun owner than the one under discussion here, because it requires a mechanical device be purchased and installed. In the case of the SAFE Act, the requirement is that you just don't load your magazine to capacity, which is more like if Game Wardens were just able to demand that your step-dad show them how many shells are loaded in his shotgun, instead of proving that loading more than 3 is impossible.

              (* - more strongly affects a smaller class of gun owners)

              "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

              by JR on Thu Jan 02, 2014 at 10:24:03 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

    •  That's incorrect. (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LilithGardener, fcvaguy, coquiero, PinHole

      The law, as it appears to be phrased (going by how it's quoted in the decision) would only prohibit knowingly loading a magazine with more than 7 rounds. That magazine may have a total capacity of up to 10 rounds, but no more than 7 may be loaded (except at a shooting range).

      "Speaking for myself only" - Armando

      by JR on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:45:26 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I think it depends on who pushes (4+ / 0-)

    and how hard they push (in reference to this issue making it to the SCOTUS).

    "The next time everyone will pay for it equally, and there won't be any more Chosen Nations, or any Others. Poor bastards all." ~The Boomer Bible

    by just another vet on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 12:42:01 PM PST

  •  interesting...I don't see mag limits as (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    FG, IndieGuy, LilithGardener, fcvaguy

    the most effective law anyway...but always curious to see the court's reasoning on the issues.

    We are not broke, we are being robbed...but we can fight back...#KosKatalogue

    by Glen The Plumber on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 12:42:03 PM PST

  •  7 rounds does seem limited, but Colorado's (6+ / 0-)

    15 round limit to me does sound an acceptable limit compared to the 100 round magazine the Aurora theater shooter tried to use.  I don't know the ins and outs as to why 15 was selected as compared to 16, 14 or 12 or some other number, but I think there should be some limits on size just to prevent mass murders.  The shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary lost targets when kids fled as he was changing magazines after having run through the bullets in his current one, so there's a benefit to human prey in limiting the number of bullets in a single magazine.  There's certainly no need for hunters to have huge magazines, so they're only really a human-to-human type of category of need.

    •  The thing is, though... (10+ / 0-)

      ...that anybody with a bit of experience or training can change magazines pretty damn fast. The difference between my firing 30 rounds from one mag or from two, in terms of total time spent shooting, is pretty small. Same-same with a pistol (which I actually find easier to "combat reload": eyes never leave the target, and drop/ home/ slide/ shoot all in one rehearsed series of movements). This training came from a couple of decades in the Army, but it's easily learned. Limits on magazine capacity will do nothing to stop mass shootings, and will do almost as little in slowing them down.

      •  I have to disagree. (8+ / 0-)

        The people we see on the interwebz changing magazines really fast are HIGHLY trained and practice quite a bit, and are doing so in a no-pressure environment.

        Take that same thing into a very public area, where they had to get the gun and all of those magazines in, surrounded by people who will jump them if they slip up on the magazine change, etc..and all that assumes they're in practice, not someone doing the shooting on a whim during a mental breakdown.

        My opinion vs yours doesn't really have any statistical weight either way, though.

        While you dream of Utopia, we're here on Earth, getting things done.

        by GoGoGoEverton on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 01:47:18 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Mass shooters aren't really operating under a (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas, ER Doc

          'high pressure' environment.  Have you ever read the witness accounts?  They've all got some variation on "He wasn't blinking", "He didn't flinch", etc.  Mass shooters might as well be androids, they've got no emotion in that moment, it's essentially a video game for them.

          This isn't stated to argue for or against magazine size restrictions, it's just an interesting tidbit about the psychology of these guys when they snap.  It's not a mass shooting, but if you've ever watched 'The Wire' pay close attention to the scene where Ziggy murders Glekas, it's an out of body experience for him.

          I will say (and this is to argue against restrictions) that I'm not a particularly well trained individual, but I've watched videos of myself shooting IDPA events and my slide-lock magazine changes clock in under two seconds.  That's pulling the magazine out of a concealed pouch, the guys who open carry can pull it off faster yet.

          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

          by Crookshanks on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 02:45:09 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  The Tucson murdered fumbled the mag and he (9+ / 0-)

            was stopped, held, the mag was taken and he was tackled.

            The Newtown mass murderer seemed better trained than some of the other mass murderers and he even had trouble reloading, which let kids escape.

            Having to reload is better than not having to reload. That can't be spun away.

            •  Frankly I'm not trying to spin it away, because (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              PavePusher, Shamash

              I would be opposed to magazine size restrictions regardless of your ability or lack thereof to prove their efficacy.

              It's stupid to ban something based on events that claim less lives than tornadoes.  It's bad public policy to outlaw items that are possessed by tens of millions of people who commit no crimes worse than speeding.

              It's interesting that you use the word 'murderer' though.  Frankly, I've always thought of mass shooters as sick individuals, not murderers in the classical sense.  If our mental healthcare system wasn't so pathetic they would have received treatment and become productive members of society.

              In that moment when they're killing people there's nothing left to do but stop them, just as you would shoot a rabid dog coming after your kids, but you wouldn't blame the dog for being sick or assume he was evil.

              How ironic that I now sound like the stereotypical soft on crime liberal that my conservative friends hate, when I'm not even THAT liberal (compared to the DKos median).  Guess it's the 8 years I spent working in the NYS mental healthcare system.

              There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

              by Crookshanks on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 03:05:46 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Hmm, the NY Courts disagree with you. I'll take (4+ / 0-)

                their measured opinion that takes into account ALL of society versus that of a biased gun enthusiast with a narrow point of view.

                •  Do you have some problem with actually addressing (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ER Doc, PavePusher

                  my points instead of knocking down strawmen?

                  I never claimed that the legislation was Unconstitutional.  I simply stated that it's stupid and bad public policy.  That's a personal opinion, one that I'm sure you disagree with, but what the NYS Courts think on the matter is rather irrelevant to me.

                  It's a moot point, I'll be out of this State in a few months.  One more educated young professional fleeing Upstate NY, not exactly a new trend, but a worrisome one if you actually care about the place.

                  There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                  by Crookshanks on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 03:17:04 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Mental healthcare costs a lot of money and will (4+ / 0-)

                    take a number of years (decade?) to get to a level where it will impact gun violence in a meaningful way - I agree it's part of the solution. But so is limiting high cap mags combined with semi-auto guns.

                    •  Too bad your side has zero crediablity with my (2+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      PavePusher, DavidMS

                      side, thus ensuring a political standoff, while precluding us from moving forward with the things (UBCs) we agree on.

                      I told another one in your crowd that I might have been inclined to go along with magazine restrictions, until NY SAFE.  I've never owned a "high capacity" magazine, so I didn't really have a horse in the fight.  The problem is I can't trust that your side will be content to stop at 10 rounds.  NYS had a 10 round restriction, until SAFE, when it became 7 rounds.  I'm supposed to believe that number won't be further decreased in the future?  Why?  The long term objective of many on your side is a near total ban on firearms.

                      Let me know when just ONE high profile person in your movement condemns NY SAFE, then maybe I'll be less inclined to question the motivations of your side.

                      Hell you don't even have to do that.  Just come out and condemn some of the DKos posters that throw around phrases laced with verbal contempt for gun owners.  The ones that call us gun nuts, fat white men with small penises, the black helicopter crowd, or whatever else the insult-of-the-day happens to be.

                      If you can't convince me, someone who owns a grand total of TWO firearms, what chance do you really think you have of convincing the "gun nuts"?

                      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                      by Crookshanks on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 03:30:27 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Isn't that settled - judge said 7 was too far, 10 (5+ / 0-)

                        was just right. That could become the gold standard, couldn't it. Couldn't this ruling be the precedent that becomes the parameters for ALL future cases about this issue? It has that potential, I beleive. If so, you don't have to listen to any of us. And all those folks going on about the gun nutz are frustrated mostly at the open carry AR-15 crowd showing up to 4th of July parades, mall parking lots and the like - the "shall not infringe" crowd. And, I was that way when I first got interested in this issue about a year ago - then after reading, blogging, etc., I've learned more of the nuance.

                        Hey, I found a place better than Louisiana for you:

                        With the oppression of the over regulated, over taxed, war riddled and welfare riddled society consuming the world, Ayn Rand's famous protagonist character, John Galt, came to conclude that he would not use his talents to support such a society any longer...driving him to create a community where scientists, inventors, entrepreneurs and many others would come together to escape from the confines of their daily lives to not only be free...but to thrive. In today's world, it is becoming more and more difficult to find true freedom from very much the same oppressive forces Ayn Rand wrote of...which drove John Galt and others to a place where they found their freedom, success and peace of mind.
                        http://galtsgulchchile.com/...

                        It actually sounds like a fun place to visit. Not sure if it's viable over the long term, though.

                        •  Nothing is ever settled, not even when SCOTUS (3+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ER Doc, DavidMS, Shamash

                          rules on it.  By your logic the pro-choice crowd can pack up and go home, because it's "settled".

                          Actually I find a lot of the arguments you guys use about "sensible" restrictions to have mirrors on the pro-life side.  "Sensible" is rarely defined, and when it is they justify new restrictions (like hospital admitting privileges) as public safety measures.  Clearly they have no ulterior motive at all, none whatsoever, I can't imagine why those uppity feminazis don't trust them....

                          BTW, thanks for the latest strawman, this time using Ayn Rand, always popular around these parts.

                          There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                          by Crookshanks on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 03:53:03 PM PST

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  That was meant as a joke. As for "settled" or not (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            LilithGardener, Glen The Plumber

                            ... that's the best you are ever going to get.

                            Ambiguity's a bitch!

                          •  You know, all you had to do to earn my respect (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            PavePusher

                            was condemn your fellow antis who use nasty language towards us.  You couldn't even do that.  The best you could do was to qualify their contempt:

                            And all those folks going on about the gun nutz are frustrated mostly at the open carry AR-15 crowd showing up to 4th of July parades, mall parking lots and the like - the "shall not infringe" crowd.
                            So, I'm guessing you're equally understanding when people who are opposed to gay marriage drop the 'F' word?  I'm sure they're decent people and all, it's just that the gays have to be all up in their face about it, what with their rallies and everything....

                            P.S., I've never openly carried outside of wilderness hiking and have in fact spoken out against the practice.

                            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                            by Crookshanks on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 05:04:53 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Come on, pro gunners spit on gun controllers. (0+ / 0-)

                            That's a fact, I know second hand from people who've experience that.

                          •  The people here DON'T DO THAT. (0+ / 0-)

                            I've yet to see a SINGLE PERSON in the Daily Kos RKBA group treat you with anything other than respect.  We get annoyed sometimes, knocking down the same strawmen over and over, but spit on you?  Give me a break.

                            Oh, and guess what?  YOU'RE STILL DOING IT!  Justifying the bad behaviors of those that agree with you.  In the next diary you'll doubtless wonder why nobody on this side of the RKBA issue trusts you or your motivations.  Look in the mirror pal, and consider those who you've decided to associate with and continue to defend.

                            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                            by Crookshanks on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 08:38:16 PM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Not talking about virtual spit - real spit from (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            ColoTim, PinHole

                            pro gunners on women. Granted, that's obviously not happening here. But, you want to talk about trust and pro gun activists? Come on. How many lies have we all be subjected to from the NRA? It was enough to make Pappy Bush burn his NRA card.

                          •  The behavior of a handful of assholes in the (0+ / 0-)

                            meatspace justify the contempt your friends direct towards the DKos RKBA group?  Is that seriously what you're claiming?

                            You have a happy New Year, I don't see the point of further engagement with you.

                            There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                            by Crookshanks on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:00:10 AM PST

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  I don't know what your issue is - people are (0+ / 0-)

                            going to do and say what they are going to do and say. I don't have any control over that. Do I condone what EVERYONE does and says at all times? What kind of question is that? And, these aren't my friends. I don't know anyone personally on DKos, at least as far as I know.

                          •  I'm interpreting your gay comment (0+ / 0-)

                            as very offensive as a gay man. Surely, you're not comparing gays and guns? A gun is not an essential part of your core being. However, your sexuality certainly is. When RKBA comes up with these absurd analogies, it turns a lot of people off and away.

                            Perhaps you're just pissed and saying stupid shit in anger. I certainly hope so.

                          •  So as long as the thing the insult is (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Wordsinthewind, Kasoru

                            based on is discardable, you're fine with it?

                            Good to know.

                          •  This is your response (0+ / 0-)

                            to such a shitty analogy comparing gun rights to a person being gay?  For real? When you show a dim light of credibility, you say shit like this and the light gets snuffed out.

                            What so hard about standing up and saying there is no comparison to the right to own a gun verses the right to be gay? Why can't you bring yourself to a least that minimum level of honesty and sincerity? For fuck sake !!

                          •  Nice dodge of my question. But hey, that's (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Wordsinthewind, Kasoru

                            par for the course for you.

                          •  Your question is bullshit (0+ / 0-)

                            and doesn't even make sense.

                            Why can't YOU answer a simple question - do you agree that the right to own an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine is the equivalent to the right to be gay?

                            A very straightforward and honest response will do. Not that I'm expecting one or anything.

                          •  My question makes perfect sense and the fact (4+ / 0-)

                            that you continue to dodge it means I hit close to the mark.

                          •  exactly what I expected (0+ / 0-)

                            you refuse to address the core issue. You'd rather play games.

                            Gay rights are not a game to me KV. And my right to be what I am, part of my core being, does not compare whatsoever to your right to own an AR-15 with a 100 round magazine.

                            Sad to see you can't bring yourself to acknowledge even that small bit of decency.

                            We're done.

                          •  RKBA is not a game to me either. (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Wordsinthewind, Kasoru, theatre goon

                            Adios. Have a good life.

                          •  Sensible and reasonable will never be defined (4+ / 0-)

                            as they are subjective values assigned from the perspective of the one saying them. "Sensible", "fair", "reasonable" and other such words are useless in discussion because they always mean "sensible, fair, and reasonable as I see it".  No one ever gets into an argument and uses those words to mean something their opponent sees as sensible fair or reasonable.

                    •  If there were any statistical evidence... (4+ / 0-)

                      ...that limits on "assault weapons" and "high capacity magazines" had substantial impact on street crime, mass shootings, reckless gun accidents, or suicide, I'd be right there with you.

                      There simply isn't. It's bad policy, made to make people feel safer without actually being safer.

                      You want to cut down on street crime? Mandate universal background checks and give law enforcement funds to crack down on the underground gun market.

                      You want to limit the casualty rate on mass shootings? Lower the armed response time in schools and malls.

                      You want to cut down on reckless gun accidents? Mandate training. Or better yet, start airing public service ads.

                      Want to cut down on suicide in red states? Start airing public service ads encouraging the use of gun safes.

                      Each of these policies would have a low impact on the rights of gun owners but a huge impact on the specific problems we're trying to address. And that, in contrast to bans on "assault weapons" and "high-capacity magazines," is what common sense looks like.

                      ‎"Masculinity is not something given to you, but something you gain. And you gain it by winning small battles with honor." - Norman Mailer
                      My Blog
                      My wife's woodblock prints

                      by maxomai on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 07:17:11 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  statistical evidence is conveniently missing (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        ColoTim, fcvaguy, PinHole

                        thanks to the gun lobby actively working to undermine gun violence data collection and analysis that could be used to develop public policy. Similar to tobacco companies that didn't want the public to know about the lethality of its products, the gun lobby has worked to keep the public in the dark about the lethality of its products:

                        As I discussed, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the nation’s leading public health agency, was, in the early 1990s, beginning to conduct research into gun violence, seeing it as an important public health concern. But some of the research funded by the agency “challenged the concept that having a firearm in the home protects you,” said Mark Rosenberg, a Harvard-trained doctor and researcher who in the early 1990s headed CDC’s division of violence prevention.

                        In fact, Rosenberg said, CDC-funded studies like two that appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine “showed that having a gun in your home increases the chances of being murdered in the home 2.7 times and increases the chances of a family member committing suicide five-fold.”

                        The NRA conducted a protracted campaign to undermine CDC’s credibility, Rosenberg told me yesterday. “Gun-makers dominated the NRA and they want to sell guns and make more money,” he said. “So the NRA paid people—doctors, public health people—to go out and criticize CDC and the research we were doing.”

                        http://www.forbes.com/...
                  •  Having to change magazines saved lives in Tucson (10+ / 0-)

                    No question about it -- it was when Jared Loughner had to switch magazines that he was finally stopped, because he fumbled the magazine and was tackled in those moments as he was forced to cease shooting.
                    The limit on high-capacity magazines is not bad public policy or stupid, in my opinion.  Rather, it strikes me as very sound public policy that would have saved lives had it been implemented earlier, based on what we have observed in the real world.

                    I think this ruling is a good one.

                    •  asdf (5+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      gerrilea, DavidMS, ER Doc, PavePusher, Cedwyn

                      Even if that's true (I heard a different version of events, but no matter) it would not change my mind.

                      We live in a free society, not a safe one.  Tens of millions of high capacity magazine owners who haven't committed mass shootings, vs. two digits of mass shooters in my lifetime.

                      Rather, it strikes me as very sound public policy that would have saved lives had it been implemented earlier,
                      Didn't Dick Cheney use that same argument in favor of enhanced interrogation?

                      There are four boxes to be used in the defense of liberty: soap box, ballot box, jury box and ammo box. Use in that order.

                      by Crookshanks on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 03:56:11 PM PST

                      [ Parent ]

              •  Acceptable collateral damage (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                ColoTim

                THis line of argument makes me cringe.

                It's stupid to ban something based on events that claim less lives than tornadoes.
            •  And here we come with the (6+ / 0-)

              "You can't make me!" argument (no matter that the court just agreed that 7 is arbritrary). Some people just can't accept a win then they have it in the hand.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 04:43:35 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Spin this.... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ancblu

              Your hate-mail will be graded.

              by PavePusher on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 08:04:24 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

        •  Ya (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim

          In this case, New York, in the middle of a very crowded Times Square on New Years Eve, I would find some relief that a killer would have to change magazines after killing 10 people rather than 100.

      •  We have at least one statement from Newtown (7+ / 0-)

        directly contradicting your view and supporting the view GoGoGoEverton and I have - that people's lives can be saved by forcing mass murderers to change magazines.

        I will allow that soldiers and people who specifically train to change magazines in a hurry in a stressful environment can do so, but most mass murderers in this country don't take the time to train and do this - at least not from looking at the various mass murders that have been attempted or carried out.  Most are people without military training or it's been awhile since that training.  Fort Hood would be an exception to that.

        IndieGuy - if people can swap magazines quickly and get back to shooting, why then oppose limits on magazine size, since you'll be able to continue shooting without a significant pause, but the mass murderers in this country would likely have to pause, focus on their actions, thereby giving potential lifesaving seconds to their victims? Why is it a bad thing to help victims?

        •  The phrase... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          theatre goon, Wordsinthewind

          ..."Anecdote does not = data" covers all angles, I guess.

        •  As I've said elsewhere (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ColoTim, Glen The Plumber, CenPhx, fcvaguy

          the purpose and value of high capacity magazines is to lay down suppressive fire, which is clearly of value to military fighting on the ground.

          The capacity to lay down suppressive fire has no place in civilian life, not even in the hands of the police.

          If it's easy for criminals to change magazines to reload then it's easy for also easy for the experienced concealed carry guys to change magazines at the range, and that shows the argument for convenience is really hollow.

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 04:48:17 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Let me ask this one again (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Wordsinthewind, KVoimakas

            Since I never get an answer to it. Is the purpose of a 10-round magazine limit a handicap to give the 11th victim a head start?

            Yes, that is a brutal and insensitive way of putting it, but I have not seen anyone give me a justification why a particular number in a magazine limit is the difference between a rational gun owner and crazy-psycho-killer. In New York, why 7 instead of 6 or 8? Was this some political compromise hashed out by greasy white guys in a smoke-filled back room (this is Albany politics after all), or is there a real reason for it?

            I mean, do people in New York think those Connecticut folks are gun-crazy kooks because they allowed 40% larger magazines (10 rounds vs. 7 rounds)? Yes, a person acting entirely legally under the Connecticut laws passed after Newtown would be a dangerous criminal under the NY SAFE Act. And heaven forbid you let one of those 15-round Colorado crazies loose in your sane 10-round limited state...

            So someone, anyone, please tell me. What is the justification for a particular number from a gun control standpoint, or is it really just "pick a number, any number" (as long as it is smaller than the previous number, anyway). I'm hoping there is an empirical basis for these restrictions rather than "we're making an arbitrary law based on an easy number to remember", but I'm not optimistic.

            •  Don't know - it's arbitrary (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              ColoTim, fcvaguy

              As I commented here, in this diary, the 7 bullet limit was struck as unconstitutional. The limits require some justification. I'm convinced an arbitrary number will not pass constitutional review, if/when the law gets to SCOTUS.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 08:15:35 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Good, thank you (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Kasoru
                I'm convinced an arbitrary number will not pass constitutional review
                Does that mean at the present time you oppose arbitrary numbers for magazine limits, rather than the "let's just pick a number and see if it gets overturned?" approach to things?

                Your comments on firepower are interesting, but understand that firepower is a ratio, not an absolute. Virtually every advance on a new military rifle is adopted because it will (supposedly) increase the firepower (including suppressive fire) of the units using it (depending on who you ask, the M16 and/or 5.56mm round may have been a step backwards). So the same argument that would be raised for a 30 round magazine (like the military M16 or M4) compared to a 5-shot bolt action rifle, could also be raised to compare a 5-shot bolt action rifle (like the military M1903 Springfield) to a single shot cartridge rifle. And a single shot cartridge rifle (like the military 1873 Springfield) was an improvement on the firepower of a muzzle-loading rifle.

                Would you, 110 years ago, be arguing that a 5-shot bolt action rifle was too much firepower for a civilian? Or 140 years ago, argue that a single shot cartridge rifle was too much and that no civilian needed more than a single shot muzzle loader? After all, a platoon with single shot cartridge rifles can lay down a lot more firepower than a platoon armed with muzzle-loaders.

                But unless 88Kathy hijacks your account, I'm guessing your answer in these cases would be "no".

                The same sort of firepower comparisons could be made between slow-to-reload revolvers and fast-to-reload semi-auto pistols. In fact, the adoption of the venerable .45 Colt Auto was because it had so much more perceived firepower than existing service revolvers. But today, it is so low on the "firepower" totem pole that it falls beneath the notice of even the comically restrictive and poorly thought-out NY SAFE Act.

                So at least to me, "more = bad" is neither inherently true nor a good starting premise.

                •  It doesn't matter what I think (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  ColoTim, fcvaguy

                  It only matters whether the courts think the government provides sufficient reasons for the number they chose to put in the law.

                  Given the few guideposts in Heller and McDonald I'd guess that Michagan's limit of 16 will also pass constitutional muster, since that law dates to 1927.

                  DC's law limiting magazines to 12 was enacted in 1932, and was recently upheld on the basis that it was a longstanding law, which gave it presumptive validity. I don't know the history of DC gun law, e.g. when they went from 12 to 10 as a magazine limit, or why. As you know, the DC Circuit Court of Appeals is no pushover on gun rights, but just because they approve doesn't mean that the Roberts Court will approve.

                  If you know of any mag limit cases that have made it to the Appeals Court level, please do post link here or in any open thread. We are studying restrictive gun laws, and are part way through a series focused on understanding Washington DC laws, which has arguably the most restrictive gun laws in the nation.

                       I - Concealed Carry Law Petitions SCOTUS - Woollard v. Gallagher (Maryland Law)

                       II - Restrictive Gun Laws (Part II) - A Liberal Buys a Gun in DC (DC Law)

                       III - Washington DC (Part III) Gun Registration and Safety Training (DC Law)

                       IV - A conservative buys a gun in DC (Emily Miller at Washington Times)

                       V - Woollard v. Gallagher - Reasons to restrict guns in public.

                       VI - DC Gun Laws Go to Court - Dick Anthony Heller Takes Another Turn at Bat

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 10:54:44 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Michigan's law is defunct. There is no standard (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Kasoru

                    capacity magazine ban.

                  •  Dangerous (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    CarlosJ, Kasoru
                    It only matters whether the courts think the government provides sufficient reasons for the number they chose to put in the law.
                    I think assuming that a law is inherently "good" because it was passed and the courts support it is a very unwise policy. Not to mention that most everything we value as liberals has come about because laws that had court-supported legal precedent were overturned. Race and gender equality, abortion rights, same-sex marriage, all are because existing law and precedent were overturned or invalidated by new laws.

                    And yes, I am aware that this reasoning applies to the gun debate. I just wonder how many people are aware that it applies to both sides of that debate.

                    •  What we all need to know - 4 levels of law/policy (3+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      ColoTim, fcvaguy, PinHole

                      It's incredibly important to cut through the fantasies and fears and projections on display here.

                      What we all need to know is a) what the law actually is, b) whether and how the law is enforced, c) what empirical evidence is cited to support the law or could be used to effectively challenge the law, d) legal theories that any court finds persuasive.

                      When I say it doesn't matter what I think, I'm not saying that I don't care. I care very much, and want to become a better advocate. When I cite judicial opinions, I'm not saying that I think the courts are correct. I make no assumptions about whether a specific law is good or bad, or whether Heller/Mcdonald are good or bad decisions. That's way above my pay grade.

                      What matters is the arguments that SCOTUS/Appeals Courts/District Courts/State Supreme Courts find persuasive. It's my aim to share what I learn with Daily Kos, so that others can help fill in the gaps, post evidence and other court opinions that challenge what the court says.

                      The biggest difference here, is that you assume people are stupid, where I assume people reading and writing at daily kos are pretty smart, and that they can  make up their own minds.

                      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                      by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 11:27:47 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Incorrect (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Kasoru

                        I do not assume people are stupid. I assume that the ease of modern internet access means they roughly follow the standard bell curve for intelligence, which means a significant percentage of them have an IQ (or other cognitive measure) that is below average. We probably have tens of thousands of Kossacks who are one step above taking the short bus to school, people who didn't learn much in high school and haven't changed their minds about anything since then, people whose irrationality is such that if they had been raised by a different family they would be out waving placards with Westboro Baptist. The only saving grace for Kossacks is that this percentage is probably lower than it is for something like the freepers.

                        The real question is, where do these people fall on the authoritarian/permissive and trust/suspicion scales vis-a-vis various issues? You can guess my opinion on that.

                        I make no assumptions about whether a specific law is good or bad.
                        Bwahahahaa! Good one. Next you'll be telling me that you are as on the fence about Roe. v. Wade as you are about whether Heller was a good or bad decision.

                        Of course you make assumptions about whether something is good or bad. We all do. That's why you as a mother make absolutist decisions for your children. You make assumptions about good and bad. That's why you and I are here at Kos rather than being absolutely objective and spending half our time over at Breitbart.

        •  Really? (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          ancblu, ER Doc

          Your hate-mail will be graded.

          by PavePusher on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 08:10:15 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Nothing in there contradicts what I wrote. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            LilithGardener

            Nothing in there suggests he was especially fast or competent or trained at changing magazines.  It entirely talks about how many bullets he was able to fire into various rooms and he wasn't confronted by anyone else, armed with anything, so his ability to change magazines was probably done without the same kind of pressure exerted in the three examples I listed above, where there were live people in his field of fire.  He reportedly used one gun with 15 round capacity and one with 10 round capacity, but it didn't say how many of each size magazine he had (not that it matters, since he had more than he used).

            So yes.  Really.

    •  I haven't seen any justification for 7 rounds (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ColoTim, Glen The Plumber, CenPhx, fcvaguy

      and think this was a good decision. 7 rounds seems arbitrary and capricious.

      The DC Circuit Court of Appeals already upheld DC's  magazine limit, on the Heller 2008 grounds that the law is long standing. DC Circuit Review

      DC Circuit Opinion

      From the footnotes, they also mention a Michigan law from 1927 that limits magazines to 16 rounds.

      From the DC opinion:

      We know of only two exceptions: the Act of July 8, 1932, ch. 465, §§ 1, 8, 47 Stat. 650, 650, 652, in which the Congress banned in D.C. “any firearm which shoots ... semiautomatically more than twelve shots without reloading,” and the Act of June 2, 1927, No. 372, § 3, 1927 Mich. Laws 887, 888, which prohibited the possession of any “firearm which can be fired more than sixteen times without reloading.”

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 04:39:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Please explain the mechanism by which a magazine (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      DavidMS, ancblu, ER Doc, theatre goon

      limit will "prevent mass murders".

      We'll wait.

      But first, you should do some reading: http://en.wikipedia.org/...

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 08:02:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Three examples where reloading of the weapon (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        LilithGardener, fcvaguy, coquiero, PinHole

        kept the number of victims down - Newtown (kids fled while he was changing magazines), Arizona (Loughner had problems changing magazines when people tackled him and stopped him and the Unitarian Church in Louisville where the guy was tackled while reloading his shotgun (he didn't have a large capacity magazine, but he still was stopped while reloading).

        If you're still going to argue that this doesn't provide evidence that having to stop and reload doesn't keep the number of victims down, well, there's no data that could.  It doesn't help in every situation, but because it helps in some, I support efforts to provide limits so that more people are saved.

      •  The first thing about magazines (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        coquiero, PinHole, ColoTim

        1. Dozens of people are shot every day because someone didn't know that removing the magazine is NOT SUFFICIENT to remove all the ammo from the gun. By the numbers that's multiple Sandy Hooks, every single fucking day.

        If gun ownership required a minimal license, safety training would include how to safely handle a gun while changing magazines, how to clear a gun, as well as shooting straight and knowledge of laws that define defensive gun use.

        2. Missing the most important point about school massacres that people have been missing is that they are committed by "insiders." Almost any security system is vulnerable to attacks by insiders, who know where the guards are, and how to "get around the gates."

        The vast majority of school shootings are an inside job, by someone who know the school, knows where the principal's office is, even knows what the lock down drills include.

        In your opinion, is there any possible mechanical justification for large magazines, other than convenience?

        "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

        by LilithGardener on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 12:41:42 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I don't think Newtown was done by an insider. (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          LilithGardener

          IIRC, he just chose the nearest school (which he didn't attend or know anyone at) and he had to shoot his way into the locked school when he arrived since it wasn't an open campus.  I'm sure he also chose it because it had the most vulnerable population - elementary kids aren't going to be any danger at all in fighting back.

          That also helps to prove that some tragedies are going to happen no matter what the plans are to prevent them.

  •  Wow (0+ / 0-)

    That was a quick ass fuckin' ban. Good too see I matter that much.

    I have been and always shall be your friend.

    by Spock on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 01:16:50 PM PST

  •  Strict storage laws.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    CenPhx, PsychoSavannah

    ...coupled with an "assumed liability" law sorta like "implied consent" laws about drunk driving, you own a gun, YOU are responsible for whatever is done with it including shared responsibility for crimes committed with it, would lead to either fewer gun deaths or more idiots who shouldn't have a weapon in the first place going to prison because their 6-year old shot the 7-year old next door....

    I suppose this sounds harsh, but seems like there's a LOT of mayhem committed by people getting their hands on someone else's gun, sounds like a candidate for a "zero-tolerance" policy...

    "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

    by leftykook on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 01:24:13 PM PST

    •  No. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      AlexDrew, ER Doc

      You don't get to tell me how I store my personal property in my own house.
      That's ridiculous.

      I have been and always shall be your friend.

      by Spock on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 01:29:15 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Zero tolerance policies are never good. (13+ / 0-)

      I don't care if it's drug related or bringing a butter knife to school OR if it's RKBA related.

      Are you saying I'd be held responsible if someone breaks into my house, steals a firearm, and then uses it to commit a crime?

      •  I'm not a fan of zero-tolerance type laws myself (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glen The Plumber

        but I can see how it might make sense to have you be held partially responsible if you lived in a jurisdiction in which you were required to store guns that you owned but were not carrying in locked gun safes, for instance, and you left one lying out against the side of the safe and it was stolen.  Didn't that happen to some Republican representative recently?  Left her garage door wide open, the gun in plain sight, and it got stolen?

        Now if you didn't reside in a jurisdiction with such 'safe storage' laws, or you did store your gun as per such laws, and it was still stolen (maybe they jack the entire gun safe) then I can see not holding you responsible.

      •  Steals your firearm? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        CenPhx, PsychoSavannah

        I dunno... How did you have it secured? Seems to me you have your weapons very carefully secured, unlike a number of people, particularly most of the child tragedy shootings Waldman lists in his diaries every couple of days or so.

        I know this, ANY discussion of added control over weapons is responded to negatively, ANY ideas to change the behavior of people who are careless with weapons are just too onerous, doesn't matter what they are.

        I notice the news idiots on teevee out there in the hinterlands tend to present tragic child deaths that result from poorly secured weapons as unavoidable tragedies that could not be forseen and prevented, as if a big rock just fell out of the sky and landed on the unfortunate innocent, when in fact, those events are the result of personal negligence on the part of a gun owner, and I think it ought to be at least SOME SORT of crime.

        "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

        by leftykook on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 05:06:44 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

    •  "Seems like" - only if you read the accident (12+ / 0-)

      porn/culture war tirades Waldman posts.

      Look at the actual stats on gun accidents. They've been in steep decline for decades.

      Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

      by Robobagpiper on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 01:45:26 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  waldman's series is the worst example I have seen (6+ / 0-)

        of "liberal elite" snobbishness on wide display..... Not much different than the WBC when they really get going with the personal slurs and general nastiness.

        Must make them proud to make fun of people who don't like the same shit as them...they sure seem to enjoy the insulting anyway....

        Vaya con Dios Don Alejo
        I want to die a slave to principles. Not to men.
        Emiliano Zapata

        by buddabelly on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 02:57:41 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Waldman's series actually does a service (10+ / 0-)

          It reveals that gun control is, for the most part, just another "culture war" issue. In this, Bob Johnson is one of his most studious acolytes.

          That is, it shows that the real issue is the promulgation of hatred and derision towards rival regional, cultural, class, or ethnic groups; and the desire to use the power of Federal government to get a leg up over these rival groups - and in this way is no different than the culture war issues peddled by the right.

          Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

          by Robobagpiper on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 03:56:08 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Why is a listing of firearms incidents.... (5+ / 0-)

            ..."culture war"?

            Why is it "liberal elite snobbishness"?

            Does this mean that we aren't subject to criticism and ridicule if we mishandle our weapons because of freedumb?

            I phrased that specifically because the assertions above sound suspiciously like the sort of thing certain highly annoying right-wingers are always saying.

            I believe the purpose of those diaries is to push back against the NRA-pushed meme that gun owners are an oppressed minority who are being persecuted in spite of their "responsible gun-ownership" and the anecdotal evidence collected from around the country illustrates that a number of gun owners around the country AREN'T responsible.

            What I get from those diaries is how easily one can injure or be injured by carelessness with weapons, and they remind me to be more careful with MY weapon, and if this whole discussion wasn't so toxic/radioactive, that's all those diaries would mean in general.

            "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

            by leftykook on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 05:39:48 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  If you don't get the clear subtext of (6+ / 0-)

              "Look at how stupid and atavistic these 'law-abiding' gun owners are! (especially when they are white or protestant or rural or southern or male) Let's criminalize them for their own good!", then you're not really reading.

              Fatal gun accidents are 1/7th the per capita rate they were 50 years ago, and are still in steady free-fall, with no help from Waldman's or Brady's or the VPC's screeds - indeed, the NRA is the real hero on "gun safety". But you'd never know that from Waldman's garbage - in his world, gun accidents are a catastrophic epidemic, and mishandling of them endemic.

              At the same time, Concealed Pistol Licensees have a tiny crime rate; and a homicide rate 1/8th that of the general population (and half that of the larger subset of people who would qualify for one). But you'd never know that from Waldman's tirades - he wants you to terrified of people with gun licenses, again to push regional, subcultural, class, and ethnic conflict.

              His diaries are poison; lies by anecdote.

              Non enim propter gloriam, diuicias aut honores pugnamus set propter libertatem solummodo quam Nemo bonus nisi simul cum vita amittit. -Declaration of Arbroath

              by Robobagpiper on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 03:36:27 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  I hope (0+ / 0-)

                you will not mind if I interject something here.

                I asked him about his reasons for putting emphasis on the various gun fails.  He said it was mainly in reaction to the NRA idea that we should arm teachers.

                I do not think we should view gun owners as atavistic.

                Great sig btw

                Another shining sphere flies from Feior's hands, and you are frozen where you stand

                by GideonAB on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 12:09:12 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

            •  Exactly (0+ / 0-)

              Waldman's series clearly points out how there is near zero accountability and responsibility for gun owners who have "mishaps", "tragic accidents" and "unfortunate tragedies". They bring awareness that when responsible gun owners become irresponsible that they are actually charged for reckless endangerment, or criminal negligence.

    •  With that reasoning... (0+ / 0-)

      ...I suppose the negligent owner in this incident should face manslaughter charges along with the thief.

      •  Well I dunno... (0+ / 0-)

        ....if the owner had left the car sitting in his driveway running, why shouldn't he be held responsible if young snots noticed it and drove off in it?

        The news article doesn't specify how the car was stolen, so I'm not making that assertion, but it seems reasonable to batt the ball back at you, you tell me, if you ALLOW your car to be stolen thru negligence, aren't you at least partially responsible for whatever happens afterwards?

        "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

        by leftykook on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 05:18:52 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  You're gonna break something... (0+ / 0-)

          ...what with pretzeling an answer that way.

          The owner left the car where somebody could steal it, it was stolen, and was the direct cause of innocent people being killed. You want to prosecute him.

          •  What pretzeling? (0+ / 0-)

            you just dont want to admit that there's personal responsibilty that attends to ownership of potentially dangerous objects, like cars and guns.

            There's no pretzeling here because I was calling for owners of weapons to be held responsible for negligence, you responded with a link to a story about car theft, asked if the owner should be held responsible, I responded with a description of circumstances where a car owner WOULD BE responsible for injuries and damages caused by negligently failing to secure a car. Seems simple enough to me.  

            "Ronald Reagan is DEAD! His policies live on but we're doing something about THAT!"

            by leftykook on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 05:51:34 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  you can add (0+ / 0-)

              banks to that list of things which are potentially dangerous.

              It seems to me to be a no-brainer that there are things which require a certain amount of responsibility.

              If you do not prosecute, are people likely to learn?

              Another shining sphere flies from Feior's hands, and you are frozen where you stand

              by GideonAB on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 12:12:25 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  Insurance doesn't pay if you left the (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            reflectionsv37

            car:

            a) unlocked

            b) the keys in the ignition

            c) running (for pete's sake, that is a no-fucking-brainer)

            Seems to me, requiring insurance for guns would go a long, long, long, way toward reducing the number of unmitigated idiots who leave them laying around.

            Listening to the NRA on school safety is like listening to the tobacco companies on cigarette safety. (h/t nightsweat)

            by PsychoSavannah on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 06:40:53 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  So if I'm reading the linked article correctly (10+ / 0-)

    You're actually allowed to have 10 bullet magazines, but there was some odd limit in that you simply weren't legally allowed to put the last 3 bullets in, and that was the part the judge thought was silly?  So there's still a 10 bullet limit, just not a 7 bullet limit?

    That doesn't really sound like the 'magazine limit' was overturned, just that the 'you can't actually fill the magazine entirely' limit was overturned.

  •  You need more than 5 rounds for.... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    se portland

    robbing a bank ?

    a firefight with Cong/AlQ/WotW aliens/Predators ?

    Zombies?

    Five is the normal hunting magazine size. How bad a shot do you have to be to need more than two shots, ever?

    (God, this is crazy.)

    •  After your first shot, if you miss (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      waterstreet2013

      the deer or whatever you tried to shoot is likely to run, or the bird will soon be out of range, and you won't be able to get off many additional well-aimed shots.  Large capacity magazines aren't very useful.

      So much of what the NRA and gun owners want has nothing to do with hunting.

      Handguns are not very useful for hunting. Hunting typically requires a long gun, because a long barrel improves aim at a distance.  Handguns are mainly useful for shooting people at close range where aim is less critical.

      •  The second amendment has nothing to do with (4+ / 0-)

        hunting.

        •  I didn't say it did. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          waterstreet2013, KVoimakas

          The post I was responding to described magazine size for hunting, and I was responding to that. And I expanded to say that many guns are not intended for hunting. But I guess you knew that.

          •  There are types of hunting that people use as many (3+ / 0-)

            rounds as they have. It's the fastest growing segment of hunting. Feral pigs.

            “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

            by ban nock on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 03:18:58 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  So now we're going to facilitate (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              bank robbery and mass murders at schools by America's 50,000 paranoid schizophrenics, so's feral pig hunters don't have to use shotguns.

              That's so bad it's honestly crazy.

              •  I wish only good things for any of America's (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas, Wordsinthewind

                mentally ill, and I certainly wouldn't assume they mean violence. I'm just saying large capacity magazines are popular right now for pig hunting.

                But as above hunting has absolutely nothing to do with 2A, or even why people should be allowed to have large capacity magazines.

                As for shotguns they have figured prominently in a couple of mass shootings, most recently at a school. It's not the object.

                “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

                by ban nock on Wed Jan 01, 2014 at 07:07:30 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

      •  agree with everything (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock, Shamash, KVoimakas

        except this

        Handguns are not very useful for hunting. Hunting typically requires a long gun
          When I was much younger, and the eyes worked better, and I still hunted, I did so exclusively with handguns for almost  15 years, and ate plenty of venison in that time. Using a handgun just makes you work harder, and means if your a responsible hunter, you have to give up some shots you may have taken with a rifle.

        "To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public." T. Roosevelt

        by Lowgun on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 10:14:26 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  These days deer are so plentiful and losing fear (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          KVoimakas

          of humans that you could probably easily hunt with a handgun. The deer are becoming so tame they come right up to my house (I attribute this partly to the leash laws enacted for dogs years ago, deer don't get run by dogs like they used to, so they enter populated areas they formerly stayed away from). I got fresh snow last night, and there are deer tracks right outside my door this morning.  But to my knowledge a rifle is still most common for deer, I'm not aware of many using handguns. There's separate muzzle load and bow seasons. I do know people who hunt with both of those.

    •  If my self-defense needs exceed a 5-round capacity (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ancblu, theatre goon

      I'll leave instructions for my estate to sue you naked.

      Your hate-mail will be graded.

      by PavePusher on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 08:19:29 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I am in favor of clip limits (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LilithGardener

    It is hard to define what an assault rifle is, but it is easy to define gun cartridge capacities.

    It is not a perfect solution, but consider this, a shooter armed with one gun and three detachable 30-round magazines can fire 90 rounds in less than a minute, even though he must twice replace the magazine. But if the shooter had magazines that held only five rounds each, he would have to replace the magazine 17 times to fire 90 rounds.

    I am thinking about lead. What if we ban lead bullets? California already has for hunting. Guns don't kill people, bullets do.

    “We can always count on the Americans to do the right thing, after they have exhausted all the other possibilities.” - Winston Chuchill

    by se portland on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 02:16:57 PM PST

  •  Nice spin job KV - more like court upholds (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    reflectionsv37

    10 round limit on magazines.

  •  Good to see diaries like this, KV (0+ / 0-)

    covering actual law and court decisions. If passing the law is how the sausage is made, then percolating up through the courts is how the sausage is cured.

    We need more diaries like this, so that people can be engaged when the sausage is made/cured.

    If the NY Leg. decides to amend the 7 round limit rather than appeal, people can contact their rep and put forth arguments why a different limit makes sense, or not.

    "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

    by LilithGardener on Tue Dec 31, 2013 at 05:08:50 PM PST

  •  Still banned (3+ / 0-)

    5-shot, .22 rimfire only, designed for Olympic target shooting, costs $2000 or more.

    Under the NY SAFE Act, an "assault weapon". Because it's all about sensible gun law. I feel safer already.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site