B.L.U.F. — Judge Rudolph Contreras believes that banning magazines with more than some magic number is constitutional. This leads to another WTF post analysis of a Judge’s opinion.
The Question
Is D.C.’s LCM ban Constitutional?
The ban basically says that it is illegal to possess, sell, or transfer
— D.C. Code § 7-2506.01(b) a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds. The exception is for tube feed .22 caliber magazines.
Background
Some context is in order to understand the gun law at issue. An ammunition feeding device, more commonly known as a magazine, “is a vehicle for carrying ammunition. It can be either integral to the gun or detachable.”
Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. Rhode Island, No. 22-cv-246, 2022 WL 17721175, at *4 (D.R.I. Dec. 14, 2022). “Most modern semi-automatic firearms, whether handguns or semi-automatic rifles like AR-15s, use detachable box magazines.”
Id. The magazine is simply “inserted into and removed from the frame of the firearm, much as an extra battery-pack gets swapped in and out of a battery-operated tool, like a leaf blower, for example.”
Id. Magazines come in different sizes and have different capacities. Under D.C. law, a large-capacity magazine, or LCM, is simply a magazine that can hold more than ten bullets. “When a multiple-round device like an LCM is attached, a handgun becomes a ‘semiautomatic’ weapon, meaning that it is capable of rapidly firing several bullets, one right after another. However, the gun still requires a trigger-pull for each round fired.”
Id.
—
HANSON v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, 1:22-cv-02256, D.D.C. (2023) ECF No. 28This duffus had to go out and find another judge who is just as ignorant as he is in order to make a statement as stupid as saying that attaching a “large capacity magazine” to a handgun makes it into a semiautomatic.
He is quoting the memorandum and opinion out of the District Court of Rhode Island. He had this to say about an “LCM” challenge.
In summary, the Court finds that the plaintiffs lack a likelihood of success on the merits, that they will not suffer irreparable harm if the law is allowed to take effect, and that the public interest is served by denying injunctive relief. Specifically, regarding the merits, the plaintiffs have failed in their burden to demonstrate that LCMs are “Arms” within the meaning of the Second Amendment’s text. Moreover, even were they “arms,” the plaintiffs have failed to prove that LCMs are weapons relating to self-defense. There is no Second Amendment violation from the LCM Ban because of these two shortfalls of persuasion. The Court must therefore consider the LCM Ban outside the core of Second Amendment protection. The Court further finds that the statue is not vague. Because the LCM Ban is a valid exercise of police power, there is no “taking” requiring just compensation and, consequently, no violation of the Fifth Amendment. The Rhode Island General Assembly passed, and the Governor signed, legislation to lower the risk of harm that results from the availability of devices that assist someone intent on murdering large numbers of people. This common-sense public safety legislation does not implicate the Second Amendment and violates no one’s constitutional rights.
—
Ocean State Tactical, LLC v. State of Rhode Island, 1:22-cv-00246 (2022) ECF No. 37Judge John J. McConnell, Jr, chief judge of the District Court of Rhode Island
The Supreme Court has not said anything about magazines being arms, which is what allows this level of disingenuous reasoning. Regardless, reading the Ocean State Tactical opinion was an exercise in self-control. Breaking monitors does not do any good. As Mark Smith said in a video the other day, when the Judge is a Firearms person, it shows. In the same way, when a Judge is ignorant of even the most basic aspects of a firearm, we get hurt.
It is easy to tell when the state is lying when you have personal knowledge of the subject, it is harder when you are trying to figure out whose experts to trust.
Standing
Read More
Like this:
Like Loading...
