Judge Rudolph Contreras decided the DC high-capacity magazine ban was Constitutional.

The interesting thing was what he wrote in his opinion.


See, you the citizen don’t need more than 10 rounds for self defense because sometimes in a defensive shoot, the defending citizens used fewer than 10 rounds.  It’s not us to you to decide how many rounds you may need, the judge decided 10 is all you get.

By the logic of this judge, you should only be able to have a 2 to 3 round magazine because that’s the average needed for a defensive shoot.

Since you only really need 2 or 3 rounds, having 15, 17, or 21 rounds is “poorly adapted” from military use.

I don’t even understand what that means.  How are civilian high capacity magazines “poorly adapted” from military mags?

These firearm were designed to hold 15 or 17 rounds and the 10 round mags were poorly adapted from the original magazine.

This is nonsensical and backwards.

I’ll that the comment about the plaintiff’s expert opinion backfiring suggest prejudice against the plaintiff.

But of all the statement in the opinion, this next one is the kicker.


You need to be limited to 10 rounds so that you will be outgunned by the military and police.

You’re just a citizen, so the government should be able to possess better small arms than you.

The idea that this allows the police to outgun criminals is stupid considering that the criminals who illegally obtain their guns generally also obtain illegal high capacity magazines.

It’s only the law abiding citizens who are fucked.

The most clear thing about this decision is that the judge hates guns and engaged in the mental gymnastics needed to justify his opinion regardless of the Constitution.


Spread the love

By J. Kb

2 thoughts on “Saying the whole point of the 2A then going against it”
  1. Correction- judge hate guns in CIVILIAN hands …. Because that pesky thing called the Constitution…. Fuk it, lets all be criminals..

  2. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I thought the GCA was upheld because the guns being regulated/taxed were not usable for military purposes (e.g. short barreled rifles/shotguns).
    More recent rulings suggest that the opposite is the case – if militarily useful they should be restricted, but self-defense-oriented is okay.
    So it seems to me as though the rulings, up to the Supreme Court, continue to overconstrain and overcomplicate what should be a very simple thing: people have the right to keep and bear arms, type and quantity of their choice. Period. Full stop.
    Or am I missing something? (Pre-coffee, so, yeah, probably….)

Login or register to comment.