High Hi Capacity Magazines

By Lee Williams 

The Los Angeles Police Department has stopped enforcing California’s state law banning “high capacity” magazines, according to an internal LAPD email obtained by the Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project. 

The email was sent Wednesday morning to all LAPD personnel by Commander Ernest Eskridge, assistant commanding officer of the department’s Detective Bureau. 

Eskridge noted that on June 23, the “United States Supreme Court vacated the ruling in Duncan v. Bonta and remanded the case back to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeal for further consideration in light of its recent decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen.” 

Because of this ruling, Eskridge said in the email, all sworn LAPD personnel shall not “investigate, detain or arrest” anyone for possessing a magazine capable of holding more than 10 rounds, unless they are already legally barred from possession ammunition in the state.

There were three issues in Duncan v. Bonta: whether a law prohibiting law-abiding citizens from possessing magazines in common use violates the Second Amendment; whether confiscating legally obtained magazines violated the Fifth Amendment’s “takings clause;” and whether the “two-step” approach the 9th Circuit and other courts applied to Second Amendment cases is constitutional and meets Supreme Court precedents. 

In its Bruen decision, the Supreme Court held that the Second and Fourteenth Amendments protect an individual’s right to carry a handgun for self-defense outside the home and that New York’s “special need” requirement for a concealed-carry permit violates those protections. It also ruled that the two-step rights balancing method by which many gun control laws have been upheld since Heller violates the Second Amendment.

Please check back throughout the day for more on this breaking story. 

 

The Second Amendment Foundation’s Investigative Journalism Project wouldn’t be possible without you. Click here to make a tax-deductible donation to support pro-gun stories like this.

 

RELATED ARTICLESMORE FROM AUTHOR

119 COMMENTS

    • A “preban” regular capacity Glock magazine in MA cost a hundred bucks. Thirty round AR mags are similarly expensive. No, I’m not kidding.

      Banning sh1t creates a market. An expensive market.

      • Fifty bucks for a glock brand glock mag up here in the queens colonies. So about a hundred n fifty bucks ‘American’. About twenty five bucks for an AR PMag, including the two cent rivet limiting it to five rounds. Public Safety™, don’tcha know…

      • I saw a preban 30 round 10/22 mag at a New York gun show for $90 about 15 years ago. I think the 10/22 I had was about $110 as NY passed the Clinton AWB without the sunset. I bought an M1A SOCOM and found a guy from Texas who had new old stock 20 round mags he sold me for $30 each or something instead of an AR pattern rifle. Then I really grew up and moved to Iowa.

        I always found it funny that I had a more accurate, more powerful, longer range rifle because if the AWB.

    • Don’t forget WA and OR. They havn’t banned in OR yet, but their’s a ballot initiative going through the system aimed at banning pretty much everything.

  3. “It also ruled that the two-step rights balancing method by which many gun control laws have been upheld since Heller.”

    not a sentence.

  4. Just because the Sheriff says it doesn’t mean that LAPD will follow his lead. So be sure to take your full capacity mags out to the county to do your shooting.

      • “uh the directive is from LAPD so yes LAPD officers will follow it.”

        Still, for the time being, not poking a potential bear may be prudent.

        I have to admit, tho, seeing them roll over like that and exposing their necks (so to speak) is a refreshing change in attitude. I was expecting them to stretch it out and fight to the very end.

        May they eat many more plates of 2A respect crow in the near future… 🙂

        • NY is taking the opposite approach, doubling down on unconstitutional laws in violation of 1A, 2A, 4A, 14A, etc. Other leftist states seem unwilling to provoke a constitutional crisis and are (grudgingly) abiding by Bruen; NY has decided to play with fire instead. Game on.

      • got it; yeah good point sheriff is totally independent of LAPD. as a practical matter enforcement of the magazine ban has been stayed in california even before bruen.

    • Good policy. Bad law.
      We are slowly becoming a lawless society. Too many laws, too many executive orders, followed or disregarded at will.

  5. The Dam is breaking. If the LAPD are going to start obeying the law, others will soon follow suit.

  6. DA could also prosecute, but honestly after freedom week, how do you control and uncontrolled item? It is a slippery slope for anyone to touch.
    This was the right call.
    Now we need the roster shot down, and the rifle ban gone.
    Oh and we need to take a case on the permitting system. Limited to only two firearms?
    The cost alone to qualify and take their classes which they want to make worse is cost prohibitive. Good thing illegal carry in the scum state is only a misdemeanor.

    • “The cost alone to qualify and take their classes which they want to make worse is cost prohibitive.”

      Classes weren’t required at the founding of this nation, so that seems ripe for a challenge. As far as I’m concerned, if they want the citizens to be trained, they should eat the full cost. Paperwork and filing fees (theft) the same.

      Treat it like a poll tax in the Jim Crow era… 🙂

      • Kavanaugh suggests classes may be lawful, as long as limited in cost and time. Firearms training and training in use of force law. Whether or not people agree whether these should be required, I think that most of us agree that shooters should obtain such training.

        The typical costs with getting a CCW in California are:
        A $44 state fee, A licensing authority fee of up to $120, $150-$200 for the required classes (up to 16 hours, including live fire, not including the cost of ammo) Fingerprints ($70) and possibly psychological testing fees of up to $150. So pretty much around $500 if they don’t make you go see the shrink. License good for only two years. Fortunately, renewals are about half, but recently the Cal AG issued a new regulation that fingerprinting MUST be repeated for all renewals every time. [Last I checked, you can no more change your finger prints than you can a zebra can change his stripes. So a punitive fee to discourage applications.]

        • In Texas, some of the ones trying to stop the unlicensed carry law were the trainers that were gouging people for the state required training to get the permission slip. The cost is lower now that it’s not required. training is a very good idea but as anything else, it has to be affordable.

        • [Haz has entered the chat]

          Um, I may need to through a wrench into your numbers, there. I’m assuming you’re referring to your NorCal neck of the woods. Here in L.A. County, I was recently charged:

          $0 (no state fee ever mentioned to me)
          $30 application fee
          $120 license fee
          $650 training course fee (only course available within 30 miles of me as of last summer)
          $125 Livescan fingerprint/BGC fee
          _____
          $925

          Also had to drive to the downtown LASD Hdqtrs three times so far, at $25 a pop for gasoline, because LASD wants you there in person to discuss things every time they have an issue. For example, they lost their receipt of my original application fee I paid…twice. Had to go down and submit proof from my bank. Twice.

        • Yeah Mark? Then what’s next? Mandatory classes on offensive language usage before you can talk to somebody? Mandatory inspections on your ‘private property’ to see if it is properly and not too excessively ‘private’, or not?
          No, sorry buddy-boy, NOT all of us would agree on ANY restrictions of an uninfringeable guaranteed right. Anybody has a right to carry a firearm for personal protection and if they do something bad with it they pay the price more severely. Thats it! Case closed.
          Only private parties like insurance companies might be able to deny or reduce your shoot-liability based on your training.

          The reason for no compromise, mitigations, or stipulations on personal firearm access and carry with any and all kinds of gun control is because most of us cannot deny that the government can and will ALWAYS abuse any gained restrictions or prohibitions. History proved it and current evidence continues to prove it.

        • “Whether or not people agree whether these should be required, I think that most of us agree that shooters should obtain such training.”

          Absolutely, and why I’m not quite there on “The 2A is my carry permit.

          Far too often we hear about a shooting where the one who picked it up thought it was unloaded because they dropped the magazine.

          Ideally, I’d like actual gun safety taught in schools, the same way Driver’s Ed is taught in highschool…

      • The best way to train for widespread gun safety is to reestablish a pro-firearms culture where parents, grandparents, etc. teach youths to respect firearms and use them responsibly. Of course, this requires strong, intact, stable families, something in short supply these days…

        • Driver’s Ed, in high school, parents can opt-out if they want..

        • I’d be in favor of having firearms safety courses available in high school, along with competitions, shooting teams, etc. I think all of that would nicely complement and facilitate a responsible pro 2A culture. Also, it would be a lot of fun.

      • “Classes weren’t required at the founding of this nation… “

        The United States constitution gives Congress the authority to ‘provide for disciplining the ‘militia’, both organized and an organized militia.
        Any reasonable interpretation would conclude that training is within the scope of ‘discipline’.

        “Article 1
        Clause 16. The Congress shall have Power * * * To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia… “

        “The power of Congress over the militia “being unlimited, except in the two particulars of officering and training them . . . it may be exercised to any extent that may be deemed necessary by Congress. . . . “

        https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-1/58-the-militia-clauses.html

        • This is how you know I am just… S.T.U.P.I.D.. (ALL CAPS).

          Why? Because no matter how many times I get slapped down for pushing this complete nonsense, I post the lies and misinformation again.

          It’s like I enjoy being slapped around and humiliated. Well I am a leftist so…

        • Need more?

          “…the ‘militia’, both organized and an organized militia.”

          S.T.U.P.I.D..

        • “..‘provide for disciplining the ‘militia’,..”

          “…the scope of ‘discipline’.”

          Oooooo…. Makes me want to visit the Mistress for some punishment.

          Hey! Don’t judge, I am a leftist…

          Not like being a leftist is a mental disorder or anything!

    • A well regulated citizen’s militia should be able to have their own easily accessible free public shooting ranges in any city, township,county or state.

      • Nearly every town, and certainly every county does have at least one range owned by the People.

        If we truly were a government of, for and by the People, every adult citizen would be able to use those ranges, for free, and should be able to purchase ammunition on-site off of the state or local LE ammunition contract, at government cost.

        That’s how you regulate a militia.

  7. Exactly why does anybody need a HIGH CAPACITY MAGAZINE for any other purpose than for childish Dick Swinging?? Except maybe to indulge in even more bloody massacres.
    Nobody for any legitimate purpose actually NEED’S [as distinct from mere ‘wants’, wants’, and more bloody wants like immature children] anything other than a FIVE shot bolt action Rifle. Anything else like Semi-Autos have but one real purpose and that’s to kill one’s fellow human beings. That’s why the military use them and every single semi-Auto Rifle is of a military specification. Remember also that when the American Constitution was formulated there were no such thing a multi-shot weapons. Neither did the signatories forsee the sheer scale of civilian deaths caused but practically uncontrolled access to completely unnesessary personal weaponry and handguns in the hands of civilians were an unknown quantity. The SHARPSHOOTERS did not use handguns! and any aspect of ‘self defence against one’s fellow citizens was not a consideration. The whole point of the ‘Right to Bear Arms [still a matter of debate by the way] was to enable the Government of the USA to quickly raise a ”’Well disciplined and trained Militia” in times of emergency in the aftermath of the War of Independence. It was NOT to raise an ill disciplined load of wannabe Rambos who hold any attempt at law and order in contempt.
    In a democracy effective policing can only take place by consent of the citizens and with their co-operation All else is potential chaos and revolution. Maybe that’s whatbthe gun-owners of America want butb they should be awre of one thing that revolution as a first step devours it’s own children simply because those that cause the revolution and too dangerous to live onve the inevitable disillusionment sets in.
    Mao got rid of all his important little helpers as did LENIN and STALIN [as is Mad Vlad PUTIN!] as did the French during the TERROR put ROBSPIERRE to the Guillotine the architect of the Terror ans as did the British Parliament get rid of Cromwell and re-establish the Monarchy.

    Take a lesson from History!! and be very careful of what you wish for!!

    • “….Remember also that when the American Constitution was formulated there were no such thing a multi-shot weapons…”

      That is a false statement.

      Take a lesson from history indeed. You are as thick even for a Brit.

    • “The whole point of the ‘Right to Bear Arms [still a matter of debate by the way] was to enable the Government of the USA to quickly raise a ”’Well disciplined and trained Militia” in times of emergency in the aftermath of the War of Independence.”

      No, it is not a matter of debate after Heller and Bruen. The matter is settled that the 2A protects an individual right to keep and bear arms. Militia members of the day were expected to provide their own arms and ammo; without a right to keep and bear, you can’t call a militia. Further, militias were available locally and to the states, not the federal government.
      Further, read the Declaration of Independence. The later 2A flows from the efforts of the military governors in some of the colonies before the Revolution to effectively disarm the colonists, as they were well aware of the discontent brewing against the Crown. The Declaration establishes the right to remove the crown; the 2A protects the ability to do so.
      Finally, unlike England by the time of the Revolution (and ignoring England’s long history of warring barons, kings and dukes, amongst each other and against foreign monarchies), most of America was an unexplored wilderness full of Indians and wild animals. Firearms were a necessity of life itself well into the 20th century, and even today, in rural and urban areas alike, still are.

      • The second amendment was primarily to be a defense and deterrent to a tyrannical government. The second advantage was defense of oneself and their communities. Also for a militia of the people to aid in putting down revolts etc. Has anyone noticed a tyrannical government lately ?

        • “The second amendment was primarily to be a defense and deterrent to a tyrannical government.”

          There was a little noted, “tactical” reason….the base Constitution put equipping the militia in the hands of Congress. The Second Amendment declares that Congress cannot strangle the militia by failing to supply it.

      • No wonder you guys lost the Revolutionary War, and the War of 1812. And no wonder we had to bail you out in WWI and WWII.

    • The Chelembrom Repeating Flintlock

      The Lorenzoni Repeating Flintlock

      The Girandoni Repeating Air Rifle

      The Belton Fusil and Superposed Flintlocks ( first repeating arm invented in the American Colonies in 1758 )

      The Puckle Gun

      Nock Volley Guns and the Duckfoot Pistol

      The Ferguson Rifle ( Maj Ferguson of the British Army invented 1754 )

      German breech-loading matchlock arquebus

      Just a few weapons before the 2A was written you may never have heard of.

      Military specification rifles. Do you know what that means? MIL-SPEC is short for Military Specifications. The U. S. military uses standards. Sometimes they conform to say, an ANSI standard, and sometimes the standard is unique to the military – or a particular branch of the military.

      Each item, in the case of firearms, has specifications as to the material and tolerances that are required for interoperability. This does not make them more deadly or more powerful, it makes them standardized so different parts from different manufactures can be intermixed for repair.

      If you read the BoR and the Declaration of Independence you will see some similarities. Those things England did to the Colonies that Jefferson outlined made there way as restrictions against the new US Government. The BoR was written as positive rights to the citizen and a negative right to the government.

      Gee, I don’t think your half as intelligent as you believe you are.

      We are not a Democracy, you keep saying that even tho you have been corrected several times along with your childish retort of ” no one needs”.

    • Albert….

      1. The United States of America is NOT a democracy. It happens to be a Constitutional Republic.
      2. Not “ALL” semi-automatic rifles are of Military design.
      3. We don’t have to “need” any particular style, design, etc etc….It comes down to nothing more than personal preference.
      4. Just because someone enjoys a particular style or type of firearm doesn’t make that individual a “wannabe Rambo”.
      5. Spending time and effort on a Firearms Enthusiasts site while you’re supposedly located on the other side of the pond, pushing your agenda and ideology upon people who have zero interest what your opinions are….well, that says a lot

      • Moose,

        It’s Albert. A generic bridge troll. He walks into TTAG from time to time, cuts a verbal fart, then leaves the room in the hopes that he caused a kerfuffle.

        Just open a window and ignore him.

    • Albert, your troll game is suffering – it’s pretty obvious you don’t believe any of what you wrote, and are just saying it for the reactions. Maybe find a triple-A site for a while and work on your ground game.

    • Mao got rid of all his important little helpers as did LENIN and STALIN [as is Mad Vlad PUTIN!] as did the French during the TERROR put ROBSPIERRE to the Guillotine the architect of the Terror ans as did the British Parliament get rid of Cromwell and re-establish the Monarchy.

      Take a lesson from History!! and be very careful of what you wish for!!

      It’s harder to get rid of your “little helpers” if they’re armed.

      On another topic, why do you always post a comment and never come back to defend your position. This is not a good way to sway people to your way of thinking. Come on Albert, have a lively discussion with us!

    • You come in here, fart, then run away. You are possibly the finest example of Dunning-Kruger effect I’ve ever seen, Dacian. Or if you are not Dacian’s sock puppet- fùck you and your shitty little inbred island.

    • Hehe! This guy….. careful folks, he’s very informed. Here to explain to us rubes what pathetic “Dick swinging Rambo wannabe’s” we all are.

      Please stick around and indulge us with more of your genius my friend!

    • @Albert J Hall

      “….Remember also that when the American Constitution was formulated there were no such thing a multi-shot weapons…””

      100% False

      Relative to the times in the 1700’s (which the Bruen decision also encompass)- there were ‘multi-shot weapons’, for example, one invented by a British officer, Major Patrick Ferguson, called the ‘Ferguson Rifle’

      “Nobody for any legitimate purpose actually NEED’S [as distinct from mere ‘wants’, wants’….anything other than a FIVE shot bolt action Rifle.”

      100% False

      for example > https://nypost.com/2019/11/04/pregnant-florida-mom-uses-ar-15-to-kill-home-intruder/#:~:text=A%20pregnant%20woman%20is%20credited%20with%20saving%20the,The%20hero%20mom%20sprung%20into%20action%20when%20two

      She sure needed a ‘multi-shot’ rifle at the time. Its a good thing the parents wanted that rifle.

      “Anything else like Semi-Autos have but one real purpose and that’s to kill one’s fellow human beings.”

      100% False

      Its a fact that “Semi-Autos” are not created with a “one real purpose” of ‘one’s fellow human beings’. They have many purposes, they are used in defense, sporting activities, hunting, collecting, hobby, etc… purposes. Sadly, some bad people do use them in a manner detriment to humans, like bad people use, for example, knives ~474,000 times annually in the U.S. to harm others and like bad people in the UK use other weapons or hands annually in the UK to make the UK the violent rape capital of Europe.

      “That’s why the military use them and every single semi-Auto Rifle is of a military specification.”

      100% False

      I see what you did there, you read something somewhere about firearms having a military parallel in society and to you this means “every single semi-Auto Rifle is of a military specification.” seriously, you need to learn what context means and get some reading comprehension skills as well.

      and the rest of your rambling missive to word salad is just as false.

      • To add to my above… in clarification for you Albert, as an example

        “….Remember also that when the American Constitution was formulated there were no such thing a multi-shot weapons…””

        there were ‘multi-shot weapons’, for example, one invented by a British officer, Major Patrick Ferguson, called the ‘Ferguson Rifle’. The Constitution was ‘formulated’ in 1787 when it was written at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention. The the ‘Ferguson Rifle’ was used by the British Army in the American Revolutionary War at the Battle of Brandywine in 1777.

        The Ferguson Rifle was a flint lock, but it was breech loading rather than the standard muzzle-loaded rifle. It could fire up to seven rounds per minute, two to three times faster that the muzzle-loading weapons of the day. Thus qualifies it as a ‘multi-shot’ rifle as opposed to the conventional muzzle-loaded flint lock of the time. ‘multi-shot’ for a firearm is simply a term that relates rate of fire in a time period as opposed to a lower rate of fire in the same time period as enabled by the firearm function as relates to the user capabilities.

        I see what you did though, you read someplace that a multi-shot firearm is multi-shot if it can fire multiple times without reloading. That is 100% false, its the common misunderstanding by the ignorant and the anti-gun false claim. But lets put this in context of today’s semi-auto firearms, ’cause you seem to be really delusional.

        A semi-auto firearm DOES NOT fire multiple times without reloading. It reloads after each single trigger pull, it just does it without needing the person to do it for each round (like, for example, a bolt action rifle). The semi-auto firearm fires one round each trigger pull just like a bolt action rifle fires one round each trigger pull – and both the bolt action and semi-auto fire arm can be fired one round each trigger pull until the available supply of ammo is exhausted either from a ‘magazine’ being empty for say a semi-auto firearm or the person not having any more ammo to fire from say a bolt action rifle.

        A ‘magazine’ is simply a supply of ammo, it does not enable a firearm to fire any slower or faster, it does not enable ‘rapid fire’ or ‘auto fire’ or even ‘semi-auto fire’. The firearm capabilities and persons capability to use that firearm capabilities determine the rate of fire and not the magazine.

        ‘Magazines’ have been in common use through out the history of firearms even from before the constitution was written. For example, one carrying bullets in their pocket or another ‘container’ has a ‘magazine’ for a bolt action rifle so there is really no such thing as, for example, your “5 shot bolt action rifle” which you keep claiming in your delusion is all anyone needs. All firearms can continue to be fired while the ‘magazine’ is depleted.

        Soldiers in the continental army during the revolutionary war were issued a ‘high-capacity magazine’ of a minimum of 30 balls and associated supply materials (e.g. powder) for their rifles. ‘high capacity’ magazines have been around for as long as firearms have existed, a magazine is simply a supply of ammunition for a firearm.

        • Clarification:

          “All firearms can continue to be fired while the ‘magazine’ is depleted.”

          All firearms can continue to be fired while the ‘magazine’ is being depleted and until the ‘magazine’ is depleted.

      • Correction:

        “Its a fact that “Semi-Autos” are not created with a “one real purpose” of ‘one’s fellow human beings’.”

        Should have been…

        Its a fact that “Semi-Autos” are not created with a “one real purpose” of killing (or harming) ‘one’s fellow human beings’.

    • Albert L J Hall, Let me clue you into to something here. It is not a question of whether or not someone “needs” a “high capacity” magazine. You see we have the 2nd Amendment here which states that the government may not infringe on that right.
      If you have any further questions, I refer you to the Heller, McDonald and Breun decisions.

    • You are poorly (mis) informed. It’s not called the Bill of Needs, and the only reason the militia is even mentioned at all, is because the Amendment is concerned primarily with protecting rights by way of limiting govt power; note that it does not actually establish any Right of the People – it merely acknowledges it – but it does so in the context of what is the government nexus to be putting this limitation on it’s own authorities. That governmental nexus is “the security of a free state” – you may be surprised to learn this, but the Constitution is FOR “these United States”. That means the document is designed to define the basic and most fundamental rules for the union of the States; there can be no such thing as a republic, without a document that defines what powers and authorities the composing People have delegated to their government.

      I don’t expect a Brit to understand this, because your people and culture have no such political traditions, not ever being citizens of a Republic but rather always being the Subjects of a Monarchy.

      The 2A could cease to exist tomorrow and it would not change the FACT that the people have the RKBA. That is a natural right, that is inherent in other natural rights such as to Life/Liberty/Property. Why? Because obviously, if you have a right to a thing, you ALSO have the right to defend and protect it. That is axiomatic, because having the right to something would be meaningless and moot did you also not have the right to defend it.

    • You are a colossal idiot.

      The point of the 2nd Amendment is so righteous citizens
      1) cannot be unlawfully treated or unlawfully arrested
      2) can protect themselves and their property
      2) can fight back against a corrupt government
      4) A lot more things that you apparently don’t know about let alone value.

      It’s not even fair or realistic for people to try to use semi automatic rifles against machine guns, tanks, jet aircraft, missiles, and other weapons that could be used by a corrupt government. You’re only concerned with citizens having the capacity to protect themselves, yet don’t care about keeping corruption in check around the world.

      It’s amazing and pathetic how you cry baby anti-gun nuts are:
      1) Obsessed with hating the concept of law abiding people who want to simply protect themselves in their own homes.
      2) Blind to how misinformed you are about many things gun related.
      3) Blind to how much the news sources you are brainwashed by are full of cherry picking, lies, misinformation, covering up incompetence and corruption of your side’s politicians, hiding the good accomplishments of the other side’s politicians, and much more that isn’t gun related. Right side news literally shows video clips of the garbage the left shows air, in a comedic fashion and without fear or concern, because we’re so overwhelmingly aware that it’s proven false yet can’t believe how so many on your side can believe such pathetic lies and garbage.
      4) The fact that if no guns were in law abiding citizens homes, criminals would, guess what moron? They would still have them! And they would also break in more homes without pause because they would know there will be no guns pointed at them. Duh?
      5) Many self defense shooting scenarios even by a professional, AND indoors down a short hallway are not solved in just several rounds fired. So yes gun capacity of more than 5 rounds can be required.

      If firearms were never invented, you’d be whining about banning something else.

      If you don’t want guns in your home, don’t buy any. If you can’t be around guns then move to a country that doesn’t allow them, don’t live in the one that has allowed them during all if it’s existence! What a dumbass!

  8. I find it interesting that Los Angeles Police Department proactively (and apparently of their own volition) changed their internal policy pending further review in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. I never would have guessed that would happen.

    Now, if only the rest of the law enforcement jurisdictions in California would follow suit–that would be stellar.

    • Not that surprising, really. Police departments have lost a lot of personnel in the last couple years. When you’re short on resources, you prioritize your needs.

      “Troops, don’t worry about the small sh1t, we want you to concentrate on bigger stuff. Catch a murderer, catch a rapist, and keep the traffic fatalities down. You don’t have to see a gun or a magazine, unless you’re sure it’s being used illegally or dangerously or in the commission of a crime.”

    • The US already had to bale your stupid asses out once already, maybe next time we let you fall to the Germans.

  9. Blink. A small insurrection by the Chief? I wonder what the Governator has to say about it? Will he and the CA legislature cave? Hopefully.

    • I think he’s the Sheriff the County council is trying to fire, or get the ability to fire through a voter referendum.

      • LAPD and LASD are two separate entities, covering the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County areas, respectively.

        The L.A. Board of Supervisors recently voted to put a referendum vote on the November ballot to ask the residents of Los Angeles to empower the Board with the ability to fire the Sheriff. It won’t fly, because the Sheriff is a duly elected official, and the Board can never have the legal authority to remove an elected official directly.

        • “LAPD and LASD are two separate entities, covering the City of Los Angeles and Los Angeles County areas, respectively.”

          Always wondered about that. Thought Los Angeles city was Los Angeles county.

        • It can seem that way, with 10 million people now stuffed in this County, but the Sheriff holds sway over the unincorporated areas, while incorporated cities have their own municipal police. Los Angeles City has the LAPD.

          From what’s been explained to me by those who work in both major departments, smaller cities will contract with LASD for patrol, and LASD itself will sometimes hand something off to LAPD to handle if they’re too busy.

  11. “LAPD Stops Enforcement of California’s ‘High Capacity’ Magazine Ban”

    Without official and public approval by the Mayor, the Governor?

    • Meh, they have not configured the robotic dog’s software to compensate for recoil.

      Of course that doesn’t matter if the robot is shooting at you in full auto from three feet away. (The robot’s shot pattern would be a linear string rising up the length of your entire body–a feature and not a bug!) On the other hand, if the robot is trying to shoot you in full auto and it is 70 yards away, I have to wonder if even the second bullet would be on target.

      Regardless, I started thinking ahead about five years ago on how to defeat robot quadrupeds with firearms. I have some ideas that I will not share on an open forum–I don’t want to give robot quadruped designers any ability to develop countermeasures to my countermeasures.

      • Speaking of countermeasures, I will share this gem:

        Imagine a near-future quadruped robot with machine gun and artificial intelligence which enables the quadruped robot to be autonomous. The robot’s operators tell the robot to find and shoot humans. I have to wonder if a countermeasure is as simple as donning something like a chicken mask–just like Bugs Bunny did when the coyote sent an autonomous flying saucer on a search-and-destroy mission for rabbits.

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sG3OVHhydrU

      • Remember, a good engineer is already looking how to defeat his product. He knows others are doing the same. The trick is to find that one thing he didn’t think of. Sometimes the most basic thing can take out something complicated.

        • You mean like a .308 to the processing center, or a hydraulic hose, or an articulating joint, or a tire, or the remote operator’s head… those kinds of things?

  14. The case was “GVR’d,” meaning SCOTUS granted the request to take it, vacated the lower court’s ruling, and remanded it back for reconsideration under the new directions provided by Bruen.

    I don’t think they had any other legal choice but to stop enforcing the law, as the lower court’s ruling that upheld the ban was vacated.

    This is the troubling part of the memo: “…until the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals reviews the case on remand…”

    It remains to be seen what crazy shenanigans the 9th Circuit may yet come up with. They’ve been ignoring SCOTUS 2A rulings since Heller. Why stop now?

    • “It remains to be seen what crazy shenanigans the 9th Circuit may yet come up with. They’ve been ignoring SCOTUS 2A rulings since Heller. Why stop now?”

      That’s what I’m worried about.

      I bet they have flunkies right now poring over every scrap of paper from that era (or outright forging new ones) to create new gun control.

      I just wouldn’t put it past those c*cksuckers… 🙁

  15. Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit”
    “…I’m not quite there on “The 2A is my carry permit.”

    Interesting. “…shall not be infringed.” Has actual meaning. A government that can give you what you want, can easily take it away.(which should be the end of consideration of any permitting/certifying regimen)

    Let’s consider mandatory training:
    – what kind?
    – how much?
    – including what?
    – certified by whom?
    – subject to change to government fiat?
    – there are 327,000,000 people in the US, how many incidents can we report that indicate the problem of finding and misusing a firearm is a public safety issue?
    – what other public safety issues are more dangerous, yet the entire nation is not turned on its head mandating a solution for a statistically insignificant event?
    – how many untrained persons have safely, and successively defended themselves with firearms?
    – are those incidents even in the same zip code with the number of “find and misuse” incidents?

    Every exception to “…shall not be infringed”, justifies every other exception….they are all opinions about what is good for others.

    • Sam, exactly. These ‘people’ possess not the authority to arbitrarily make such legislation, neither in my neck of the woods nor yours. They steal it. As you say: might makes right, or rather in this case: threat.

    • The left seem to think that training is the do all to end all, i.e., they think training guarantees 100% safety.
      This, of course, is a clear illustration of their ignorance because even the fully trained can make a mistake, after all the fully trained are human too.

    • “Let’s consider mandatory training:
      – what kind?”

      I’m good with –

      Them knowing what end of the gun the bullet comes out of. There are morons who thought the semi-auto handgun was unloaded because they dropped the magazine, and inadvertently killed someone.

      The 4 rules.

      (Optional – Basic gun etiquette – Like, it’s polite to buy the ammo when borrowing someone’s gun.)

      Cost? You can do it as a part of public education. Little kids, the ‘Eddie Eagle’ program – “Stop! Don’t touch it!”, etc. Older kids, safe gun handling, how to safely pick up, check for clear, etc.

      The basic stuff…

      • “The basic stuff…”

        Any exception, added qualification, is an exception, justifying any other exception. Any mandatory training must be based on an authority. Abuse of authority is what 2A is about.

        Who decides, and controls what is included in “Just the Basics”? What constraints are placed upon the controller?

        While well-intentioned, mandating firearms training is yet another example of using government to protect people from themselves. Anyone possessing a firearm has an obligation to themselves, and others, to learn to use the tool appropriately and safely.

        Mandatory training feeds the expectation that a person can depend on government to exercise the responsibility of the individual, leaving the individual enshrouded in the comfort that someone else will take care of them.

        Government will always seek to assert power over individuals; mandatory training is just another open door for intrusion.

  16. Let’s hope this negates the recent magazine capacity restrictions enacted by the Bozo’s in WA state; sooner than later! Lots of great new products coming out with 12-15 round capacity, now unable to purchase . . . 🙁

  17. I Haz A Question
    “…the Sheriff holds sway over the unincorporated areas,…”

    Understand. Just a surprise to learn that there are any unincorporated areas in the LA metro area/county.

    • The sheriff has jurisdiction anywhere in the county. Because they concentrate on that outside the city does not mean they do not also have jurisdiction in the city.

      • “The sheriff has jurisdiction anywhere in the county. Because they concentrate on that outside the city does not mean they do not also have jurisdiction in the city.”

        Do sheriff deputies respond to 911 calls from inside the city?

        • Where I live, Polk county, Florida, 911 call routing sends the call to the proper authority. County will also co-ordinate with city agencies (and vice-versa) when needed…

        • @Sam I Am

          “Do sheriff deputies respond to 911 calls from inside the city?”

          Not usually but it has happened.

      • “I myself live in an unincorporated area.”

        Would your location be described as rural?

        • I live just outside the legal limits of a medium sized city, in a valley area with a population of almost a quarter million people. In fact, my employer’s building is literally on a border street, on the edge of city limits. Walk across the street to get a coffee, and you’re technically within the city. You can’t tell, because it all looks the same to an observer.

  18. So in Washington State, it is a total SNAFU: the high capacity magazine ban now restricts new mags sold be limited to 10 rounds, however high cap mags you already own are not illegal. There is no way any L.E. officer would be able to tell the difference. I bought a bunch of 30 rounders before the 10 rd mag law went into effect and there is no manufacture date or serial # on them. The new law if rediculous enacted by politicians that know nothing about firearms. Our current county Sheriff has already said that his dept will not be enforcing the mag ban.

    • “High capacity” is a term being used by the Left. Even CA’s Penal Code refers to them with the legal term “large capacity”, or LCM. When our Governor Newsom, AG Bonta, or various metro Mayors say “high capacity”, they do it purely for theatrics. Our law recognizes anything over 10 rds as LCMs.

  19. I’ll bet when the LAPD pulls some over and discovers a mag capable of holding more than 10 rounds, or discovers one by other means, they call the sheriffs department who is not under such a restriction but still has jurisdiction in the city.

  20. “There are morons who thought the semi-auto handgun was unloaded because they dropped the magazine, and inadvertently killed someone.”

    Again, what is the magnitude of the threat? Is it serious enough to burden millions of people with? Are we going down the path of, “If it saves only one”?

    • There are morons who text and drive and kill someone.

      Car accidents every year seriously injure over 2 million people. Later about 1.2 million if those will die due to complications from those injuries. Yet these are not counted in car death stats because they died later in life.

      Let’s have ‘car-control’ and ‘phone-control for those. Make drivers demonstrate a need and that they have good moral character and references, limit them to 10 gallons of gas, limit them to only driving on public streets/roads where there is a sign that says “cars permitted”

      But let a gun accident or self defense happen and its ‘the sky is falling apocalypse’ in every sentence from a Democrat politicians.

  21. @Geoff “I’m getting too old for this shit”
    “Where I live, Polk county, Florida, 911 call routing sends the call to the proper authority. County will also co-ordinate with city agencies (and vice-versa) when needed…”

    Thanx for the info.

  23. Stupid commie goons don’t get that it ain’t possible to “ban” what are in reality ten cent boxes with springs in them.

  24. LASD hasn’t been enforcing it. In fact Sheriff Villanova has been issuing CCWs again. The county board of Supervisors are trying to get him thrown off the November ballot. They want the Sheriff’s office to answer to them and he’s basically flipped the middle finger at them. The County Sheriff is the law of the land in any county in the country based on the constitution. He may be a Democrat but he’s the best Sheriff that LA county has had in years. He’s a true law and order guy and not a politician for a change. He needs California gun owners support.

  25. Truly, this article is really one of the very best in the history of articles. I am a antique and I sometimes read some new articles if I find them interesting. And I found this one pretty fascinating and it should go into my collection.

Comments are closed.