In line with her comments regarding her personal bias prior to hearing arguments, she determined that magazines aren’t covered by the 2A and even if they were, banning them fits within history and tradition, because… um… yeah, it gets a bit muddy after that. Still waiting on Benitez to issue the opinion in his case.
and requires residents to obtain a permit to purchase firearms
This disproportionately affects the poor. If the permits were free, then it wouldn’t.
Who is handling the permitting process and where it is handled also impacts who feels comfortable trying to get a permit. Areas where you have to go see your Sheriff in person to have your permit approved have a lower percentage of firearm ownership from people of color because of a valid history of distrust of police.
The worst part about this and similar cases is that we all know how it will end. They clearly understand they don’t have a winning case and are just hoping that a court will side with them and there isn’t an appeal or more likely that they can drag their feet to delay the inevitable ruling against them.
And they face no repercussions for doing it because they’re working on the tax payers dime. If they lose their case they’re out nothing.
Guns with high-capacity magazines are “not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment,” Immergut wrote in her ruling.
I’d like to see the numbers she’s working with. When the majority of modern firearms are sold with magazines that have a capacity of 15+ rounds, my suspicion is that statement is incorrect.
It does raise an interesting concern, though. As capacity bans are rolled out in more states, what is commonly used will change.
There is no basis, she made it up to ignore the Constitution.
