Duncan v. Becerra

From iGeek
Revision as of 15:57, 24 July 2019 by Ari (talk | contribs)
(diff) ← Older revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
Jump to: navigation, search

In 1994 the federal government enacted a "Assault Weapon" ban, with a sunset clause to end by 2000. After 6 years it was shown that it had done absolutely nothing to curb crime, gun crime or mass shootings -- so it went away and there was absolutely no noticeable difference in either. California quickly enacted a standard magazine ban (what they call high capacity magazines) to punish their citizens for not living in a free state -- but because ex-post facto laws (ones that make prior actions a crime) are generally unconstitutional, they grandfathered in old magazines. While the law was still technically unconstitutional, it wasn't clear how the Supreme's would rule, so the gun advocates took it, and could get around the law by claiming new magazines were pre-ban. Then in 2018 California figured fuck the Constitution they'd ban them all (without fair compensation). It was guaranteed to lose, but they could harass their citizens for years while it wound it's way through the court. Instead a judge quickly and brutally ruled against it, and made standard capacity magazines legal for a week: and over 1M of them were bought, showing how fraudulent and corrupt the ban was in the first place. If crime doesn't skyrocket, it proves that magazine bans aren't about public safety, but intolerance and people control.


  • 1994 Assault Weapon ban enacted - no measurable decrease in crime or shootings
  • 2000 Assault Weapon ban sunsets - no measurable increase in crime or shootings
  • 2001 California bans any new standard capacity magazines - no measurable decrease in crime or shootings[1]
  • 2018 California bans ALL standard capacity magazines - no measurable decrease in crime or shootings
  • 2019.03.29 District Court Judge Roger Benitez rules that the California ban is grossly unconstitutional and enumerates in great detail why all the arguments are bullshit. To quote, “Individual liberty and freedom are not outmoded concepts,”. Magazine ban lifted, magazines flood in - no measurable increase in crime or shootings[2]
  • 2019 Hopolophobics (Gun-Haters) lose their minds and scream about the injustices of their neighbors having freedom and liberty [3]
  • 2019 Judge re-enacts unconstitutional gun ban while it goes to appeal to the 9th Circuit for delay. Legal rights suspended are rights removed -- but eventually, this should win. [4]
  • 2019 (July) California convinced Democrat AG's to agree with them that they should be able to retroactively turn millions of responsible, law abiding people into criminals, for the high crime of having standard capacity magazines. [5]

What did we learn? Gun control is about intolerance and people control, it's not about public safety.

What is reasonable when it comes to gun laws? I explain what it takes to be compliant with a few gun laws so that readers can decide how reasonable these laws are. Now I'm not a lawyer, and I don't play one on TV, so don't take this as legal advice. But these are just a small sampling of the 20,000: local, state and national gun control laws that every owner must know and comply with, under the legal concept of Ignorantia juris non excusat (Ignorance of the law is no excuse). The penalty for infraction is often a felony conviction, ruination and loss of gun rights by hyper-aggressive DA's who hate guns or want to get elected to higher office on the fraud that they're helping public safety. Or worse, the laws aren't enforced and teach both sides contempt for them. If any of these laws seem silly, annoying, or ineffective, you will begin to understand why gun-advocates mock and resist “reasonable gun control” and the legislators who create them.


📚 References