Sheriff sues Los Angeles due to large-capacity ammunition ban

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by jkcerda, Nov 24, 2015.

  1. jkcerda macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #1
    http://www.redding.com/news/local-n...-due-to-largecapacity-ammunition-ban_35364584

    the only way to get our rights back is to sue, glad the Sheriffs are on board here.
     
  2. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #2
    It puzzles me that the standard magazine size for a handgun is considered "large-capacity." Seems arbitrary to me.
     
  3. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #3
    I think people are misusing both terms to suit ideological arguments. A standard can mean, equipment typically applied to a manufactured model without modifications or options. Or, it can mean a larger, overall standard that all manufacturers agree or apply to. Moreover, the idea of a standard implies that a product won't work without this minimum.

    So, among for instance Glock's 9mm handguns there's a standard magazine capacity that ranges from 10 to 17 rounds depending on the model.
    Among all of Glock's handguns, the standard ranges from 6 rounds to 17 rounds, with options to add 33-round magazines. However, a magazine could be made that would work just fine with any Glock, but only hold 6 rounds. The weapon would still work.

    Glock can call the 17-round magazine for the Glock 17 "standard," but that doesn't mean it's really a standard that has the same meaning that for instance the standards surrounding the 9x19mm round.

    For example, the original standard magazine for the M16 was 20 rounds.

    Similarly, what's the standard engine for an F-150? There's four options depending, but all come standard with a tow haul mode.

    As for "large-capacity," that's just as problematic without a strict legal definition.
     
  4. lostngone, Nov 24, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 24, 2015

    lostngone macrumors demi-god

    lostngone

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2003
    Location:
    Anchorage
    #4
    I can almost guarantee what will happen with this one.
    As soon as(or if) they think the magazine ban is in jeopardy due to this case they will just file an exemption for any/all off duty and retired law enforcement personnel. The case will go away the Local PD will be happy and all the other legal gun owners will be screwed.
     
  5. steve knight Suspended

    steve knight

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2009
    #5
  6. jkcerda thread starter macrumors 6502

    jkcerda

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2013
    Location:
    Criminal Mexi Midget
    #6
    I know, and marriage was defined as people saw fit until that was over turned ;)
     
  7. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #7

    in NYS no mags over 10, ammo purchase mandatory NICS check -law passed illegally under the ruse of state of emergency ..of course politicians and police are exempt... - ridiculous.
     
  8. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #8
    What is up with these Sheriffs? An obsolete office that can be readily dispensed with.
     
  9. Sydde macrumors 68020

    Sydde

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    #9
    They are angry because people are using unlicensed cameras on them, preventing them from freely whipping and shooting those wrong types. It must be kind of like trying to have sex while being filmed.
     
  10. lowendlinux Contributor

    lowendlinux

    Joined:
    Sep 24, 2014
    Location:
    North Country (way upstate NY)
    #10
    Because you don't like what they're doing they can obviously be gotten rid of :rolleyes:

    You are the opposite side of not one more inch and why there can't be a national conversation about guns.
     
  11. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #11
    California is a f-d up state in many ways and this is yet another reason in a long list of reason to never live there. I'd be very surprised if folks "give up" their magazines.
     
  12. Tomorrow macrumors 604

    Tomorrow

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2008
    Location:
    Always a day away
    #12
    To-ma-to, to-mah-to.

    Why in the world would you believe such a foolish thing? You're aware that in MANY locations, the Sheriff's department is the only law enforcement body with jurisdiction, right?
     
  13. Meister Suspended

    Meister

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2013
    #13
    Sheriffs are obsolete?
    Wtf!!o_O
     
  14. pdqgp macrumors 68020

    pdqgp

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    #14
    You must live in Under Rock, a small town in the middle of nowhereville USA.
     
  15. aaronvan Suspended

    aaronvan

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2011
    Location:
    República Cascadia
    #15
    Robin Hood would agree.
     
  16. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #16
    Not really. A great chunk of law enforcement is carried out by county sheriff's offices who cover suburban and rural areas. Sheriffs are often the office responsible for state parks and help with law enforcement, not to mention rescue operations, in national parks.

    In Arizona, the Pima County Sheriff's Department covers nearly 9,200 square miles, servicing anyone beyond the metropolitan area of Tucson, and several suburbs.

    As for the magazine limit, I'm not sure it's an overreach by the City of Los Angeles. It's unenforceable—trying to do anything, but make large-capacity magazine an add-on charge is going to be difficult, and I'm not convinced that it will do much to blunt gun crime. But cities should be able to create some limits with regard to weaponry.
     
  17. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #17
    I've lived in areas where the Sheriffs, if they even exist, fill exceedingly minor roles in government. They might run the local jail. But nothing so grandiose as what the cspoa imagines.
     
  18. thewap, Nov 25, 2015
    Last edited: Nov 25, 2015

    thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #18
    Sheriffs are elected by the people (not hired by state or county) and are the top law enforcement officials of a county, and traditionally the leaders of the militia. They are much more in tune and defend the people's rights than regular police who answer to their political bosses.
     
  19. jerwin macrumors 65816

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    #19
    That would be the chairman of the board of supervisors. Or, in the case of places where people actually live, the mayor.
     
  20. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #20
    edit ; top law enforcement official/officer (emphasis on law enforcement-official)
     
  21. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #21
    It depends on the county. Certainly, in some places you are absolutely correct, but much of the West (but not that many people) is still maintained by county sheriff's offices, so you can't dismiss the idea of the office so easily.

    The New York City Sheriff is a vastly different office from departments in South Carolina. One thing that's interesting is the Connecticut doesn't have sheriff's offices, but rather relies on a state marshall.

    I'm not sure what you mean by "militia." Do you mean state national guard units or state defense forces? As far as I know, neither is run by sheriff's offices and are instead operated by either a state official, or directly through the governor's office.

    Moreover, they are often the top law enforcement official in a county, but often answer to county commissioners or other officials.

    EDIT: I just saw the edit above. Yep, top law enforcement official.

    As for being "in tune" with the people, this is a dual-edged sword. A county sheriff has to pay attention to the local electorate every four years, but that can force law enforcement officers to twist with the political winds. This also means a tendency toward big showy elements of law enforcement, while important day-to-day stuff is ignored.

    The best example is Maricopa Sheriff Joe Arpaio who made his bones on the idea of catching "illegal aliens" in the county, but while the office was making showy "raids" in neighborhoods, the county failed to investigate thousands of sex crimes.
     
  22. thewap macrumors demi-god

    thewap

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2012
    #22
    Traditionally the people's militia.

    While a small example of sheriffs might be true as to double edge swords, county and state law enforcement is a single edge sword to serve the state and county only.
     
  23. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #23
    I'm not up on the history of sheriff's offices throughout the U.S., but this seems like a minor historical fact. Today, not one sheriff's office has anything to do with state militias.

    Political office means that any sheriff has to react with an eye to his future election, while a city police officer is buffered by the mayor (or city council) from election concerns. I'd argue that both versions have benefits and drawbacks, moreover both have to answer to the community, it just means that the lever is different.
     
  24. chabig macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2002
    #24
    You pretty much do, since limitations by definition are "infringement".
     
  25. hulugu macrumors 68000

    hulugu

    Joined:
    Aug 13, 2003
    Location:
    the faraway towns
    #25
    Let's compare the First Amendment and the Second Amendment for a second:

    In the paradigm that any limitation on Second Amendment rights is an infringement, then how do you balance the idea that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom or speech, or of the press..."

    It seems that limitations are not infringements or abridgments, but rather part of a larger framework intended to balance the needs of society against the needs of the individual. Thus, some limitations on speech might be just as useful as some limitations on the type of weapons that can be carried.
     

Share This Page