09-24-2023, 07:09 PM
grayfox Wrote:His line of reasoning about what arms are protected by the 2d Amendment is much as I have earlier written, in that (including the magazines), those firearms that a single person/citizen-soldier could be expected to provide if called into a militia, being handguns and/or rifles, along with the ammo and mags to support. I didn't think then (and still don't) that the extra-large, non-OEM mags like the 50 round 556 drums were included, but certainly the original design 30-round for ARs, or 11, 15, 17, 19 for the various handguns are part and parcel of the firearm.
I particularly like how he painstakingly dismantled the Calif so-called "expert" opinion that only 2.2 rounds are needed for defense... he exposes it as statistical babble, nonsense, with no real scientific evidence to back it up. BAM!!!
Another point: In fact and contrary to Calif's legal "analysis", he finds the most relevant historical analogues to firearm possession/regulation, are the early militia laws that require a citizen-soldier to come prepared with somewhere like 15-20-24 rounds of bullets, and the powder to go with them. Thus they were required to always have at least that much on hand. No ceiling on #of bullets, but a floor, a MINIMUM, and that floor was >> than 10 rounds!!!
This is a great read and analysis... worth the time to read it. He does us all a lot of benefit by posting and then analyzing/refuting each of the false notions that Calif (and others) have tried to put forth. That's why it's 70+pages.
Thank you, Your Honor!!!
Yeah I liked that part about the ammunition minimum requirement back in the early days. It's interesting. The 20-30 rounds people needed to have on hand, that happens to be the size of one full standard AR15 magazine. Personally I'm only about half way through it myself, since I've enjoyed re-reading pages as I go. We've all read/seen the last page though.
I'm not a lawyer but I think this appeal thing can't go anywhere unless the other side finds flaws in Benitez' reasoning. Logical and/or legal flaws. Benitez sewed all this up so well that doing such will be difficult. They can't (or shouldn't be able to) fight it in court solely on the basis that the don't like it.