L.A. City Council bans large-capacity ammunition magazines

[kpete]

Source: LA Times

Defying sharp warnings from gun rights groups, Los Angeles thrust itself into the national debate over gun control Tuesday, as city lawmakers voted unanimously to ban the possession of firearm magazines that hold more than 10 rounds.

Such magazines have been “the common thread” in almost all the mass shootings that have devastated the country, from Newtown to Virginia Tech to Columbine, said Juliet Leftwich, legal director for the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence. Backers of the plan said it was a small but meaningful step to minimize the bloodshed, by forcing attackers to at least interrupt their rampages to stop and reload.

The National Rifle Assn. and other gun rights groups have threatened to sue over Los Angeles’ new rules, arguing that they violate the 2nd Amendment and are preempted by existing state law.

In reaction, Councilman Paul Krekorian declared before a cheering crowd outside City Hall, “If the NRA wants to sue us over this, bring it on.”

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-ammunition-magazines-20150728-story.html#page=1

[HFRN]

1. wrong - 1st amendment says people should at least be able to read about them nt

[Recursion]

2. Did Cho use high-capacity magazines?

I thought he used standard ones.

[Devil Child]

3. Stupid move

This will do nothing to improve public safety.

[boatsnhose]

4. Violating the 2nd Amendment?

In what way does banning large capacity magazines violate the 2nd amendment? If the NRA is planning on using the 2nd Amendment to justify their opposition to this measure, they are stuck in the mud. In no way does the second amendment protect the use of unnecessary high capacity magazines.

[pipoman]

5. Yep, at the state level it will make it through SCOTUS....not at the federal

It is my understanding that this just brings LA to the same restrictions already at the state level.

[Zenlitened]

6. Ten is too many. -n/t

[babylonsister]

7. Good. It's a start. nt

[Big Vincenz]

8. While they're at it...

They might as well ban the purchase, sale and possession of drugs too.

[SoapBox]

9. It's something...and that's better than nothing.

And it's time to do something...big time to do something.

Fuck the nutters.

[Initech]

10. Guns need rights? They have more rights than people do in this country.

[stone space]

13. Guns are people, too, my friend, and guns have the same civil rights as...

...you, me, and the Bank of America.

[SunSeeker]

11. Fuck the NRA. nt

[Spitfire of ATJ]

12. “If the NRA wants to sue us over this, bring it on."

And he said this TO A CHEERING CROWD.

The power of the NRA is exaggerated and has been for far too long.

[TeddyR]

14. This ban likely

Does not violate the Second Amendment in my opinion and I doubt the Supreme Court would have any interest in assessing the constitutionality of this law. If it is challenged the Ninth Circuit will decide its fate. That said, this ban will have zero impact on crime. It is silly to think that the criminals are going to turn in their high capacity magazines, and even if criminals only have 10 round magazines it takes about 2 seconds to remove and replace an empty magazine. Moreover, I'm not aware of any study that showed crimes were only committed with magazines that hold 11 rounds or more.

[MH1]

15. How many of the recent mass shooters were "criminals" before they decided

to shoot up a bunch of innocent people?

Anything that increases the barriers to the tools of high-efficiency destruction could save lives.

I think there have been studies that calculated that fewer people would have died in the cases where a shooter used high capacity magazines. Also that 2 second break is an opportunity for someone to take the shooter down.

[ileus]

16. No reason not to carry a P227 there now.