Federal Judge Rules Against Large Capacity Magazines

Reed Means / Shutterstock.com
Reed Means / Shutterstock.com

For decades now the debate over what the Second Amendment covers and what it doesn’t has been intensely debated. Now US District Court Judge Karin Immergut of Oregon has rendered a verdict concerning Oregon’s own Ballot Measure 114, and the verbiage around 10 rounds or more capacity magazines is legal.

She explains that this is because the magazines are “not commonly used for self-defense, and are therefore not protected by the Second Amendment.”

She also ruled, “Even if LCMs are protected by the Second Amendment, BM 114’s restrictions are consistent with this Nation’s history and tradition of regulating uniquely dangerous features of weapons and firearms to protect public safety.”

In addition to the 10-round magazine section, BM 114 also would prevent gun sales from going through if the background check should take more than 3 days. It would also require State Police to conduct their own background check on each firearm sale or transfer.

BM 114 and Judge Immergut’s ruling are contradictory to the Second Amendment.

This Amendment doesn’t cover what is common, nor does it only cover self-defense from other civilians. It is also intended to allow the people of America to stand up to tyrannical law and the government getting too big for itself.

Yet she still believes she is right in her ruling. She even tried explaining it but ended up going against her own ruling.

“Magazines are an accessory to firearms, rather than a specific type of firearm. At the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification through to the late nineteenth century, firearm accessories like cartridge boxes – which held ammunition but, unlike modern magazines, did not feed the ammunition into firearms – were not considered ‘arms’ but instead were considered ‘accouterments,’” she claimed in her ruling.

The problem is a box of cartridges is not the same as a magazine for a weapon. It would be like basing rules for garages based on the rules for vehicle trailers; it just doesn’t add up.

People like this judge need to be removed from their position on the bench. They are clearly letting their liberal bias show and not the beacon of freedom.