Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
This is how you do it -
WestlinnDuck
Member Posts: 15,032 
in Tug Tavern
Trump is responsible for this common sense enforcement of the Second Amendment to protect citizen use of large capacity magazines by the 9th Circuit. If you are a dem, then you can't read or reason and just care about raw power. Scratch a leftist, find a fascist.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-08-14-Opinion.pdf
Second Amendment
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary
judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging California
Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of largecapacity magazines (“LCMs”) that hold more than ten
rounds of ammunition; and held that the ban violated the
Second Amendment.
The Ninth Circuit employs a two-prong inquiry to
determine whether firearm regulations violate the Second
Amendment: (1) whether the law burdens conduct protected
by the Second Amendment; and (2) if so, what level of
scrutiny to apply to the regulation. United states v. Chovan,
735 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013)
The panel held that under the first prong of the test, Cal.
Penal Code § 32310 burdened protected conduct. First, the
panel held that firearm magazines are protected arms under
the Second Amendment. Second, the panel held that LCMs
are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes,
and are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope
of the Second Amendment. Third, the panel held that LCM
prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not
enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Fourth, the panel held
that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record
showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second
Amendment protection.
Proceeding to prong two of the inquiry, the panel held
that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard to apply.
First, the panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 struck at
the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by
banning LCM possession within the home. Second, the
panel held that Section 32310’s near-categorical ban of
LCMs substantially burdened core Second Amendment
rights.
https://michellawyers.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-08-14-Opinion.pdf
Second Amendment
The panel affirmed the district court’s summary
judgment in favor of plaintiffs challenging California
Government Code § 31310, which bans possession of largecapacity magazines (“LCMs”) that hold more than ten
rounds of ammunition; and held that the ban violated the
Second Amendment.
The Ninth Circuit employs a two-prong inquiry to
determine whether firearm regulations violate the Second
Amendment: (1) whether the law burdens conduct protected
by the Second Amendment; and (2) if so, what level of
scrutiny to apply to the regulation. United states v. Chovan,
735 F.3d 1127, 1136 (9th Cir. 2013)
The panel held that under the first prong of the test, Cal.
Penal Code § 32310 burdened protected conduct. First, the
panel held that firearm magazines are protected arms under
the Second Amendment. Second, the panel held that LCMs
are commonly owned and typically used for lawful purposes,
and are not “unusual arms” that would fall outside the scope
of the Second Amendment. Third, the panel held that LCM
prohibitions are not longstanding regulations and do not
enjoy a presumption of lawfulness. Fourth, the panel held
that there was no persuasive historical evidence in the record
showing LCM possession fell outside the ambit of Second
Amendment protection.
Proceeding to prong two of the inquiry, the panel held
that strict scrutiny was the appropriate standard to apply.
First, the panel held that Cal. Penal Code § 32310 struck at
the core right of law-abiding citizens to self-defend by
banning LCM possession within the home. Second, the
panel held that Section 32310’s near-categorical ban of
LCMs substantially burdened core Second Amendment
rights.