Supreme Court hears arguments on ‘high-capacity’ magazine ban in Washington

[@tjbugeye]

They are standard capacity. They have been selling that size magazine for as long as I can remember.

[@jeroldpickard947]

They know it violates our rights they don't care

[@katzgar]

You have no clue what your rights are

[@GeorgeWashingtonLaserMusket]

Katzgar, You might not we do. Lay off the meth.

[@nemoexnuqual3643]

@@katzgarwe know that the YS Supreme Court has already rejected led that text history and tradition is the standard for reading the US constitution. We know the US Supreme Court condemned the two part balancing test used by WA to justify bans. We know that SCOTUS has already ruled that to ban an arm required that it be both especially dangerous and not in common use.

[@jeroldpickard947]

@katzgar I got my vets papers must know a little bit about what my Amendment rights are .

[@nemoexnuqual3643]

@ meanwhile in the disarmed UK people are able to be arrested for silent prayer. It is ironic that the same people who scream about Trump being an evil dictator and the police being Jack booted tyrannical thugs roaming the streets looking for someone to victimize, would then make every attempt to ensure that only the government presided over by Trump and having laws enforced by the police has the ability to use force. The Democrats are the collision point between ignorance and insanity.

[@rayc.557]

Having the state decide this case is like having the fox guard the chicken coop.

[@NormanSilver]

The "Fix" is already in?

[@robertstephen6224]

This needs to go to the supreme court of the USA. Washington is a state that does not respect the constitution they need to be taught a lesson.

[@senpaitaco8684]

Snope V Brown will hopefully settle this finally. If the Supreme Court rules “assault rifle” bans and “high capacity magazine” bans unconstitutional it will be a huge win for those of use who understand what “shall not be infringed” means.

[@csyarid]

It already has....and SCOTUS has already determined that it is unConstitutional.

[@jimschreiner6482]

They won't respect the US Supreme Court either. They'll just keep doing what they want regardless of a ruling.

[@patsboy1012]

⁠@@senpaitaco8684 Snope v. Brown only deals with so-called “Assault Weapon” Bans. The case to pay attention to regarding magazine bans would be Ocean State Tactical v. Rhode Island. Both cases are being considered by SCOTUS this Friday on the 17th. We’ll likely hear if they grant, deny, or relist the cases on the following Monday.

[@justintime41776]

Washington is influenced by Chinese investors.

[@TimothyWoods-c4d]

This state has gone to hell. A complete violation of the 2nd amendment. These are standard capacity magazines.

[@ysakhno]

Look up the definition of "complete" on your spare time (which you have plenty of if you care about something as unimportant as the so-called "second amendment").

[@WoodrowWoods2007]

And they are in common use!!

[@katzgar]

Washington has the second longest average lifespan in the country which means you're a moron

[@JohnPublic-dk7zd]

@ysakhno...without the 2A, you would have lost your 1A right to show your ignorance a long time ago...

[@TimothyBales-v7r]

He must be in King county

[@seannelson4452]

Passing more laws that restrict law abiding citizens ability to defend their families will not stop criminals.

[@ttmax9109]

Quit samantics! Washington constitution and us constition are clear.! 2A shall not be infringed!

[@ysakhno]

It was not in this case.

[@jaredray7034]

@@ysakhnoit was. The WA Supreme Court “believes” that “interest balancing” can be used to deprive the residents of our once-great state of their constitutional protections.

[@FredNeck-z4u]

@@ttmax9109 Washington constitution is even more pro 2A! Too bad politicians aren’t affected.

[@Biscuit7102]

@@FredNeck-z4u They all need to lose their armed security and ride public transit for a month, minimum.

[@jesseallerdings7050]

​@@ysakhnoyes it is liar

[@FredNeck-z4u]

So police don’t defend themselves with standard magazines? Then what are they doing when they use them?

[@WoodrowWoods2007]

They want them to have them so they can reign supreme over their subjects

[@MrMericaV]

That is a good point

[@atozproductions9660]

Standard capacity

[@michaelpalus7929]

Does not apply to criminals and gangbangers! Feel good law that is unconstitutional!!

[@PR0PHESY]

I’ll put it this way.. for everyone commenting on how “10 rounds is enough”.. from 2022, there were about 1015 gun related deaths in WA. In 2023, there were 1100. Remember, the ban went into affect July 2022. So if banning high cap. Magazines was “safer”, why did gun related deaths go up? Hmmm.. brings me to my next point.. do you think criminals using guns are following the magazine ban? Or are they acquiring these magazines regardless of the ban? So if gun related deaths are going up meaning people are still using them, criminals aren’t following a ban because why would they, the only thing this magazine ban hinders are those trying to protect themselves which is their constitutional right? Just sayin 🤷

[@arronbrown7753]

Yup only law abiding citizens follow the law. Criminals do not. Seems like a pretty simple logic. Why would someone willing to murder another person care about gun laws?

[@FredNeck-z4u]

@@PR0PHESY criminals nowadays are lucky if they can count

[@oldnoob1917]

@@FredNeck-z4u Hey, they get elected president so you know the US is full of mor ons

[@toooldforthisstuff]

The Washington State Constitution is even stronger than the federal when it states - Shall Not Be Impaired... Try driving your car with three wheels. Wheels are to cars what magazines are to semi-auto firearms. Just a component, albeit an essential one. Would you run your tires one third inflated? This is a dumb law as it just means reloading with a limited capacity magazine more often. Just stop the virtue signaling.

[@FredNeck-z4u]

@@toooldforthisstuff Politicians should have to read and post both constitutions and be punished for any legislation that violates either.

[@jaredray7034]

@@FredNeck-z4useconded

[@dtllcmotorsportwa]

Stupid... guns are guns.... 1 round, 100 rounds per mag, criminals dont listen, why do law abiding citizens?

[@ruvimgd4415]

Of course it violates our rights but we have activists judges so most likely this will have to be heard by the federal Supreme Court

[@jaredray7034]

Don’t forget activist politicians.😑

[@KS-hj6xn]

Ak47 and AR15 are sold with a 30rd magazine Globally.. Pretty much the common standard across the whole entire planet.... Pretty much anywhere on the planet you are allowed to own firearms with a 30 round magazine.. We are not giving them up either.

[@alanmeyers3957]

No we are not, and this weasel standing up there arguing the contrary because he was born with one testical, what a clown.

[@ysakhno]

You're mistaken

[@diyjeff1838]

​@@ysakhno prove it.

[@KS-hj6xn]

@@diyjeff1838 you prove it.

[@diyjeff1838]

@@KS-hj6xn democrat response. Nice.

[@tman8939]

the states argument is based off of emotion. emotion has no business in law.

[@KING-FMJ]

WE THE PEOPLE SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

[@Greyskydies]

It’s against the 2nd amendment.

[@davidnewton6441]

If the state doesn’t do it, Supreme Court will.

[@csyarid]

they already have.

[@johnklemons2497]

This state already violated the rights to bear arms wtf is this guy talking about?!

[@fmixthings]

If they are not necessary for self defense the police should also be required to follow the 10 round law. Lets not forget the constitution does not say "right to bear arms for self defence" only right to bear arms.

[@jaredray7034]

Seconded.

[@FredNeck-z4u]

@@fmixthings maybe “personal offense “ is ok?

[@terryevans1976]

So spot on. When NJ passed a similar law they forgot to exclude law enforcement. LEO's told the state legislature to stick it up their ass until they (of course) were exempt.

[@fmixthings]

@fredeschen3783 no, just plain "ANY lawful reason" because when imposing limitations on the people you can systematically remove rights as has been done already. It could also be argued that shooting at the range is not self defense and therefore not allowed. Hunting, not allowed. Shooting competitions, not allowed. You have to imagine it with a different amendment. Do you lose your right to remain silent and have an attorney present during questioning after court hours because judges are at home sleeping? Do Muslims lose the right to free speech or religion on Sundays because our money says "in god we trust" and our founders were of heavy Christian influence? But it's ok, they can worship however they want on other days.

[@3Gunzdeep]

20 minutes to Idaho, magazine ban doesn't affect me. U.S. supreme court may still overturn this this year.

[@ysakhno]

Why care so much then? Go to Idaho for a shopping spree!

[@FoxDieSolid508]

@@ysakhnoBecause it’s an infringement on our constitutional rights as citizens of the United States as well as Washington State.

[@PR0PHESY]

Incorrect. If you go to Idaho to purchase magazines over 10 rounds with the intent to bring it back to WA where it’s illegal, that’s a felony. Just sayin, if you live in WA and head over to Idaho, just be careful on your way back 🤷

[@jaredray7034]

@@PR0PHESYALMOST impossible to prove.

[@3Gunzdeep]

@@PR0PHESY yeah I don’t think I need to worry about it. I think the people that live in Idaho that drive across the border to buy weed and then head back to Idaho are more at risk cause you can smell that stuff.

[@jameslyons6655]

The first question should be “Why ten?”. Why not nine? Why not eleven? Why not three or one hundred? How was ten decided upon? How is it not arbitrary? Then “If a standard magazine for a soldier has been thirty rounds since the Vietnam war how is this not permitted for militia aged citizens?” “How is an arbitrary limitation not an infringement?”. “Have magazines of greater capacity not been in “common use” for over half a century?”. Any rational inquiry into magazine limits and they quickly fail. Now you theoretically could put sentencing enhancements on crimes committed with magazines of higher capacity. But that would be going after actual criminals and that’s absurd.

[@BigCheese-c4n]

A mass shooter couldn't just 3d print or drive across state lines to buy mags because that would be illegal. I'm sure they wouldn't do that

[@WoodrowWoods2007]

Or just acquire any of the tens of MILLIONS of them that already exist

[@FredNeck-z4u]

@@BigCheese-c4n three letter agencies will supply them for free.

[@PtBeltSurvivor]

SCOTUS clearly stated in Heller & Bruen for "any lawful purpose such as self-defense." But, just like Oregon, the state is trying to say that SCOTUS only said self-defense. The states argument is straight-up liying by omission, and they should be sanctioned for it. 🙄

[@hansmak7321]

I watched this on tvw earlier. It appeared to me that the court is uninformed about the standard capacity of semi-automatic pistols and rifles. Criminals are not going to follow the law. I live out in rural WA. I am my own first responder because the police are an hour out. So, if there are multiple thugs I'm needing enough ammunition to stop the threat.

[@jaredray7034]

Not to mention the packs of coyotes.

[@FredNeck-z4u]

@@jaredray7034 wolves too now.

[@cory1481]

My constitutional rights mean nothing in this state. I’m saddened to see the degradation of this state over the years. It was once a GREAT place to live. It’s now a nightmare. I want my 2A rights to be restored.

[@baronbuehler3208]

the law is unconstitutional, there is no high capacity magazines.

[@forestchicken3302]

We will not comply to this law. Ive already violated it 100 times over. To hell with unconstitutional laws. We have had these magazines for 100 years now its suddenly a risk. Absolutely insane.

[@jrwatkins3872]

Zero compliance ..

[@bloodhunger82]

William Kirk!

[@jaredray7034]

He’s got my vote.

[@joewickie2376]

"Public safety risk" does not outweigh my God given rights.

[@davidrobertson797]

@@joewickie2376 exactly. Interest balancing arguments are invalid.

[@oldnoob1917]

Nothing about having the right to any magazines

[@joewickie2376]

@@oldnoob1917 the magazine is an integral part of the modern firearm. A Glock 19 , arguably the most common handgun in the world, comes with three 15 round magazines.

[@davidrobertson797]

@@oldnoob1917 the Second Amendment functions as a restraint on the government, not the people.

[@csyarid]

@@oldnoob1917 "Arms". That covers it. It's called an ancillary right.

[@龙源探索]

This is an absolute violation of our constitutional rights. Do not comply. "枪杆子里面出政权 / Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun," Mao Zedong August 7, 1927.

[@jaredray7034]

"A man's rights rest in three boxes. The ballot box, jury box, and the cartridge box.” -Fredrick Douglass Don’t Tread on Me

[@nemoexnuqual3643]

And how many homicides has this law prevented? Oh zero, in fact our homicide rate has increased. We require a federal background check for any legal firearm purchase (even online, guns can only be shipped to FFL dealers who are required to conduct a federal background check before you can take possession). Of the top 5 firearms used in homicides all are handguns and only one is domestically produced. The rifles this law goes after are according to the FBI CDE website are used in about 2% of homicides, less than blunt objects. This law is unconstitutional under the state and national constitutions as well as SCOTUS decisions on both Heller and Bruen. It doesn’t promote increased safety, and is only the result of ignorance and action based on an emotional knee jerk reaction.

[@451911a]

I agree with the gun shop owner! Shall not be infringed!

[@Tate-sf7ec]

DO NOT COMPLY

[@Huntinggadgetguy]

It interesting they say will save lives. But it only stops a law abiding citizen criminals don’t.

[@Huntinggadgetguy]

As I thought more about this. It’s strange to think educated judges who are to uphold the constitution can sit there with there heads held up hi believing in this total BS. It’s like say all gun owners are criminals who will go out and commit mass murder and go through background checks to do so. How about all drinkers will commit DWI. And kill someone in a crash so we better charge them first. What happened to innocent until proven guilty. Guilty is by proof not your scared feelings. This goes for all politicians and up. Constitution above your personal feelings. Your personal bias should be. Checked at the door. If you can’t you should step down outa of your position of power.

[@PNWMinuteMan2000]

Unconstitutional!!!

[@FelixGPhotography]

Has to go to the supreme court. Shame on Washington state. It's going to be an 8-1 ruling here. A sad day for the constitution.

[@jimwjohnq.public]

Washington State has basically gone to 💩 because of mail-in voting. Get rid of mail-in voting and a majority of these issues will cease to exist.

[@oldnoob1917]

@@jimwjohnq.public Trump talking point delivered. You may think for yourself for a very short time now

[@csyarid]

This has already been decided by SCOTUS in Heller and Bruen.

[@ironhorse127]

Simply ignore this nonsense. Use whatever magazines you prefer.

[@anthonyumphrey519]

Washington is just cali lite

[@grahamstefaan]

Public safety= interest balancing. Bruen banned it.

[@retselyarrh3895]

If high capacity magazines are NOT used for self-defense, then why do the police carry them????????

[@JaredBalmer-i3k]

This is the problem we are dealing with. You have state supreme justices who live in gated communities, can pay for private security and are not in touch with the realities of the average person who may live in areas that are not as safe as they live in. The whole point of the 2a is to protect ones life and property from tyranny. Or a gang of home in Vader's. It's not the fire arm that kills it's the cold heart of the person that commits the crime. Criminals have guns too, even though they make laws to stop them. It doesn't matter. Has anyone seen any pinks give up thier guns or high cap mags since this law has been passed. No. I'm sorry but if one wants to own any type of fire arm or magazine to defend themselves so be it. This is America and we have rights. Like it or not. If you choose not to own a firearm that's your choice, just don't tell anyone else how to defend themselves. . It's the same as if one told everyone how to use their funds each month . Yes a magazine is a critical part of any semi-automatic rifles to function. The more rounds in the mag the less you half to replace the mag while in a fire fight

[@BboyVReck]

reckless driving happens more often than mass shooting.

[@russheins6458]

We lost our rights to have a Constitutionally protected firearm because 3 people got shot at a house party a few years back, how insane is that. Imagine automobiles being banned because 4-5 people were killed ( and they are not even protected by the constitution). More people die from tripping and falling than all rifles combined. Even constipation causes more deaths🤷‍♂️ Even fists cause more deaths per year … Hopefully SCOTUS and maybe even President Trump can set our ignorant State officials straight!!!

[@oldnoob1917]

@@russheins6458 There are a ton of regulations on cars. you just have a suck ass aim

[@csyarid]

@@oldnoob1917 Hey moron....this isn't about regulations, it is about a ban. I know it is difficult for you due to your lack of logical thinking but do try and keep up.

[@RSKLove]

The magazines are absolutely useful in self-defense. People have better movement than those that have never been in a real firefight.

[@retselyarrh3895]

Shall not be infringed!!!!!

[@jl8754]

When did the state start caring so much about public saftey?😂

[@chpalmer2007]

They don't..

[@hwyy9046]

FREE THE 30 ROUNDS.

[@Tyborg425]

Washington is going down soon on standard capacity. It’s all standard capacity if it can work with the gun. High capacity isn’t a real thing.

[@Tyborg425]

It’s funny it’s already been considered a firearm by the Supreme Court. “High capacity” is the only mag size I run in my every day carry AR pistol. That’s in king country too. So suck it I guess.

[@oldnoob1917]

Well if it's not real you wont miss it

[@Tyborg425]

@ exactly so I call them standard capacity and I don’t miss it I just find more and don’t worry about it, kinda silly that Washington makes criminals.

[@Tyborg425]

@ you should see the bag AR I have as my Every day carry, 40 round mags all 556 ammo, right up front of my car with me. I think you would like it knowing I walk around king country with it, in malls and stuff.

[@oldnoob1917]

@@Tyborg425 You sound very fearful

[@TylerN737s]

A 30 round mag looks like a “low capacity” mag sitting next to a Beta C. 🤔

[@jackcooper4936]

Shall not be infringed. This state sucks balls.

[@oldnoob1917]

You can always leave

[@jackcooper4936]

@ my family has been here since before we gained statehood. Liberal politics have ruined this once beautiful place.

[@oldnoob1917]

@@jackcooper4936 Life is about change. This isn't the 1800s anymore

[@jackcooper4936]

@ liberal always want change, but it’s never for the better.

[@oldnoob1917]

@@jackcooper4936 BS deflection

[@hitman3531]

Common use! Shall not be infringed!

[@avgcitizen5974]

Pretty sure WASC won't rule in favor of the 2A. But SCOTUS has a similar case they might take up.

[@TimothyBales-v7r]

Look at the judges. They are one sided. Just look at their faces. They could care less. They have already mad up their mind.

[@95throughaschoolzone]

Criminals don't obey the law anyways. This only affects the law abiding citizens who wish to exercise basic consitutional rights. It's BS

[@TheDogFather-VT]

Public safety risk does not cancel your rights or give the state the ability to restrict those rights. Keep in mind, a 'well trained' police officer misses 50-60% of shots fired in an actual engagement, a well trained civilian misses 30-50%, a human requires 3-5 shots to subdue which means that if you have more than 1 attacker and you miss 50% of the time, you need 6-10 shots per person. So yes standard capacity magazines (30 rounds) are very applicable for self defense. And the states claim that these magazines are 'only used for mass murder' is an outright lie.

[@chancepaladin]

there's probably a billion of those mags in the US, if they were a problem, it'd be pretty obvious

[@racer14glr91]

If the government has them, then they are absolutely intended for law abiding citizens.

[@cubixz]

“only 2 shots are used in self defense” HAVE YOU NOT SEEN THE CHICAGO SHOOTINGS WHERE 100+ SHOTS ARE FIRED?

[@PimpinPulido44]

Self defense is a right not a privilege sadly too many people in this state are too slow to comprehend that

[@Tate-sf7ec]

Public safety DOES NOT SUPERCEDE THE US CONSTITUTION

[@VaLiBrOcK]

As someone who is in the military I will never understand how I can carry a belt fed machine gun for the United States and WA’s interest but can’t own a AR-15 to defend myself my family and property

[@thegolflife7565]

The amount of unconstitutional gun law in this state is getting ridiculous.

[@PimpinPulido44]

The issue isn’t the magazines it’s who gets their hands on them, why are they so worried about law abiding citizens having them if they only use them lawfully for self defense and responsibly?

[@stephenfox4864]

Police don’t use ten round magazines!

[@wwtf7180]

You mean standard capacity.

[@JNOSNOW]

They trample your second amendment rights as well as the fourth while youre using your rights guaranteed I'm the second. The next thing is to obliterate the first amendment. Half of my family has sold their farms in this state and I'm not far off

[@justintime41776]

Shall not be infringed. How hard is that to understand?

[@henningthiel]

Shall not be infringed.

[@PrepMonkey]

“Shall not be infringed” These people really think violent criminals will get rid of their high cap mags 🤦‍♂️ .. meanwhile they restrict law abiding citizens. These people should be charged for the violence a lawful citizen faces and weren’t able to defend against due to these unconstitutional “laws”

[@RyanPopelka]

You mean Washington supreme political court.

[@sagebrush243]

Unconstitutional! Criminals will not follow this law.

[@seadweller386]

Listen to these clowns. That’s like trying to ban ammo. Buy what you want.

[@tommercer3226]

Funny how since this ban went into effect, we have criminals carrying Glocks with switches and along with extra high capacity mags. Simply just couldn't leave well enough alone.

[@alexmacdonald258]

they'll lose here, with this court, no question.

[@donniemolchan7476]

Inslee signing these unconstitutional laws and now he is moving to Idaho where they have full 2A rights.

[@omenarms]

As the person standing in the thumbnail of this video I’m going to take the spotlight for just a second. Complying with government overreach in Washington has gotten us to where we are today with blatant infringements. There has been little to no pushback from our side of the isle for decades at this point other than the occasional complaining on the internet and “compromise”. I’ve seen more panic buying from the right than action of any kind. The easiest way to make this stuff go away is to not comply. Not just one or two gun shops and a handful of free willed Americans. I mean EVERYONE. As soon as we the people put our foot down and say NO to the oppressive leadership in not just this state but all states that try the same then they can’t stop all of us. We know we hold the country for at least four years but we are going to have to try harder together to get our state back. The solution is you, the free American!

[@RuralRet]

The state is always going to do the unconstitutional thing.

[@hansmak7321]

The US Supreme Court already researched and ruled on this back in Heller. The inferior court needs to follow the law for the in common use platform.

[@stevenwood7131]

30 round mags being high cap mags? You mean standard capacity....

[@bryantint1339]

We need standard magazines!

[@tomjohnson6036]

People forget, the original reason we have the second amendment is to protect ourselves from the government. Having the government decide how much we can protect ourselves would have the founders crying.

[@rockclimbingable]

Glad this guy has the guts to stand up for us. We all talk a good game but its pretty rare to see someone actually Man up. Covid was a perfect example.

[@gmyers4366]

If our military can have mags of high capacity so shall the public to defend against tyrant government . Our rights shall no be infringed upon.

[@brettmcgraw1931]

People should read what the Supreme Court has already said many times over, then they might understand we do not need to ask or sue or anything like that. All we have to do is ignore them and we may do so with impunity (Shuttlesworth v Birmingham Alabama)

[@michaeldarby2242]

Shall not be infringed

[@bhamptonkc7]

No balancing allowed in 2A

[@consco3667]

The State Supreme Court should follow the constitution and the Bruen decision

[@brianingraham3766]

Unlawful!!!!

[@gregmccarter2176]

Mags are fine..id rather be belt fed

[@MrMericaV]

Pointless that WA made this law, they grandfathered all who already owned “high capacity “ magazines and at that point there’s no way to put checks on that. You can literally drive an hour to Idaho get some mags and bring them back and literally say you already owned them and they can’t do anything. It’s a pointless law. Also the same state also banned AR “attachments “ so mounted tactical lights . 😂 that’s just non sense.

[@gregmills6142]

Shall not be infringed. Its to protect the citizens from a tyrannical government. Look at in context we had just kicked England's ass to create this nation. Period! For self defense was not part of the 2nd amendment. For those who say modern firearms were not around when the second amendment was written, well neither was the modern ink pen or computer for the first amendment.

[@AlphaOmega333]

I can’t wait for WA to get crushed on this issue soon. No one respects this outside of King County and none of the police I interact with say they enforce these unconstitutional policies.

[@dinodafilipino7955]

2nd Amendment: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" Article I, Section 24 of the Washington State Constitution states: “[t]he right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be IMPAIRED, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” The leaders of Washington state swore an oath to uphold both the state and national constitution, and yet here they are with they're treasonous policies. Tyranny always disguises it's self in the name of public safety.

[@brandonrice2990]

This is stupid! If limiting the mag sized actually helped I'd be for it. Criminals will always have the advantage with dumb laws like these!

[@chickmagnetwampaone]

"Shall not be infringed" this states policies are absolute garbage.

[@nickman3299]

Love how Washington passed tons of gun laws , yet our gun crime has gone up immensely since .

[@tzvk24]

Honestly we should be able to sue the state they took my rights away yet they will get away with it

[@spawnandbatman6975]

Let’s just ban vehicles as well since those kill people as well.