No products in the cart.

News

Los Angeles Magazine Ban Invites Ridicule, Defiance and Contempt

ScreenHunter_05 Aug. 07 13.34
Essentially, authoritarians on the Los Angeles City Council have decided they don’t trust non-enforcers with the same technology used in Pez dispensers. Princess High-Cap courtesy RA Bear & Associates.

The Los Angeles City Council passed an ordinance last week banning what it calls “large capacity” [read “standard capacity”] magazines, ordering citizens to surrender them within 60 days. Gun owners caught in possession of a 10+round magazine by LAPD enforcers will face misdemeanor charges, the Los Angeles Daily News reported.

California already bans the manufacture and sale of such magazines, but “it’s not against the law to possess large-capacity magazines in most of the state.” And true to form, now that they’ve imposed their edict in L.A., the antis are looking to expand it nationwide. That was a major talking point at a rally outside City Hall featuring citizen disarmament advocates and publicity-seeking politicians behind the “We Don’t Trust You with Essentially the Same Technology Used in Pez Dispensers Act.”

Among the attendees were Ruett and Rhonda Foster, who saw the loss of one son and the wounding of another “after a gunman with an assault weapon opened fire on their car in Inglewood in 1997.” The assailant was a gang member who, naturally, did not observe any of California’s draconian gun laws.

Unsurprisingly, the police union has requested an exemption for “retired peace officers with a weapons permit,” with that water being carried by council member and reserve officer Mitch Englander. That figures. But just try getting a permit in L.A. if you don’t have law enforcement or elite/political connections.

I guess it’s safe to assume Mitch won’t be joining Oath Keepers anytime soon.

Putting as positive a spin as he can on an edict he knows isn’t going to make a bit of difference at stemming criminal violence is ban sponsor Paul Krekorian, who admitted “he doesn’t believe that ‘law enforcement is going to go out searching for these things.’” That’s just acknowledgment of reality, especially after embarrassing returns for registration mandates in Connecticut and New York have come to light, and with a growing “I will not comply” movement making defiant public displays of flouting magazine bans and “background check” requirements in other states. As such, the minor tyrants are acknowledging this is really just an act of impotent rage, and that, deserves a healthy dose of their own medicine, in this case, Alinsky Rule 5 ridicule, as illustrated by Princess High-Cap, above.

Speaking of “I will not comply,” seeing Oath Keepers joining with leaders of that movement in the Idaho “This Vet is Not a Threat” situation seems a natural fit.  After all, what is “Orders we will not obey” if not a pledge of noncompliance with unlawful orders?

While legal challenges against the L.A. ban are being prepared, those committed to disregarding the new “law” are unlikely to be swayed if there is no recourse through lawsuits and appeals. That’s because anyone with a proper understanding of founding intent behind the Second Amendment – as well as of Supreme Court precedent – knows protections are supposed to apply if a “weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense.”

Such magazines clearly allow semiautomatic rifles to function in that capacity. Anyone claiming otherwise is simply a liar with an evil agenda. That said, the city will probably get away with it, meaning a citizen who refuses to comply will remain at risk.

The next time – when, not if – Los Angeles finds itself in crisis mode, and overwhelmed civil authority is nowhere to be found in large swaths of the city, citizens foolish enough to obey disarmament edicts may discover firsthand the answer to  a familiar question:

“What do you need ‘assault weapons’ and ‘high-capacity magazines’ for?”

And once more, those who will not obey unconstitutional edicts will demonstrate.

0

DavidC

David Codrea blogs at The War on Guns: Notes from the Resistance (WarOnGuns.com), and is a field editor/columnist for GUNS Magazine. Named “Journalist of the Year” in 2011 by the Second Amendment Foundation for his groundbreaking work on the “Fast and Furious” ATF “gunwalking” scandal, he is a frequent event speaker and guest on national radio and television programs.

Oath Keepers Merchandise

18 comments

  1. I remember during the Rodney King riots in L.A. that some of my friends who disdainfully said, “Whaddya have so many guns for? You cant shoot them all at once.” suddenly realized that some are better than none and asked if I had any “extras” they could borrow.

    1. To which an appropriate reply would have been “Lack of planning on your part does not constitute an emergency on mine”.

  2. Are not these exemptions for peace officers a form of corruption? And how does line 8, section 9, Article 1 of the Constitution play into this, if at all? Seems to promote a caste system as well as an antagonistic relationship between those make and enforce the laws and those who are essentially the subjects.

  3. california government truly is a state of half baked liberal ….


    [Editor’s Note: bobmaccian, while agreeing with your overall dissatisfaction with how the current government offices administer themselves outward upon the American people, I have deleted the trash-talking aspects of your comment. We have standards of decency here at Oath Keepers, and we expect our members to speak with dignity and to acknowledge that decent moral people constitute our readership. Thank you for understanding.
    Salute!
    Elias Alias, editor]

    1. Oath Keepers bylaws: “Section 8.02. (b) No person who advocates, or has been or is a member, or associated with, any organization, formal or informal, that advocates discrimination, violence, or hatred toward any person based upon their race, nationality, creed, or color, shall be entitled to be a member or associate member.”

    2. Thanks for keeping the trash off this site. I am proud to be a OKer as long as we maintain the moral high ground.

    3. To WHOM it may concern…
      Sirs, with ALL due respect, you have PARTIALLY VIOLATED Bob’s and I First Admendment rights!
      I for one would have liked (and most likely LAUGHED at) his FULL comment. Further more I KNOW I’m not the only one who would take pleasure in making sport of him in reply’s to his screed, whatever it may have been.
      In the future could you just redact the “naughty”words(and acronyms) and let the brethren make sense of what (if anything) is left
      Much thanks………..

      1. Freedom of speech is between you and the Government… not hate speech posted to a private membership organization. OK has every right (and obligation) to eliminate bigoted and mentally deficient comments from their webpresence.

        Thank you OK moderators, for not kowtowing to the hate speech, of false patriots.

  4. Is this ban of standard capacity magazines not a violation of Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 prohibiting the states from passing ex post facto laws, making the ownership of a magazine previously purchased legally illegal?

  5. They’re keeping those who give a rat’s behind busy chasing after their fires the filth keep setting. Then, trying to get any truth or justice in their courts of fraud, lies and corruption is mostly an exercise in futility. I am part of the effort to put our common law back in OUR courts, along with our citizen common law grand juries. When we get our rightful voices, power and authority back, we will go after every one of these treasonous filth and show them the door–which door it is remains to be seen. Join us at National Liberty Alliance.

    The Constitution says that we are to have common law courts. Instead, we have courts of equity/admiralty/chancery where the corruption is total and breathtaking. None of these things should even be issues.

    Appono Astos
    Illegitimi non carborundum

  6. I am mailing the “city council” pictures of all my mags and giving them my address.
    I am telling them what time I will be home and they may feel free to “Come and Take It”
    NO more communism.
    Period

  7. Please stop using the term “Assault Weapon” it’s a political made up term and of you use it then you are playing into the gun grabbers hand. Call them for what they are “semi automatic rifles” because that’s exactly what they are. No one should even call them “assault rifles” unless the firearms are fully automatic.

    We can’t be considered knowledgeable about this stuff if we can’t get basic terminology right.

    Fun fact did you know “AR” actually stands for “Armalite Rifle”?

    The reason being is Because the company Armalite were the first to design the first civilian legal version of the M16.

    1. It is used twice in this article– the first time, it is part of a quote. The second time, when I use it at the end, I put quotation marks around it, which is what I always do when I use the term, for the exact reason you stated. It’s the same reason I also always put quotation marks around the word “progressive” when referring to leftists.

  8. So to stop a mass killing spree, all that is needed is to eliminate high capacity mags?

    Shit people I carried a ton of mags on me in the military , so what if I now have to carry a small satchel of 10 rounders???

    If I shoot 120 rounds that is 4 -30 round mags.
    To shoot the same number of rounds I need 12.
    I can carry 12 mags on my belt.

    idiots….

    This is why I live in Texas.

  9. +1 DVK9 (god bless Texas) … nobody asks an obvious question, unless I missed it … the government says I can’t have something I spent $40 on; isn’t it an illegal taking of private property unless they compensate me for my loss? The more gun laws idiots like those on the LA council pass, the more they will be ignored and the more contempt for the law in general will grow …

  10. James Madison advised, “refuse to comply”, and said it should be used as a very serious impediment when “An unwarrantable (or even a warrantable) measure of the Federal Government be unpopular in particular States.”

Comments are closed.