kdawg
Staff member
- Jun 25, 2003
- 11,201
- 12,855
Well yeah, but the judge really should've gotten the very basics of semi-auto and full-auto right. It's not exactly hard.
I’ve just read that 59 page ruling and I can’t see that. There is one part (the part you quoted) where the phrasing is a little clumsy when it describes a large capacity magazine as effectively making any gun semi-auto (I sort of get what they mean but that’s not correct - later on it is clearer in what they meant was more shots without having to stop and reload) but it clearly describes a few times the difference between semi-auto and what they describe as a machine gun - ie fully automatic.
The process is how most court cases work - evidence is presented and experts are examined - and in this case the experts the gun people put forward were significantly less qualified than the other side - so a lot their evidence wasn’t accepted.
The conclusion was essentially that magazine size isn’t protected under the constitution, that it’s very rare for someone to require more than 10 shots for self defence, and that forcing a shooter to pause and change magazine reduces the impact of a mass shooter - so the law is reasonable.