Los Angeles Magazine Ban Invites Ridicule, Defiance and Contempt
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.
Comments
Post a Comment