We just passed, in my little town, a gun ordinance, that there is already an injunction against. It requires, among other things, that the two gun stores left, keep careful notes on who buys what, and when, how much, etc. It has to be open for inspection by "city officials." No court or suspect involved. Just for political fishing.
They say..Oh not the guns, just the ammo. (so, anti-con, they don;t even see it) Just the ammo tells nothing. Just the ammo doesn't tell everything about personal gun ownership in this town.
Idiots. I actually like to see it. I like to see the Courts get there asses in and tell us yet again, like in Heller vs D.C. But, they will probaby get the trigger locks and some other nonsense.
But, the ban against owning a Magazine of some specification, may stand, because it is already illegal for sale.
7 rounds was too much, is 10 enough?
Federal District Court Judge William M. Skretny has found that most provisions of NY’s SAFE Act–passed only one month after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting–do not infringe the Second Amendment. He did, however, find that the provision that limits magazine capacity to only seven rounds was unconstitutional under the Second Amendment. This seemingly small win for gun owners is actually very important.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/dec/17/gun-rights-groups-target-calif-citys-ordinance/