California cannot ban gun owners from having detachable magazines that hold more than 10 rounds, a federal judge ruled Friday.

The decision from U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez won’t take effect immediately. California Attorney General Rob Bonta, a Democrat, has already filed a notice to appeal the ruling. The ban is likely to remain in effect while the case is still pending.

This is the second time Benitez has struck down California’s law banning certain types of magazines. The first time he struck it down — way back in 2017 — an appeals court ended up reversing his decision.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -3
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    TIL the only form of self defence is bullets. Nothing else. Only bullets.

    Next time you’re walking down a sketchy alley, make sure you’ve got a pocket full of bullets!

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      31 year ago

      Well, better than a knife that makes you get close to an armed attacker, and they don’t make holsters for baseball bats, tasers are 60% effective and that’s the ones the police can get that we can’t, and mace is for non-deadly threats, so you should have that too, but time and place

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        Even if I was the world’s foremost knife fighter, and took them all out, I’d be in legal trouble because I have no rights to self-defense if I don’t have bullets.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Idk where you live, but afaik there isn’t a place where armed self defense is only legal with guns. Sucks if true, but then “you should change that.”

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            I can only suggest you go back and read the comment I first responded to, and then see if my comments take on a new meaning.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        -11 year ago

        A knife doesn’t make you come close to an attacker. You use it when the attacker comes close.

        The point of self defence is to defend, not to go out of your way to kill.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Ok fair, I worded that poorly, I should have said “is only effective when the attacker gets in close enough proximity to stab, which puts you at undue risk of harm” but I didn’t think the Pedantic Police would be out, my mistake.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            I could be a kung fu master but apparently if I don’t have bullets, I have no right to self-defense, so I will be legally screwed either way!

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart
            link
            11 year ago

            You’re more likely to shoot a friend or family member, not the bad guy with a gun that you’re hoping for.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              11 year ago

              I’m the one being told I should have a gun, not the one saying I have a gun! Besides, the right to self-defense is all about bullets it seems, so as long as I can chuck bullets at the guy, I’ll be legally protected!