A federal judge has struck down a California law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. U.S.

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]
      2•1 year ago

      I agree, I prefer the argument that “everyone deserves the right to defend themselves so long as they haven’t proven they’re a danger to others, and presumption of innocence is how our court system works thankfully, so only those convicted of violent crimes should be barred from ownership.” Problem is everyone likes to argue about the intent, which still seems not to be “let the army have guns.” I agree, we shouldn’t have a standing army.

        • @[email protected]
          0•1 year ago

          Firearms are not defensive, they are offensive weapons.

          No, the difference is who the aggressor is.

          Why? The second amendment protects the rights of “the people to keep and bear arms”. Are those not people? Let’s restrict the 2nd amendment rights of some people, but not others?

          Fuck it, I’d rather them be able to have em too than nobody, fine you win. I figured you probably would agree with that one though.

          Great! Let’s get rid of it, use its budget to fund more social programs.

          Sure

          We can change to the militia style military and gun control laws of Switzerland.

          No.

            • @[email protected]
              0•1 year ago

              This highlights the absurdity of the absolutist 2nd amendment take.

              Which is why I think the “what the founding fathers intended” argument isn’t necessarily the best path.

              It’s between people that value their guns over loss of life and those willing to see more restrictions to prevent loss of life

              Except it isn’t though. We already have a large amount of gun laws, and we don’t properly enforce those. We could start doing that, and paying attention to the root causes of the violence rather than one of many tools people use to do harm by focusing on either A) completely ineffective feel good laws that solve nothing or B) completely totalitarian laws that restrict our rights and generally disproportionately affect marginalized POC communities.

              But no, gotta ban standard capacity magazines which are in 95% of people’s firearms and make them disadvantaged in a deadly force encounter in which they would need full capacity. Doesn’t matter that criminals could just buy a few regular followers or file the limiter down so they have full capacity but I can’t because I am not running away if I have to use it in defense, so I’ll get caught unlike them. Doesn’t matter that a mass shooter can just put in another mag and keep shooting since there isn’t anyone returning fire, so the law only affects people carrying for self defense since they are limited on how many mags they can carry unless they want to lug around a bookbag or a trenchcoat like the school shooters.

              The law can just be a dumb law, it doesn’t mean I support school shootings or some such nonsense argument you’d use to discredit me, you just support bad laws because “guns bad” and I actually think about their impact or lack thereof.

              And how many of those firearms were provided by the ATF? What, two or three separate fucktons? I can’t remember. There was the first one, then fast and furious, then I think another.

                • @[email protected]
                  0•1 year ago

                  It may “work” if we go with the totalitarian options sure, especially if we forget about the 600,000,000+ guns already out and trillions of rounds to go with them, and the people who don’t want to relinquish those, but feature bans which are by and large what the legislators push are completely meaningless.