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.

  • @KillAllPoorPeopleEnglish
    -3•1 year ago

    go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.

    The Constitution is explicit in regards to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…” This isn’t even remotely the case with the Second Amendment. There’s more truth to constitutionally allowing direct physical threats and defamation, which are considered not protected by the First Amendment, than there are magazine sizes, lmao.

    I think what trips up a lot of people, especially Americans, is the idea of something not being black and white. Just because the First Amendment talks about speech and the Second Amendment talks about guns doesn’t mean it’s a black and white, when you have this unfettered right to speech and guns. Something being in a gray area makes Americans very confused.

    • @SupraMario
      4•1 year ago

      Shall not be infringed… literally the same thing.

      • @KillAllPoorPeople
        -2•1 year ago

        It’s the only Amendment that explicitly says the right be “well regulated.” A “well regulated” right shall not be “infringed” is undeniably different than “Congress shall make no law” which has no limitation to its attached right.

    • BaldProphet
      2•1 year ago

      The Second Amendment is even clearer than the First: “the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Any law that even borders on restricting the right of the people to own and use weapons is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment.

      • @KillAllPoorPeopleEnglish
        -3•1 year ago

        Except the whole first part about being “well regulated,” which you conveniently left out.

            • Jeremy [Iowa]English
              -1•1 year ago

              Quote the rest of the definition - you seem to be intentionally missing the an introductory statement part.

              It does provide context, that’s true - thus, it’s neither the right nor a restriction on it.

              You’re far dumber than you think you are.

              Given your rants, insults, and absolute lack of points made… I’ll give that due consideration.