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.

  • BaldProphet
    link
    fedilink
    31 year ago

    The Second Amendment is a legal document. The only legal way to change it’s meaning (that the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed) is to amend it to limit the definition of “arms”. As written, the Second Amendment covers all weapons, and at the time of its ratification that included modern naval warships and artillery pieces.

    • @RememberTheApollo_
      link
      -1
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      When you can’t win the framing of the argument, go for technically correct. IOW, I do care what they thought, it says I get to have a fuckton of guns and a battleship. Must be disappointing to not be able to own a personal and navy for some.

      You’re not gonna bend me. The 2A has been bastardized and fucked over as a political football and twisted to allow people to have personal arsenals. Guns were a tool. Fuckers have turned them into statements and fashion accessories.

      • BaldProphet
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        As long as the government has them, I need them. Disarm the government and I’ll be marginally more open to compromise.

        • @RememberTheApollo_
          link
          -1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I’m not opposed to owning firearms at all. Disarm the government? Guess you want anarchy, and/or mob justice.

          The truly fucked up thing is gun owners are so obsessed with firearms they let everything else slip away. Once they’ve taken everything else they can, they’ll come for the guns too. You’ll finally be right, but you’ll be dead. Fat lot of good that’ll do. Damn fool idea to be so myopic that guns are gonna defeat the government - and for that matter, what a shit world it’s gonna be if people are ever actually put in a position where they have to do so. They just skip to the end where they win in the imaginary battle. But what did they win? The right to be an ostracized and impoverished pocket surrounded by an enemy. Yay?

          “Against the government” has to be one of the worst arguments ever.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            -11 year ago

            The truly fucked up thing is gun owners are so obsessed with firearms they let everything else slip away.

            I wonder if you’re aware the extent to which this is deliciously ironic.

            • @RememberTheApollo_
              link
              -11 year ago

              It’s not ironic when they’re doing just that. Just keep elevating authoritarians and see what you get.

              • Jeremy [Iowa]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                -11 year ago

                Once more with the delicious irony.

                I’m interested in your thoughts on how I’ve elevated authoritarians; you seem to know quite a bit about who I’ve voted for… or to be talking out your ass once more.

                • @RememberTheApollo_
                  link
                  -11 year ago

                  Generally if you support firearm ownership without stating nuance or conditions, it’s a high likelihood where you stand politically supports authoritarians, either willfully or via inaction.

                  • Jeremy [Iowa]
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    11 year ago

                    Ah, I see - criticism and correction of your misunderstandings is supporting firearm ownership without nuance - a thing of freedoms and rights; therefore I’m an authoritarian.

                    With leaps like that, you could do gymnastics.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -11 year ago

        You’re not gonna bend me.

        That is generally the case when one is operating on sheer, blind faith rather than an understanding of the subject.

        • @RememberTheApollo_
          link
          11 year ago

          lol, I grew up with firearms, and still own some. Your declaration of my understanding doesn’t make it so. Blind faith? I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at. Save your thoughts and prayers for the next person.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            01 year ago

            lol, I grew up with firearms, and still own some.

            You do understand the as an [X]/hello fellow kids is pretty transparent, right?

            Your declaration of my understanding doesn’t make it so.

            It is, rather, your showing your lack of understanding in various comments that shows it is so.

            Blind faith? I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at. Save your thoughts and prayers for the next person

            Yes, you do. While I enjoy the implied conservative lean - I always enjoy when a rando demonstrates the extent to which they’re partisan biased and irrational - you miss in your assumption.

            I’d argue I care more about this problem than those of you do cannot help but make bland insults when faced with disagreement and who cannot manage to actually try identifying and solving problems amidst their rants and hyperbole.

            • @RememberTheApollo_
              link
              -11 year ago

              Keep repeating yourself. Doesn’t make it make any more sense the second time around. You don’t speak for my motives or understanding.