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

    It seems that you are saying simultaneously that this is a very weak measure, and also it is a strong enough measure to upset people.

    So then, we have a problem. Something must be done, but even this very small step gets blocked, fought against, and has individuals such as yourself encouraging others to not support it.

    You’ve said that it could be used as ‘ammo’ against Democrats, to say that “They are coming for your guns.” But couldn’t you also say that its the opposite? Like, if someone is worried that “they” are going to take guns away, maybe that person could be placated by knowing that this near-nothing step is what is actually being asked for. It isn’t taking guns away. It’s a step that, as you say, won’t make a lot of difference anyway. So can’t that help reduce fear of change?

    From my point of view, something must change. Some people propose big changes, some propose small changes. And both meet resistance. I suggest that if you also want change, then it’s probably best to support even small changes without worrying about someone else might get upset that a change was attempted at all.

    • Jeremy [Iowa]English
      3•1 year ago

      It seems that you are saying simultaneously that this is a very weak measure, and also it is a strong enough measure to upset people.

      Rather, the very nature of arbitrary restrictions - for absolutely no gain - is quite enough to upset people.

      So then, we have a problem. Something must be done, but even this very small step gets blocked, fought against, and has individuals such as yourself encouraging others to not support it.

      Any step which encroaches upon rights without direct tie to solving a problem should be resisted. Have you considered Democrats could, say, literally anything other than big scary rifle and big scary standard mags?

      You’ve said that it could be used as ‘ammo’ against Democrats, to say that “They are coming for your guns.” But couldn’t you also say that its the opposite? Like, if someone is worried that “they” are going to take guns away, maybe that person could be placated by knowing that this near-nothing step is what is actually being asked for. It isn’t taking guns away. It’s a step that, as you say, won’t make a lot of difference anyway. So can’t that help reduce fear of change?

      Given these measures are well-understood as entirely ineffective yet pushed for, it is similarly well-understood there will be further restrictions as nothing will change with the identified problem - how could it, given the measures aren’t in any way an addressing of those issues? Thus, we’re left with a road to bans via incrementalism.

      I would imagine after Roe v. Wade’s pivot, you’d understand how relying on but SCOTUS isn’t sound strategy - one must, instead, reject politicians pushing for such arbitrary, unhelpful measures rather than enabling the incompetence and erosion.

      From my point of view, something must change. Some people propose big changes, some propose small changes. And both meet resistance. I suggest that if you also want change, then it’s probably best to support even small changes without worrying about someone else might get upset that a change was attempted at all.

      It would be fair to say politicians are proposing changes; they’re unfortunately proposing the wrong ones - neither party is currently willing to consider anything outside their respective side of the wedge issue.

      Blue team could entirely win here, were they willing to abandon their ivory tower - they refuse to do so. That failing is on them and no one else.