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]
    -3•1 year ago

    Ah, I see - you don’t care about the dead children, but rather that firearms are used to kill children. That’s really fucked up.

    Thoughts and prayers for whatever point you thought you had.

    I’m not sure if you’re aware or not but blue team has been decrying the evils and supposed impact of these things for multiple election cycles due to their inability to actually address that perceived problem.

    And “team red” takes $16 million a year from the gun lobby and are adamant the solutions just coincidentally align with what’s most profitable.

    I’d be interested in seeing you compare such countries by violence overall and then again compare them by available social support and safety nets.

    Of course you would be, because you’re looking for excuses to do nothing, especially excuses that might take decades to prove wrong.

    But whatever “social support and safety nets” you find are still going to be paired with vastly better gun laws that try and balance social risk rather than protect profits.

    You want a half solution that doesn’t impact you, not an actual solution.

    • Jeremy [Iowa]English
      1•1 year ago

      And “team red” takes $16 million a year from the gun lobby and are adamant the solutions just coincidentally align with what’s most profitable.

      Ah, I see we’re forgetting about Bloomberg and his profiteering off of sensationalism of violence.

      Of course you would be, because you’re looking for excuses to do nothing, especially excuses that might take decades to prove wrong.

      Feel free to highlight any comment I’ve made where I suggest doing nothing.

      Take all the time you need.

      You want a half solution that doesn’t impact you, not an actual solution.

      In point of fact, I quite explicitly argue for actual solutions.

      • @[email protected]
        -2•1 year ago

        Ah, I see we’re forgetting about Bloomberg and his profiteering off of sensationalism of violence.

        Yeah who knows why he bothers with the abstraction when he can just take bribes directly from the gun lobby. Maybe he’s secretly bankrolled by a shady lobby group representing school children and abused partners.

        Feel free to highlight any comment I’ve made where I suggest doing nothing.

        You’re a representative of the pro-gun community, using their talking points to push their agenda, making you a representative of them. If that label upsets you, it sounds like a problem you should take up with them.

        In point of fact, I quite explicitly argue for actual solutions.

        Did you even read your own link? They openly acknowledge that changes to gun need to be a key part of the solution since “curing everybody of violence forever” is 100 years away.

        Accessing someone’s past behaviour and restricting or denying them guns accordingly? Congratulations, you’ve invented red flag laws and background checks that actually check backgrounds, 25 years later than everyone else. Go forth and spread the word to your pro-gun brethren and try not to reflect on who could have been saved

        • Jeremy [Iowa]English
          1•1 year ago

          Yeah who knows why he bothers with the abstraction when he can just take bribes directly from the gun lobby. Maybe he’s secretly bankrolled by a shady lobby group representing school children and abused partners.

          I’m not sure I’d call it abstraction given it’s literally his media business, but hey, whatever makes you feel better.

          You’re a representative of the pro-gun community, using their talking points to push their agenda, making you a representative of them. If that label upsets you, it sounds like a problem you should take up with them.

          Oh, I see - generalizations are okay when they’re your generalizations.

          I’m not sure how you interpret an actual focus on actual problem solving as a pro-gun agenda - a rational individual would reflect and consider that when basic problem solving is given a demeaning label, it might be indicative of a bad opinion on the matter. Let me know when you get to that point.

          you even read your own link? They openly acknowledge that changes to gun need to be a key part of the solution since “curing everybody of violence forever” is 100 years away.

          And you’re confused by this… how?

          Accessing someone’s past behaviour and restricting or denying them guns accordingly? Congratulations, you’ve invented red flag laws and background checks that actually check backgrounds, 25 years later than everyone else. Go forth and spread the word to your pro-gun brethren and try not to reflect on who could have been saved

          Ah, so two things we already have, excellent

          We can then proceed to the rest of the preventative measures and actually improve some lives, eh?