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.

  • force@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    36
    arrow-down
    32
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    “Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable. This is clear if you look at it from an unbiased linguistic standpoint, and look at the usage of the phrase around the time. Words don’t constantly have the same exact meaning that we’re primarily used to, they’re a spectrum of different definitions that form, morph, and wane over time.

    Plus the first/second clause in the sentence is clearly just a justification for the other 2 clauses, it’s not a directive or even the subject. That alone would make the “well regulated” part meaningless for anything other than explaining why the constitution is in place in the first place. It doesn’t give orders to “regulate” militias, or even that militias are the only things which should have access to guns in the first place.

    The point of arguing against current treatment of guns isn’t to argue what the syntax or basic meaning of the amendment was, no that’s clear if you actually know what you’re talking about (and you can find plenty of actual linguists breaking it down for you), it’s to argue to what extent the amendment’s directive (disallowing infringement on the people’s right to bear arms) applies, or especially if the amendment is even beneficial or if it’s harmful to a modern America and should be amended.

    • dx1@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Then there is also the other issue that the other drafted forms of the amendment don’t even include that clause, indicating more clearly the main point, that they didn’t want the government to be able to restrict citizens’ right to bear arms, after the episode they just had with the British government trying to limit arms to prevent an armed resistance in favor of colonial independence - said conflict having been kicked off specifically by an attempt to seize arms.

      You can think one way or the other about how the state should treat guns, but people have this inclination to try to rewrite history about what it says and why. It’s pretty clear if you take the blinders off, regardless of what you think about the issue.

    • skookumasfrig@sopuli.xyz
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      14
      ·
      1 year ago

      Fine argument. Please also remember that militia in the context of the 2A references what is now the national guard.

      • sylver_dragon@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        1 year ago

        No, it really doesn’t. Under Federal Law 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:

        (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
        (b) The classes of the militia are—
        (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
        (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

        If you’re an able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, a citizen or have declared an intention to become a citizen of the US, you’re part of the militia.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            17
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            1 year ago

            Some people seem to have trouble with the english in the second, so I started writing it in relation to something else to illustrate how the sentence structure works.

            A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

            So, in the above revision, who would you say has the right to keep and eat food, “the people” or “a well balanced breakfast?” Clearly, as “breakfast” is a concept and incapable of “ownership,” “the people” is the answer. It stays the same gramatically if you plug in “regulated militia” for “balanced breakfast” and “guns” for “food,” the first part is clarifying the reasoning for them delineating the right’s importance, the scond part is delineating the right itself and who has it.

            It isn’t saying you’re only allowed to eat breakfast, it’s saying that breakfast is important, and as such, your right to keep food in your fridge/pantry and cook/eat it to your specifications shall not be hampered by the government.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                9
                arrow-down
                4
                ·
                1 year ago

                If it were a prerequisite, it would say

                A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

                But it doesn’t, it specifically delineates “the people” as those with the right to arms.

                Furthermore, under the definition of militia as per the US Gov, able bodied male citizens age 17-45, and those who wish to be citizens in that same age group, that would mean women dom’t have the right to bear arms.

                Also, from the wikipedia article on the second,

                The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, “a standing army … would be opposed [by] militia.” He argued that State governments “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.” He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as “afraid to trust the people with arms”, and assured that “the existence of subordinate governments … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition”.[13][14]

                Clearly, the intent wasn’t to give the National Guard, a subsect of the US Military, the power to fight itself.

                  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    4
                    arrow-down
                    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.

            • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              7
              ·
              1 year ago

              A well regulated diet is a much better example, but it destroys your argument. It also goes right into the same ethos as people demanding their high capacity magazines and 64 oz sodas.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                6
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                How does that destroy anything? A diet is still a concept that lacks the ability to “own.” It still isn’t dependant on the well balanced diet, the well balanced diet is simply the reason for delineating your right to keep and eat food.

      • BaldProphet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The National Guard is a component of the United States Army. A militia is a civilian force and would never be deployed to fight in other countries outside of wartime.

      • bobman@unilem.org
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Please also remember that militia in the context of the 2A references what is now the national guard.

        Lol, I love how people like you just say things and assume they are true.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        Also clear is that “bearing arms” was strictly a military connotation.

        Was it? Duke’s analysis of the history seems to disagree with you and your baseless claim. Interestingly enough, this is in-line with the opinion in this exact recent ruling.

        But hey since you’re ignoring history and rewriting to serve your ammo sexuality, might as well rewrite all of it.

        You seem to be the one rewriting history, friend.

        That said… lol. That you can’t discuss a thing you dislike without seeking to disparage others - e.g. ammo sexual - highlights the worth of your contributions. Why don’t you try an actual argument, next time?

          • Jeremy [Iowa]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah - I see you’ve dropped an entire article in lieu of any actual argument. If we’re going by average liberal quantity of articles dropped, regardless of content strategy, you’re still losing. If we’re going by more mature content matters strategy, you’ve woefully failed and approach a gish gallop. There’s some irony in that your article was titled THE INCONVENIENT MILITIA CLAUSE OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT: WHY THE SUPREME COURT DECLINES TO RESOLVE THE DEBATE OVER THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS - it seems not to have aged well.

            Out of an abundance of undeserved good-will, I’ll overlook that you’ve yet to address either source provided and - in lieu of actually making an argument - you drop an article you seem to not have actually read and understood. With any source, one must consider what it is and what it says.

            For example, I have provided a linguistic analysis of what the framers intended regarding the right to bear arms which references the works of the framers themselves, culture of the time, and events of the time to answer myriad questions from an objective point of view - clarifying the right to bear arms, defining what arms are protected, elaborating on the validity of licensing on registration, and arriving at its conclusion from the information shared.

            You, however, have shared a persuasive essay which makes no attempt to hide its bias. Indeed, its opening quote makes its interests quite clear. Its entire introduction repeatedly highlights - rather than actual definitions, historical references, etc. - attempts to disambiguate as related to what the authors believe should have happened. It is, at best, a lengthy “rah but the conservatives” mud-slinging display. The best to be said is there exists a reference to previous legal understanding - one, we should all hope, is expected to clarify over time rather than stay stagnant with poor understanding. Heck, WLU highlights in an analysis of the concept of settled law that A legal answer that is emphatically correct, and therefore settled, for decades or even centuries might eventually lose that status in light of sociocultural progress, as the debate about the death penalty illustrates.

            As your article finally delves into its analyses, it fundamentally pins its interpretation of the American right to bear arms on English history, on a comparison of the legislated acts of the colonies and its own interpretation of them, on a commentary about militias rather than arms, etc. It seems to reference everything except the actual direct commentary on the matter, the culture of the time, etc… and it does so in only the most tangential ways even there.

            To summarize, your persuasive essay starts with its flawed conclusion, seeks to shore it up with anything at-hand, specifically neglects the things that directly contradict it (no worries, my first source covers that), and hopes you weren’t paying enough attention to notice. There’s a bit more irony in that this is exactly how you’ve participated in this discussion.

            But hey, once you’ve gone back and done your part, we can continue this discussion.

            Wow, you don’t often see an argument from a scholar as widely respected as Volohk–with whom you must be familiar as a fan of law review articles (he wrote the book on how to write them)–be absolutely torn apart with irrefutable logic.

            I’m not sure you actually read what you quoted. In zero ways was he torn apart with irrefutable logic - that paragraph, at best, says - paraphrased - “if we’re right, he’s wrong, and we’re pretty sure we’re right”.

            Fortunately, this entire notion was already addressed by the Judge issuing the ruling, a thing I’m sure you’ve read.

            Wow we could have had it written right in there, but that version was soundly defeated because everyone there agreed it would be idiotic to allow any random person to buy whatever guns they want.

            Did they? I’m not sure how anything in those paragraphs supports such an assertion, even aside from how they’re once more already corrected by the other source I’d provided.

            You… aren’t good at this reading comprehension thing, are you?

            Hey, until we got some illegitimate Supreme Court justices who were willing to pedal the same lies that you got tricked by. Now anyone can have any gun anyone wants and all gun laws are unconstitutional because “reasons.”

            Ahh, I see - it’s all a conspiracy theory to you. Nifty.

              • Jeremy [Iowa]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                3
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                You are ridiculous. Try responding to any of the arguments I quoted and put in bold.

                We’re still waiting for your responses to the arguments raised. You don’t get to ignore the arguments made and then complain waaah respond to the arguments - out of an abundance of good will, I’ve addressed your source itself and highlighted its myriad flaws.

                It was you that threw up a linked and said “Duke says,” no context, no quotes, no arguments.

                I see you haven’t bothered to glance it over. That, at least, confirms the suspicions regarding your failure to do so.

                My article contains undisputed facts.

                See the previous comment regarding what these actually say. You seem to have just skipped right over that - perhaps continuing your trend of either not reading or failing to comprehend what one has read.

                Your source does not seem to support your position in any way.

                You are trying to revise actual history as this and the weight of all law review articles on the subject demonstrate.

                You find my one instance of the “phrase bear arms” prior to 1776 suggesting clearly an individual right, and you might have a leg to stand on. You cannot.

                Both of which were quite clearly addressed by the previous comment - the one you seem to have not actually read.

            • Jeremy [Iowa]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Bud the reason I didn’t reply with sources at first is honestly because you are a joke to me. Linking a law review article to me, you don’t know shit about law review. The scholarship on this is clear and overwhelming.

              Right - it has nothing to do with your having negligible awareness of the issue, getting caught blatantly shitposting, and scrambling to try and shore up your position with such scholarship as to apparently have not even read what you’ve posted.

              Totally.

                • Jeremy [Iowa]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  4
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Nah, you’re a joke. I’ve already read all the seminal articles and half of the bullshit ones.

                  Now the shoe is on the other foot. You got caught shit posting, having only a superficial awareness of the subject matter.

                  Ah, I see - you’re left with personal insult and a half-assed appeal to authority in lieu of any actual arguments.

                  I begin to wonder if you’re aware of the irony of calling someone a joke given the extent to which you’re just shitposting.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            8
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Ah, I see - because it disagree with it, we’re supposed to trust your assertion they rewrote history despite their rich citations and arguments and your absolute lack thereof.

            That is, unfortunately, exactly the kind of quality comment I’ve come to expect from the thoughtless anti-firearm brigade.

    • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      1 year ago

      “Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant "well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable.

      So not your average Joe who just wants to own a gun then?

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        8
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        ALL able-bodied men were legally obligated to muster with the local militia when called to do so, and were also obligated to provide their own arms.