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.

    • 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 Its entire introduction repeatedly highlights - rather than actual definitions, historical references, etc.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.