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.
I see, thanks for making that connection for me. To be clear, I’m not playing for either side. I’m just a realist. Not every issue or opinion has to be red or blue.
My point is that anyone can make a magazine or buy one from somebody who can. So a ban would be useless. The only people it would effect would be those who choose to obey.
For what it’s worth, I think if everyone on the radical right were launched into the sun, the world would be a better place.
No worries at all, and agreed. It’s part of why this is so incredibly frustrating - the sheer entrenched nature of this partisan-aligned wedge issue precludes any form of meaningful progress.
Correct, and entirely agreed. This is the nature of the flaw with most such restrictions - unless there’s compelling evidence the tools used for a given crime were sourced by legal owners, further restricting legal owners does absolutely no good.
I would wholly-support a MAGA-ectomy.
Everyone can sexually abuse minors and minors continue to be sexually abused. Does the pro-gun community advocate legalising sexually abusing children?
After all, it only effects those who choose to obey it.
Gotta make sure the gun owners know who your murder fantasies are about. Meanwhile, back in reality, everywhere far-right is an absolute shithole and everywhere progressive absolutely smashes them as far as healthcare and happiness goes.
Could you help me understand how sexual abuse of minors is somehow related to firearms? I have serious concerns regarding the state of your mental health if you actually entertain the notion that people should be able to sexually abuse minors.
Does such a reality intersect at all with your hyperbole?
Probably not, since you’ll just deliberately miss the point to try and deflect.
The pro-gun community routinely claims that gun laws are pointless because they’ll just be broken anyway, a philosophy which is deeply stupid and morally reprehensible when applied to absolutely anything else, but they seem to think they logic is sound when it comes to gun laws.
Yes. Vastly more so than pro-gun promises to keep people safe from criminals and tyranny.
Ah, I see. You can’t explain the canyon-crossing leap between the two because of the other person - it’s totally not because you’re connecting nonsense.
Neat.
I’m still looking for the connection to your bizarre obsession with the abuse of children. Did you have one?
This, aside from your absurd reduction of the rejection of ineffective laws which provide no benefit regarding the stated problems yet provide an pointless restriction on otherwise law-abiding citizens.
I see we’re still deep in the realm of works cited: crack pipe. Fair enough.