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.

  • BaldProphet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    1 year ago

    Perhaps you’re not an American? Perhaps you don’t know the history of your own country?

    Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country. You obviously care way too much about the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, considering that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to or affect you at all.

    From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.

    1. That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment. It doesn’t matter what Jefferson and Madison intended, because the text of the amendment, a legal document, prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. You can’t change your mind without amending the document, just like you can’t arbitrarily go and change a contract agreement after you’ve signed it.

    2. Same thing. Just because it happened doesn’t mean it was legal. Source: 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution

    3. The NFA is so illegal. The ATF needs to be abolished and the NFA should be overturned or repealed. There is no way to reconcile the NFA with the 2nd Amendment.

    Man, I hate it when Europeans chime in about the Second Amendment. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

    • ScornForSega@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 year ago

      Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country.

      Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.

      1. That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment

      Wrong again. The second amendment had nothing to do with gun control until the 20th century.

      It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.

      The NRA actually lobbied in favor of the 1934 NFA. Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.

      Just because you say something is illegal doesn’t make it so.

      You need to read more.

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

        Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.

        v.

        Just because you say something … doesn’t make it so.

        Nice.

      • BaldProphet@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.

        Had me fooled.

        It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.

        “the people” refers to an individual right everywhere else it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And regardless, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” doesn’t mention national defense.

        Just because you say something is illegal doesn’t make it so.

        It’s not illegal because I say it is, it’s illegal because it infringes upon an enumerated right that the Bill of Rights explicitly states may not be infringed upon. This is pretty basic English comprehension.

        You need to read more.

        Hehe, nice try. Educate yourself and then try again with more compelling arguments.

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

          Hehe, nice try. Educate yourself and then try again with more compelling arguments.

          You’ll note they’re entirely unable to do so. I give it ~1 day until they try an I’ve got a degree therefore I’m right ploy on you, too.

        • ScornForSega@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          doesn’t mention national defense.

          WTF do you think “necessary to the security of a free State” means?

          It’s really clear in the Virginia Constitution what the point is:

          " That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

          • BaldProphet@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            That’s not really relevant. The United States Constitution is a separate document.

            National defense is a red herring. The enumerated right is that of the people to keep and bear arms. One need not be doing so for the purpose of national defense in order to exercise this right.