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.

  • 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.

    • 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]@midwest.social
        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.

    • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
      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.