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.

  • Poob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Magazine size laws aren’t really effective at doing anything. Up in Canada you can’t have a rifle magazine with more than 5 rounds. However, almost all of the magazines are full size magazines that have been modified to hold fewer rounds. All of the responsible owners leave them at 5, but with a minute or two of work you could turn most of them into full size again. We don’t have mass shootings every day.

    Gun violence in America is a culture issue. You’re broken.

    • librechad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      One of the hillbillies I know have a fully automatic M14 with a 20 round magazine from the Korean War. It was a pleasure to fire that thing.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        The most effective part of our gun laws is preventing violent offenders from obtaining a license (and maybe having a license to start with, I guess).

        Beyond that, almost every other part of our laws are a ridiculous dog and pony show meant to appease some group or other in some way that’s usually completely ineffective.

        • FluorideMind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          Exactly, it’s very hard to respect the anti gun crowd when they focus on banning things that don’t even matter beyond comfort or aesthetics. It’s just all feel good bs that does nothing but hinder the average joe

    • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      A magazine is literally just a box of certain geometry with a spring inside it. They can be 3D printed or made by hand. No government anywhere can stop the signal. Instead we need to focus on the cultural rot that made narcissists decide it was OK to assault random strangers.

  • Staple_Diet@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, how are Americans meant to shoot and kill the 11 intruders that come into their bedroom at night as they sleep if their AR-15 mag is limited to 10 rounds.

    Good to see common sense prevail. Now to lift the ban on belt fed firearms so Americans can really live free (or at least those who aren’t brown, black, female, queer, progressive, poor or school children).

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gun rights are also trans rights. And gay rights. It’s also veeeeeeeeeery interesting how interested the state is in making sure that certain groups of people aren’t armed, e.g., black and brown people.

      I’m guessing that you haven’t heard of The Pink Pistols or Operation Blazing Sword, or heard the saying, “armed queers bash back”. You might be vaguely aware that MLK Jr. was denied the right to a pistol permit (back when many states in the south had ‘may issue’ laws, rather than ‘shall issue’), and as a result was usually surrounded by people that were armed, because this non-violent stuff’ll get you killed.

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, how are Americans meant to shoot and kill the 11 intruders that come into their bedroom at night as they sleep if their AR-15 mag is limited to 10 rounds.

      Skill issue. Line them up so you kill multiple targets with 1 round, and learn how to reload faster.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    “There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.’”

    I’m sorry, but if ten shots don’t make your attackers run away, you’re pretty fucked.

    I was gonna throw in some sarcastic humor, but it keeps coming out very dark, so I’m withholding that. This sucks.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Are you planning any mass shootings? Because that’s the only thing AR-15s and large magazines are good for.

  • Coach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    Simple solution: tax the ever-loving fuck out of bullets. $1000 per. Call it a “true cost adjustment.”

    • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wish you the best of luck with that. Poor taxes were the strategy behind the NFA - its incredible unpopularity guarantees it won’t make it through either branch of Congress let alone both.

    • Draupnir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Says the guy who is vastly unaware of how many responsibly armed citizens they cross paths with on a daily basis, and who have demonstrably prevented mass shootings. You have no idea the hidden safety net you live under and yet you want it destroyed because of the few bad actors.

      • Coach@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        And just in case you’re looking for your “good guys with a gun,” they’re all standing outside of a school, waiting and shitting their pants. It’s pathetic.

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What a brilliantly uneducated idea. Thanks for turning my hunting season into a 3k dollar minimum adventure instead of a cheap way for me to put food on my table.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well yes, the state has no right to infringe upon your rights, like say slavery.* Fought a whole war about that actually.

      *Unless of course you wind up in the prison system, then they can infringe upon your rights, but that is also a problem.

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        1 year ago

        Like slavery, but not bodily autonomy or the right to representative government or the right to not be discriminated against, or the right against infringement of property rights or …

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          1 year ago

          This is like saying the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a barrel on the rifle, or that it uses smokeless power or only muzzle loading muskets…go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.

          • KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.

            The Constitution is explicit in regards to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…” This isn’t even remotely the case with the Second Amendment. There’s more truth to constitutionally allowing direct physical threats and defamation, which are considered not protected by the First Amendment, than there are magazine sizes, lmao.

            I think what trips up a lot of people, especially Americans, is the idea of something not being black and white. Just because the First Amendment talks about speech and the Second Amendment talks about guns doesn’t mean it’s a black and white, when you have this unfettered right to speech and guns. Something being in a gray area makes Americans very confused.

              • KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                It’s the only Amendment that explicitly says the right be “well regulated.” A “well regulated” right shall not be “infringed” is undeniably different than “Congress shall make no law” which has no limitation to its attached right.

          • swiftcasty@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            1 year ago

            Pornography is protected under the first amendment, and sharing it via the internet is allowed. Child pornography is illegal and should stay illegal. Similarly there are other forms of speech that are criminal and should stay criminal, such as death threats. I think you would agree that these are reasonable regulations on our free speech.

            Here’s an example on the gun side: in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, bump stocks were used, allowing one man to kill 60 people and injure an additional 867 (just to confirm this is not a typo: 927 people were killed or harmed). Bump stocks were banned in 2018. The bump stock ban seems justified to me, does it seem justified to you?

            • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              1 year ago

              No, as knee-jerk reactions to a single facet of an outlier event are absurd.

              As an comparison, your highlight of child porn is due to the actual harm of actual abuse - the thing is banned because it cannot exist without traumatizing and abusing children. Your highlight of an outlier shooting is really the highlight of the potential harm of a future event - the thing might maybe be used for harm.

              Most of us don’t live our lives in terror of inanimate objects or overrepresented and oversensationalized events.

              • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                1 year ago

                Most of us don’t live our lives in terror of inanimate objects or overrepresented and oversensationalized events.

                If you say so.