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.
Correct, given it’s a constitutional right.
The constitution doesn’t guarantee magazine sizes.
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.
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.
Guns work fine with smaller magazines. They do not work fine without a barrel.
Edit: and I say that as someone that owns several guns. That are in a gun safe at a family members because I have kids and not a great place to store them.
Tell that to the FBI and LEOs who run double stack mags because it keeps you in the fight. Tell that to the military…hell tell that to a hog hunter…or the pregnant woman who is having to defend herself from a home break in.
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?
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.
Point of fact: child pornography is obscene–and not covered by 1A–even if no real people are harmed. I’d have to dig up the law (I think it dates to the mid-90s), but it’s pretty broad. Lolicon may be illegal by itself, even though drawings don’t generally cause direct harm. At least one person has been convicted of obscenity for comics, albeit not lolicon. It is *likely that even AI-generated child pornography, even though it wouldn’t involve real children, would end up being ruled obscene.
Personally, I would take your position; images and depictions of child pornography that don’t involve actual minors should not be obscene and therefore illegal, regardless of how distasteful and repellent they are.
If you say so.
It is worth pointing out that in the Las Vegas shooting the investigation never concluded if he actually used the bump stocks. Some of the guns had them installed but with his amount of preparation and knowledge of firearms he could have just as easily modified them to be fully automatic. During the course of the investigation they specifically prohibited the ATF from inspecting any of the weapons for modifications and merely said that the use of the bump stocks was a possibility, not a fact. The bottom line is it isn’t known one way or another if he actually used them, he might have but the firing rate was more consistent than most bump firing.
The judgement highlights how they’re considered bearable arms therefore protected.
You mean REGULATING guns or gun magazines violates the well REGULATED militia of the constitution? Are the caps enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
“Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable. This is clear if you look at it from an unbiased linguistic standpoint, and look at the usage of the phrase around the time. Words don’t constantly have the same exact meaning that we’re primarily used to, they’re a spectrum of different definitions that form, morph, and wane over time.
Plus the first/second clause in the sentence is clearly just a justification for the other 2 clauses, it’s not a directive or even the subject. That alone would make the “well regulated” part meaningless for anything other than explaining why the constitution is in place in the first place. It doesn’t give orders to “regulate” militias, or even that militias are the only things which should have access to guns in the first place.
The point of arguing against current treatment of guns isn’t to argue what the syntax or basic meaning of the amendment was, no that’s clear if you actually know what you’re talking about (and you can find plenty of actual linguists breaking it down for you), it’s to argue to what extent the amendment’s directive (disallowing infringement on the people’s right to bear arms) applies, or especially if the amendment is even beneficial or if it’s harmful to a modern America and should be amended.
Fine argument. Please also remember that militia in the context of the 2A references what is now the national guard.
No, it really doesn’t. Under Federal Law 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
If you’re an able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, a citizen or have declared an intention to become a citizen of the US, you’re part of the militia.
deleted by creator
Some people seem to have trouble with the english in the second, so I started writing it in relation to something else to illustrate how the sentence structure works.
So, in the above revision, who would you say has the right to keep and eat food, “the people” or “a well balanced breakfast?” Clearly, as “breakfast” is a concept and incapable of “ownership,” “the people” is the answer. It stays the same gramatically if you plug in “regulated militia” for “balanced breakfast” and “guns” for “food,” the first part is clarifying the reasoning for them delineating the right’s importance, the scond part is delineating the right itself and who has it.
It isn’t saying you’re only allowed to eat breakfast, it’s saying that breakfast is important, and as such, your right to keep food in your fridge/pantry and cook/eat it to your specifications shall not be hampered by the government.
A well regulated diet is a much better example, but it destroys your argument. It also goes right into the same ethos as people demanding their high capacity magazines and 64 oz sodas.
How does that destroy anything? A diet is still a concept that lacks the ability to “own.” It still isn’t dependant on the well balanced diet, the well balanced diet is simply the reason for delineating your right to keep and eat food.
deleted by creator
If it were a prerequisite, it would say
But it doesn’t, it specifically delineates “the people” as those with the right to arms.
Furthermore, under the definition of militia as per the US Gov, able bodied male citizens age 17-45, and those who wish to be citizens in that same age group, that would mean women dom’t have the right to bear arms.
Also, from the wikipedia article on the second,
Clearly, the intent wasn’t to give the National Guard, a subsect of the US Military, the power to fight itself.
The National Guard is a component of the United States Army. A militia is a civilian force and would never be deployed to fight in other countries outside of wartime.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)#:~:text=With the Militia Act of,units serving overseas was dropped.
The militia was renamed to the national guard in 1903.
Part of the militia is the National Guard. The rest is us able-bodied males aged 17-45.
Lol, I love how people like you just say things and assume they are true.
Also clear is that “bearing arms” was strictly a military connotation.
But hey since you’re ignoring history and rewriting to serve your ammo sexuality, might as well rewrite all of it.
Was it? Duke’s analysis of the history seems to disagree with you and your baseless claim. Interestingly enough, this is in-line with the opinion in this exact recent ruling.
You seem to be the one rewriting history, friend.
That said… lol. That you can’t discuss a thing you dislike without seeking to disparage others - e.g. ammo sexual - highlights the worth of your contributions. Why don’t you try an actual argument, next time?
Clearly meant in your opinion.
So not your average Joe who just wants to own a gun then?
Magazine size?
Magazines are considered arms, within the meaning of the Second Amendment, therefore protected especially from arbitrary and capricious restrictions.
Lol, tell me you don’t understand the constitution without saying you’re a fucking idiot. Oh wait.
No it isn’t.
Looks like the feds disagree with you.