524
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 14 points 1 year ago

Is the magazine size restrictions the only difference between the gun laws of America and Canada?

[-] ikidd@lemmy.world 28 points 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 21 points 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

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 8 points 1 year ago

it's very hard to respect the anti-gun crowd? because they focus on banning things that don't matter?

like focusing on red flag laws so nutbags don't buy rifles, abusive fucks don't keep their handguns? yeah none of that matters. you fuckwit.

it's impossible to have any respect for the pro-dead-children crowd. you cretins deserve so much worse.

[-] nBodyProblem@lemmy.world 10 points 1 year ago

like focusing on red flag laws so nutbags don't buy rifles, abusive fucks don't keep their handguns? yeah none of that matters. you fuckwit.

They want due process to have their personal property taken from them? Man. That’s just crazy!

[-] vivadanang@lemm.ee 3 points 1 year ago

mass murder after mass murder after mass murder and you're just fine with things how they are.

[-] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 3 points 1 year ago

mass murder after mass murder

You seem to be making quite the set of assumptions.

Those of us in favor of firearm ownership do actively want change - but you might be surprised to hear we want changes which actually address underlying issues rather than nonsense about magazine capacities and scary black rifle.

[-] Honytawk@lemmy.zip 2 points 1 year ago

If someone has a nuclear warhead in their personal possession, I want the government to take it from them as well.

Nobody needs a gun, and if you do to feel safe you must accept you live in a shithole country.

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 4 points 1 year ago

Do you know why it's hard to respect the pro-gun crowd?

Because when a legal gun owner in Ulvade used a legally purchased gun to mutilate a room full of children beyond recognition and the entire world asked "What can we change to stop this from happening?", do you know what their pro-gun community replied?

"I don't know, maybe something to do with doors or mental health. All I know is that the gun laws in Texas are brilliant, if not too strict. There is nothing I would have changed and selling guns to someone with a history of rape threats and animal abuse is exactly what the founding fathers wanted".

But yeah sorry we don't know the intricacies of your little trinkets.

[-] BaldProphet@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago

But yeah sorry we don’t know the intricacies of your little trinkets.

If you actually cared as much as you act like you do, you would educate yourself about these "little trinkets".

[-] FluorideMind@lemmy.world 7 points 1 year ago

Exactly. They act like they know everything and ignore when you try to educate them. Banning any feature of a gun isn't going to matter, nothing short of a full on ban is going to put a dent in shootings and that's just not going to happen without civil war.

[-] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago

Arguably addressing root issues would have profound effect... though I tend to agree it won't happen without civil war, given the current state of partisan politics and waves vaguely at this post

[-] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee 2 points 1 year ago

What particular laws have been "completely ineffective"? How are you measuring that efficiency, if not by comparing to countries without them?

We get it, gun owners get salty because they're not allowed all the toys they want. Their natural state is "tantrum" from America to Canada to Australia to the UK.

But that's too bad for them. While they may decided that increased risk of people being murdered is fine because they don't think it will be their family, those countries have decided that their hurt feelings aren't as important as other people's lives.

And oh look, they're way better places to send you kids to school or walk around at night. Who'd have fucking known?

[-] ApostleO@startrek.website 1 points 7 months ago

Yeah, as a leftist who likes guns for fun, survival, self defense, and theoretical political unrest... I still think it's ridiculous we don't have gun licenses in the US. Or a gun ownership registry.

Bans restrict freedom for everyone.

License and registration lets you maintain that freedom for most, but still restrict it where necessary (e.g. crime, mental health), and more easily track and punish those who misuse firearms.

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

No. Canada has a whole host of prohibitions, and restrictions. The sale and transfer of handguns was recently made illegal (source), in 2020, 1500 models of what the Canadian government deemed to be an "Assault Rifle" were banned (source), Canada has extreme restrictions on the transportation of "Restricted Firearms" (handguns are an example of this) in that, to be able to transport them, you must obtain an "Authorization to transport", to be able to carry a "Restricted", or "Prohibited" firearm, one must obtain an "Authorization to Carry" (unless, possibly, it is for wilderness protection (source)), and, as outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Firearms Act, there are also many restrictions on the general transport, handling, storage, display, and transfer of firearms. Not to mention that in addition to all of this, as outlined in the Firearms Act, every firearm owner must be licensed for the use of "non-restricted" firearms (Possession and Acquisition License, PAL), and "restricted" firearms (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License, RPAL), respectively. The acquisition of each of these licenses requires a 1 day course, the successful passing of both a practical, and written exam, and a background check performed by the RCMP. After filling out, and submitting one's application, the prospective firearm owner's application, as mandated by legislation, will sit idle with the RCMP for a 28-day cooldown period. Only after that cooldown period has completed will they begin to process one's application, which can then take much longer depending on the speed of the government at any given time.

I can provide no guarantee that this list is exhaustive.

this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
524 points (100.0% liked)

News

23268 readers
2412 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS