525

Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds (apnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

354 comments fedilink hide all child comments

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

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

Ooh, cherry picking from a Heller lawyer, I’m sure that’s unbiased.

I'm not sure how referencing something directly relevant to the subject and the quibbling about its intent. Perhaps you could walk us through that reasoning.

edit: I liked the part where he mentions the first draft of the Virginia state constitution but not the final draft, but then omits the first draft of the US constitution. Delicious cherries.

Another one: The use of “bear arms” in an 18th century context almost always meant “in military service.” Scalia even acknowledges this, but says only when used in “bear arms against.”

You... do understand picking two references out of the entire document is actually cherry picking, right? Are you seriously so blatantly trolling?

But it doesn’t matter. Halbrook points out that the Pennsylvania declaration of independence says: “That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State.” Ok. Why is “in defense of themselves” a specifically enumerated right? Because the term “bear arms” doesn’t apply to self-defense otherwise.

And self-defense was not the point of the second amendment, the security of a free state was.

You do understand these two ideas are incompatible, right? Even aside from how that quite clearly highlights the intent was not just "defense of the state". Had you bothered to read to the following page, you'd have seen that - but I suppose that's not really in line with your cherry-picking, is it?

I guess it makes a lot of sense when you just ignore all counterfactual evidence.

Irony.

It’s simple. For 220 years, this was not an individual, unlimited right. Then Scalia hand waved away two centuries of precedent and decided the text magically aligned with his activist agenda.

Rather, it was not interpreted as such; its intent has always been quite clear.

It's simple, once put in a position to have to do more than rely on previous precedent, referring to the actual history of the amendment required course correction.

this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023

525 points (100.0% liked)

News

36375 readers

2398 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

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. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world