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.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[-] Staple_Diet@aussie.zone 148 points 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).

[-] Kolanaki@yiffit.net 44 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[-] Stern@lemmy.world 40 points 1 year ago

my man doesn't affix a bayonet and it shows

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] fluke@lemmy.world 21 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Going into this reply with the understanding that we both know that a perfectly legal reason for firearm ownership and use in the USA is self defence.

So with that in mind, shooting isn't easy. And people don't just stop because you shot them once, or twice. Just take a look at the infinite examples where actually trained professionals have had to fire multiple accurate rounds to stop a threat.

The issue isn't with the weapons themselves (and contrary to your comment, belt fed weapons are no less legal to own than any other semi auto weapon) it's with the restrictions to the individuals that can own them. The checks aren't stern or thorough enough.

If you take a step out of your US centric view for a moment you'll realise that many countries in Europe have civilian gun ownership laws permitting all the same types of rifles and pistols and shotguns as the US. With all the same standard capacity magazines/optics/accessories. And yet very little to no firearm related deaths outside of organised/gang crime.

It's important to maintain perspective. You become extreme to the opposite then all it does is increase extremism and you achieve nothing.

Edit: downvotes. Cool. Where am I factually incorrect or haven't added to the conversation?

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (3 replies)
[-] Poob@lemmy.ca 139 points 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.

[-] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 66 points 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.

[-] BackOnMyBS@lemmy.world 17 points 1 year ago

narcissists

thank you!! this country has a narcissism problem. the hyper-focus on individuality and celebrities not only encourages it, but celebrates it. lots of people look up to narcissistic psychopaths as if being a ruthless egotistical asshole is something to strive for.

i knew a guy that had one poster up, and it was of Tony Montana from Scarface. he would show it off to people as if he were unaware he was indirectly telling everyone that he was an asshole. the guy i knew looked up to a machiavellian drug dealer that easily murdered anyone that got in his way of wealth and power, despite that Tony had a horrible relationship with his wife, was paranoid, and ended up dying from his own shit behaviors.

i knew a girl with a social circle that was all about social media likes. her and her best friend went to Hawaii to take pictures to post on instagram and facebook. i mean, they spent thousands of dollars and planned their days out in Hawaii around going to scenic places so they could waste hours taking and retaking 100s of pictures to post a few of the best ones. these girls had terrible relationships characterized by antagonism and competition. they would hit on each other's boyfriends and cheat on their own, then get surprisingly upset if anyone else did a 1/10 of what they did to their so-called friends and boyfriends. it was disgusting how they treated each other. even their own individual mentality was marred by these delusions of grandiosity and entitlement that weren't rooted in rationality or care for others.

whenever i visit other countries, i'm refreshed by the humanity of people there. i think it's one of the reasons i like traveling so much. i just cannot deal with the narcissism here. it's exhausting and alienating. anyone have any tips on how to remedy these feelings i get?

[-] librechad@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago* (last edited 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.

[-] 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

load more comments (15 replies)
load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[-] ScornForSega@lemmy.world 88 points 1 year ago

States rights!

Wait, no not like that.

[-] DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe 37 points 1 year ago

Correct, given it's a constitutional right.

[-] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 67 points 1 year ago

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?

[-] force@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

"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.

[-] skookumasfrig@sopuli.xyz 23 points 1 year ago

Fine argument. Please also remember that militia in the context of the 2A references what is now the national guard.

[-] sylver_dragon@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

No, it really doesn't. Under Federal Law 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:

(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
load more comments (9 replies)
[-] Sir_Kevin@lemmy.dbzer0.com 36 points 1 year ago

Even if this ban stays, it will only effect law abiding citizens.

[-] Draedron@lemmy.dbzer0.com 24 points 1 year ago

Makes it so less magazines are put on the black market. Just like a total gun ban would dry up the black market. In US and Mexico.

load more comments (29 replies)
load more comments (29 replies)
[-] not_that_guy05@lemmy.world 35 points 1 year ago

Law should be struck down.

  • magazines are easy to return to 30/30 from a 10/30
  • only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law
  • background checks and waiting period should be automatic in the US to purchase. Period.
  • Guns should be registered.

As a gun owner I in my opinion think that we should have sensible laws for firearms. Do we need fully auto firearms? No not really. Are semi auto rifles a great tool for people in the country side? Sure I understand they have different dangers compare to city folks. For people that saw they should charge high taxes to own guns. Look at Mexico it ain't helping no one and makes it that the wealthy folks can afford firearms.

Oh and if we do register firearms and your gun is found in the black market without you notifying that your firearm was stolen that should be a red flag. It's an easy market to sell firearms when you buy from lax law states and they end up in Mexico.

Lastly I know this is a stretch, but the US should be checking vehicles going to Mexico. Interesting that we only check coming back but not going. Firearms trafficking would be significantly reduced if we started checking.

Last last thing, if you have kids and own a firearm and don't secure it, a big fuck you. Putting kids in danger, you fuckin cucks.

[-] Blinx615@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law

We shouldn't have laws because criminals won't follow them

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
[-] some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org 35 points 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.

[-] Liz@midwest.social 21 points 1 year ago

I've seen video of a small lady with a handgun chasing out four home intruders while taking wild, panicked shots. Yes, these guys ran, but not everyone will. Two and a half shots per intruder doesn't sound like a fun time.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (4 replies)
[-] shalafi@lemmy.world 33 points 1 year ago

Lots of great comments and debate here. Love it. But let me address mag bans specifically. They're a silly feel-good measure, at best.

If you tell me a capacity ban will save lives, I have to ask, have you ever swapped a magazine, of any sort? Hell, I'm actually more on target with my 10-round AR mags. Give's me 4 seconds to breathe, reset myself. The standard 30-round mag is physically and mentally wearing.

If for no other reason, the idea is childish thinking. Who believes the bad guys, the people they wish to restrict, will just shrug their shoulders and say, "OK."?

Besides, many LEOs, even sheriffs, have said they won't enforce such a ban. Well... probably not on white people. (Oh look, another racist gun law. Who knew?)

And even if one still thinks they're a great idea, how will you stop me from getting one from another state? It's a box with a spring in it, they're stupid cheap and plentiful. LOL, in the runup to the Oregan ban there were 100 people posting pics of their full crates in my liberal gun owners' group.

And perhaps worst of all, this annoys single-issue voters that would otherwise vote Democrat and gives ammo (heh) to conservatives. "SEE! They coming for your guns!" This hill worth dying on to lose elections to the GOP?

load more comments (5 replies)
[-] Coach@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago

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

[-] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 17 points 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.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works 17 points 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.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (11 replies)
[-] RememberTheApollo_@lemmy.world 32 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

There’s no right to magazine sizes. They have a right to guns. Give ‘em a bolt action with a 3+1 magazine. Still have a gun, right?

[-] Kalcifer@lemm.ee 16 points 1 year ago

There’s no right to magazine sizes. They have a right to guns.

The 2nd Amendment specifies "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". I would argue that to be able to functionally "bear arms", one must be able to be in possession of the means to operate those arms.

Give ‘em a bolt action with a 3+1 magazine. Still have a gun, right?

The 2nd Amendment does not say "the right of the people to keep and bear bolt-action rifles, shall not be infringed". Instead, it states "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.".

load more comments (59 replies)
[-] CileTheSane@lemmy.ca 14 points 1 year ago

At the time the 2nd amendment was written they had muskets. Give them muskets.

[-] mctoasterson@reddthat.com 26 points 1 year ago

This is false. The Chambers gun, the Girandoni air rifle, and other "high capacity" repeating arms existed and were known to the framers of the Constitution.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[-] MarigoldPuppyFlavors@lemmy.world 28 points 1 year ago
[-] Diplomjodler@feddit.de 14 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

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

[-] SupraMario@lemmy.world 15 points 1 year ago

Lol no they are not. They're just plastic rifles, they function the same as any other semi-auto rifle. Lol you anti-2a people are hilarious, you're so ignorant of firearms and even statistics you end up looking like those idiots who want to ban abortion.

load more comments (7 replies)
load more comments (7 replies)
[-] pineapplelover@lemm.ee 27 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Well I think the best legislation is just heavy background checks and checkups on gun owners. Yes, you could introduce laws like this where people can just get around it or actually go deep down the the fundamental issue, which is why these mass shooters are mass shooters. Background checks and psychiatric tests are the way to go. Guns shouldn't and can't be illegal, make sure gun owning individuals are sound of mind enough to own them.

[-] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 17 points 1 year ago

We've already done the research on mass shooters and understand how to address the problem - it's a multi-faceted, systemic approach.

So, naturally, neither party is willing to make any progress on it.

load more comments (8 replies)
load more comments (5 replies)
[-] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 26 points 1 year ago

As it should be.

This will likely make its way to the 9th circuit where it will be an easy defense thanks to Bruen.

On another note, this ruling contained delicious smack-downs for the most common and egregious attempts at various other bans. Love to see it.

load more comments (6 replies)
[-] dipshit@lemmy.world 19 points 1 year ago

How am I going to go fishing now?!

[-] sudo22@lemmy.world 18 points 1 year ago

Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun

Presented to the founding father's in 1792 by its civilian inventor. 224 round capacity. Fully automatic.

The founding father's not only KNEW about high cap autos, they are even confirmed to have seen in action this fully automatic ultra high capacity gun, and they had absolutely no problem with a civilian owning and making them.

load more comments (11 replies)
[-] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 16 points 1 year ago

The incredible liberal skew to r/Politics has migrated from Reddit and it shows.

So much sheer irrational cope in here it's amazing.

[-] fiah@discuss.tchncs.de 24 points 1 year ago

do you think Lemmy is exclusively populated with Americans? There's a whole wide world out there you know, where much stricter gun laws are common and accepted across the political spectrum, do not assume anyone's political leaning just because they're against every Joe Schmoe packing heat

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[-] blazera@kbin.social 14 points 1 year ago

You can fire the next bullet in a mag magnitudes faster than you can fire the first bullet in the next mag. Not only drastically lowering the rate a gunman can kill, but dissuading it in the first place

load more comments
view more: next ›
this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
524 points (100.0% liked)

News

23274 readers
2478 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