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.
States rights!
Wait, no not like that.
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.
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 …
Actually, I support all those rights, and the right to bear arms. Looks like it’s you who’s lackin’.
I wasn’t talking about you. I was talking about Republicans who definitely don’t support those rights
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?
This hill worth dying on to lose elections to the GOP?
It has been for quite a few elections now - it would cost blue team nothing to pivot and yet they refuse to do so.
It seems that you are saying simultaneously that this is a very weak measure, and also it is a strong enough measure to upset people.
So then, we have a problem. Something must be done, but even this very small step gets blocked, fought against, and has individuals such as yourself encouraging others to not support it.
You’ve said that it could be used as ‘ammo’ against Democrats, to say that “They are coming for your guns.” But couldn’t you also say that its the opposite? Like, if someone is worried that “they” are going to take guns away, maybe that person could be placated by knowing that this near-nothing step is what is actually being asked for. It isn’t taking guns away. It’s a step that, as you say, won’t make a lot of difference anyway. So can’t that help reduce fear of change?
From my point of view, something must change. Some people propose big changes, some propose small changes. And both meet resistance. I suggest that if you also want change, then it’s probably best to support even small changes without worrying about someone else might get upset that a change was attempted at all.
deleted by creator
It’s a short sighted argument to say baddies don’t follow the rules so your only restricting honest people.
In Australia assault rifles and automatics are just outright banned. You need a licence to own any type of gun, which takes 6 months waiting for background checks to be done. Guns must be kept in Safes etc.
So whilst a baddie might want to get an assault rifle and go on a kill rampage he can’t. There just aren’t any around. You can’t break in to a house and steal one.
Can organised crime get them? Sure. But that’s not what this is trying to stop. It’s preventing the impulsive bat shit crazy person going on a rampage.
It absolutely helps, as proven by Australias lack of mass shootings.
People who want to go hunting still can.
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.
only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law
This is a fantastic argument for having no laws. Ever.
deleted by creator
People need to Understand How Easy.a Shotgun with a 3rnd Limit, has just a rubber stopper. It can be unscrewed an removed as easy as taking in and out lead in a mechanical penicl. Now my shotgun has 7rnd tube cap in under 5mins.10rnd mags? they are 30rnd mags with rubber stoppers in them. yes…they make little shorty stacks. but to be legal. the rubber stopper is added. Why would a firearm manufacturer Create and Design a new mag when it can Legally add a simple fix.
Which is why I am saying that this law should be removed and makes no sense at all.
gun laws are absolute jokes. They Need to be Much more stringent, and i am a CCW owner. I own 3 I.D.s to carry. Im more a legal citizen than half of you cucks.
Don’t know if you are offended or if you are talking about people complaining about getting checked, but if it’s the first. As a gun owner and a CCW, you leaving your firearms unsecured and unattended while kids are around, yes it makes you a cuck.
thats what youre doing with gun laws. making those who want them Legal and those who dont care are showing you the laws dont matter. a piece of paper and threat to do legsl action when someones got a gun in your face is not deterence.
What?
deleted by creator
Proud gun owner here. I’d like to see a more proactive approach to gun registration and some sort of yearly inspections for “assault rifles” - just to appease the ones that don’t know anything about guns. Kinda like how you would get “tags” on a car, if that makes sense.
However, we should be able to own fully automatic firearms and silencers/suppressors, muzzle breaks and other “evil” attachments and modifications if the previously mentioned system is in place. The more capable and dangerous the machine, the more tests and certifications you’ll need to legally own them. AND we should have special firing ranges for these types of guns. Obviously this is not a realistic goal
I’m*in this current system but I just want a MP5 :'(What would you say to something like this?
I’m all for it. Serial# attachment and register it to the person that will own it. Again if that attachment is found in the black market or with someone that is not suppose to have it, red flag and background check the original owner. We are more reactionary than preventives which is counterproductive when it comes to safety.
You bought a firearm? Show that you can handle it and clear it responsively. Don’t know how to handle one? Go take a day at a firing range and familiarize yourself and get certified. This will also remove any doubt of “mishandling” discharge.
Man you gun nonces are weird.
100% agree. I’ve always said the cringiest thing about me is my love of guns. It truly is fashion accessories for men like purses lol
only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law
More or less accurate.
background checks and waiting period should be automatic in the US to purchase. Period.
Hard no. Background checks for guns? Sure. Waiting period? No. Absolutely not. Let me tell my stalked to just wait three weeks, 'kay? Cool? Cool.
Guns should be registered.
Absolutely not. We’ve already seen state governments trying to pass illegal bans (i.e., California). These are being overturned by courts now. If you have a registry, the net effect is that the state gov’t can pass a law, confiscate your now-illegal firearms, and then–once the law is thrown out–you’ve still lost your firearms.
Agree, in general, about handling the black market sales to Mexico. However, that should be the job of the Mexican border patrol; they should be the ones controlling what’s coming in, rather than the US controlling what’s going out (except in the case of ITAR items). And yeah, we should get serious about prosecuting straw purchasers, since right now that’s usually not even a slap on the wrist.
Hard no. Background checks for guns? Sure. Waiting period? No. Absolutely not. Let me tell my stalked to just wait three weeks, 'kay? Cool? Cool.
For this, if you have a stalker and you know this which is why you are trying to buy a firearm, there could exceptions. Police report needed to show the reason for protections. Emergency restrain orders could be another reason for the exception.
Absolutely not. We’ve already seen state governments trying to pass illegal bans (i.e., California). These are being overturned by courts now. If you have a registry, the net effect is that the state gov’t can pass a law, confiscate your now-illegal firearms, and then–once the law is thrown out–you’ve still lost your firearms.
Should be added to the law. If for whatever reason that gun that was legal and becomes illegal, government should pay double the retail price when bought to the owner. If over turned, there should be a automatic availability to buy the firearm with no waiting period for the person that previously had it.
only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law
We shouldn’t have laws because criminals won’t follow them
This is only a good argument if the conduct regulated by the law is bad in and of itself.
deleted by creator
It’s an extremely weak argument for this very reason
A gun owner with a lot of opinions about Mexico. That about tracks.
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.
No thank you. You’re asking the US government to do that? Practically, this would get sourced to your local police department and weaponized against minorities.
Well that sounds like it would be a drastic change from the status quo /s
And anyway, CA just passed a bill to do exactly that (psychiatric commitment solely through the criminal justice system) but for any crime. It’s supposed to address homelessness (?) but that kind of power will get fucked up and out of control really fast. It’s like they got it backwards. God forbid they address the people with the literal murder weapons. No. Let’s go punish the people without rent bills and mortgages. That makes perfect sense.
and psychiatric tests
I can’t see any way that this could possibly go wrong, not ever. /s
Let’s look at this on multiple fronts.
First, who is going to pay for that? Are you going to require people to pay for the ability to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed rights? What other rights would you say that people should need to pay for in order to be able to use them?
Second, what criteria would you use to determine if someone is “fit”? A criminal background check is objective; wither you’ve been convicted of a crime or you haven’t. A psychiatric test is about an indeterminate future, an even that hasn’t happened yet. How are you going to guarantee that only people who will create a crime are being prevented from having rights, and not any other people?
Third, how do you distinguish between a protected political opinion (“the bourgeoisie need to be violently overthrown through force of arms by the proletariat”) and beliefs that have no rational basis in protected political speech (“pedophile Jews are killing people with space lasers, therefore I need to murder everyone at Lollapalooza”)? Given that involuntary commitment is already a disqualifying factor for owning a firearm, how is your proposal meaningfully different unless you are arguing that many people should not be permitted to exercise their protected rights because they might act in a criminal way at some indeterminate point in the future?
Dude I’m just saying basic stuff like people shouldn’t carry handheld people killers if they’re clinically insane or beats their spouse each night
if they’re clinically insane
That’s already covered on form 4473; if you have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated as mentally defective, you are not able to own a firearm legally. States are legally obligated to report this information.
or beats their spouse each night
This is also already covered on form 4473; if you have been convicted of any domestic violence offense–misdemeanor or felony–or you are the subject of a protective order, you are not eligible to legally own a firearm. States are legally obligated to report this information.
So what are you asking for, since both of the things you say you really want are already covered by existing laws?
Shocking! Another dumb ineffective gun law that was clearly never going to stand is shot down.
Really good use of political capital and money.
I find that neither side of the spectrum has any notion of political capital. They simply say, “I’m right and that’s all that counts!”
Great example, the GOP is in the “find out” stage of “fucking around” with abortion.
True, but if we keep trying, we will eventually get a judge that decides the case based on feelings instead of that outdated paper.
I can’t tell if this is a joke or not, and that makes me sad
It will take a left leaning supreme court, but that’s exactly what will happen. If a future scotus decides to override Bruen and Heller, we’re back to square one.
Tell us how a capacity ban makes us safer and should be upheld by the courts. Caveat: I’m a liberal and a gun owner who is well versed in firearms. I doubt you’ll like my rebuttals, but I always hope to learn something new by these discussions.
Touchy issue.
I come from a country with no gun rights, at least not for civilians.
A spare magazine is not a restricted article. Anyone can buy or make. If the matter is 10 rounds, well, you can have as many mags as you want.
Or, have a big mag with fillers in it for inspection. When you step outside the police or whatever office, you just take those fillers out.
Wouldn’t the fillers be obvious just by looking at it? It’s not like magazines are bigger than they need to be.
If we are talking about a pistol, like a Glock, the magazine needs to be a certain length and can’t be shorter.
Something like an AR15 or AK pattern rifles can be shorter so as to only allow 10 rounds.
Pistols are used for the large majority of multiple casualty shootings.
And many handguns have come with 15-18 rounds magazines, the standard for decades. It’s ludicrous to ban the standard size, with hundreds of millions out there. Even if everyone obeyed this law, three criminals breaking into your house have 30 rounds to get you, and you have 10 rounds to try to take them out. Yup, problem solved.
three criminals breaking into your house have 30 rounds to get you, and you have 10 rounds to try to take them out
This argument is such a weird US-only take.
Does crime only occur one-on-one in a other countries?
Probably not, but I’ve also never met anyone who justified owning a gun by having fantasies of shooting up people.
Even if this ban stays, it will only effect law abiding citizens.
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.
How’d that work out for the drug bans? Cause man I could buy so much weed in college (in an illegal state), and trust me I literally never asked.
How many people offered you rocket launchers? Hand grenades? Land mines? High explosives?
None because you can 3D print those.
Please please please print yourself an RPG.
(Not me obv but you get the point)
And you clearly didn’t get mine. You print yourself an RPG and fire it. Use an actual 3D printer that you actually own, print yourself an RPG (and whatever ammo you need for it), hold it in your own hands and fire it.
People have walked on the moon. You can link a YouTube video of it and pretend you totally could too if you wanted to.
I mean… if you really cared, its a few hour drive to a state where you can legally buy them. Its not a large burden, and could be done in an afternoon.
Edit: i like the downvotes this comment gets, as if its some sort of morality claim. Its just a fact. Im not personally pro gun, however i dont think the solution is an easy all guns are bad all the time. Its a very complex issue in america.
However, i am very against political theater, California isnt going to to fix gun problems unless they can outlaw handguns, which are used in more than 90% of all gun related crimes. Just like they arnt going to fix water shortages by stopping people watering their lawns or washing cars when around 95% or the water usage is corporations.
I guess they meant “total” as in total ban country wide.
Guess why Mexico has a huge problem with guns. Because they are smuggled from the USA.
Are the two Ds at the end for a double dose?
UPGRAYEDD, spelled thusly, always gets his money.
not only this, but lets be honest here, it does absolutely nothing to reduce the lethality of firearms. Even if an active shooter abides it; most people who’ve spent a modicum of time practicing can drop and replace a magazine inside of a second or two.
Also, as Upgrayedd noted… you can drive a couple hours to arizona to get them. Or, just make your own mags. it’s not hard.
I’m all for effective gun control laws… but this ain’t it.
And that’s why you’re against all abortion bans right?
I am against all abortion bans but I don’t see what one has to do with the other.
How am I going to go fishing now?!
grenades
Probably easier to get those in CA that a gun right now.
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.
Before anyone tries to argue if the 2A covers bullet capacity, let me introduce you to the chambers gun
This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”
Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.
This law is dumb and doesn’t seem likely to actually do anything to curb gun violence.
However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context
That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.
Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”
It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.
deleted by creator
I have no doubt you are well trained and safety conscious. Despite living in a none right to bear arms country I’ve also had some training on safe handling of firearms through cadets. I think we agree that safety training for handling firearms is a good thing.
However this obviously isn’t a mandatory requirement in the states as evidenced by the number of children who have been killed because firearms have not been securely stored. The US does seem unwilling to have any regulation to improve firearm safety lest it be seen as an infringement on a universal “right”.
Gotta justify that gun lobby money
deleted by creator
I haven’t been in a position to need a gun for about 15 years, since I moved out of the poor areas I grew up in. I don’t own any guns and have no intention of buying one.
But I support the rights of gun owners. The 2nd amendment is very clear. Just because I don’t want one, doesn’t mean I can demand other people give theirs up. Or shame them for wanting the government to respect their rights.
Nice to not need one, until you do.
You are so cool. There are a lot of people who have absolutely no business ever owning a gun and the less in hands of uneducated, untrained and ignorant individuals the better.
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?
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.”.
But this already isn’t true. Even if I could afford it, I can’t buy an F16, anthrax or a nuclear warhead. So, isn’t this just about where the line is being drawn? The line itself both already exists and doesn’t seem to be contested.
I try to look at these examples from the perspective of the Non-Agression Principle – to come to the conclusion that a specific technology must be kept from the public, it must be shown that that technology, by it’s very nature of existence, infringes on the rights and freedoms of those around it. For example, if we look a nuclear warhead, as you mentioned, it could certainly be argued that it’s private ownership would violate the NAP, as it’s very existence is an indiscriminate threat to the life, and property of any proximal to it. A similar argument could be made for your other example of anthrax. Making a similar argument for an outright ban on the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet is much more difficult to justify, however. I would argue that it would, instead, be more logical to regulate, rather than prohibit, the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet, much in the same manner as the civilian ownership of any other typical aircraft.
It also should be noted that it entirely depends on wording/language. The 2nd Amendment specifically states “[…] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”. One needs to have a precise definition for “bear”, and “Arms”. Perhaps it could be argued that an individual cannot “bear” a nuclear warhead. Perhaps “Arms” are only those used by the military, or other federal entities. I have no definite answer, but these are the sorts of things that one must consider.
3 round mag is a perfectly functional firearm. I own one. Works great.
Nobody’s infringing. When they wrote the amendment a single-fire cap and ball was perfectly acceptable as a firearm, should be good enough for today.
The 2nd Ammendment doesn’t specify that one has the right to keep and bear arms that were made when it was written, nor any other arms specifically. It, instead, states that one has the right to keep and bear arms, in the general sense, and such a right should not be infringed. Any deviation from the general interperetation is an infringement on one’s rights. One does have to think about what objects are themselves as arms, but this exclusive mentality is very different from an inclusive mentality.
Every constitutional right has limits. There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies. You certainly don’t need that many rounds to bring down a deer. What high capacity firearms do allow is criminals to maximize the damage they do in a short period of time.
Every constitutional right has limits.
Generally, I would be inclined to say yes, but things become more tricky when the constitutional right in question specifically states “Shall not be infringed”. That being said, the limits in question could certainly lie within the definion of “Arms”, and “bear”.
There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies. You certainly don’t need that many rounds to bring down a deer.
Don’t forget the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (I encourage you to read the Federalist Papers, to hear it striaght from the source) was to ensure that the people have the capability to resist their own government. Without a populace who believes in it, and will defend it with force if need be, a constitution is no more than a piece of paper, and a dream. Pay close attention to the wording of the 2nd Amendment:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
As well as how it would interract with what was stated in the declaration of independence:
[…] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. […]
It is important to remember that prior to the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was understood to only apply to the states, not the federal government. The 2nd when written was never intended to apply to the federal government. Another important distinction is the use of the term “bears”. A person hunting deer is not “bearing arms”. A soldier bears arms. It is a term specifically that refers to fighting for a state, not self defense or any generalized use of weapons. In short, the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent states from disarming militias in order to preserve the ability to assemble a national military. It has nothing to do with one person defending themselves against another.
It is important to remember that prior to the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was understood to only apply to the states, not the federal government.
You raise a good point about the 14th Amendment. I would argue that it even further enforces the idea that the states, individually, cannot create firearm legislation as it would violates the 2nd Amendment, which, in turn, violates the 14th Amendment.
Another important distinction is the use of the term “bears”. A person hunting deer is not “bearing arms”. A soldier bears arms.
While I do agree that paying attention to the exact terminology used is crucial to the Amendment’s interpretation, from what I can see, the definition that you stated is not without contention.
I would argue that it even further enforces the idea that the states, individually, cannot create firearm legislation
I agree which is why we need a federal ban on high capacity weapons.
the definition that you stated is not without contention
The roundness of the Earth is under contention too.
I agree which is why we need a federal ban on high capacity weapons.
What is your rationale behind that statement?
The roundness of the Earth is under contention too.
Err, no it isn’t. There is a difference between subjective disagreement, and denialism.
Removed by mod
I think you broke your fingers mate while typing that I don’t understand what you’re trying to say.
Removed by mod
