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.
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).
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.
my man doesn’t affix a bayonet and it shows
Killing them is not the problem, dropping them before they and their pack successfully charge you is the bigger problem
Gun rights are also trans rights. And gay rights. It’s also veeeeeeeeeery interesting how interested the state is in making sure that certain groups of people aren’t armed, e.g., black and brown people.
I’m guessing that you haven’t heard of The Pink Pistols or Operation Blazing Sword, or heard the saying, “armed queers bash back”. You might be vaguely aware that MLK Jr. was denied the right to a pistol permit (back when many states in the south had ‘may issue’ laws, rather than ‘shall issue’), and as a result was usually surrounded by people that were armed, because this non-violent stuff’ll get you killed.
Trans and gay people would be a whole hell of a lot safer if the people who wanted to kill them were unarmed.
Unfortunately, you will literally never be able to guarantee that.
Plenty of other countries manage to do it.
I’m gonna be honest here. That is an extremely American comment. You guys aren’t exactly the pinnacle of LGBT rights. Far more trans people are killed by guns than save themselves thanks to a gun. Defending guns is killing people and visible minorities are the most at risk.
What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like? And why would you think more guns are the solution when countries like Canada so inarguably better than you at this without the guns (we’re still very flawed and have a long way to go, but I’m so glad I’m not American and feel bad for my LGBT friends in the US)?
And why focus on homicides when suicide is by far the bigger cause of death? Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide. To be clear, the real solution we need is cultural acceptance because studies show that having an accepting environment massively reduces the suicide risk, but access to guns 100% makes it worse!
I know there’s something about having access to a means to protect yourself that gives some measure of psychological safety. But studies are at best inconclusive or at worst straight up say you’re more likely to be killed if you own a gun, so there is no real safety. And I assure you that an even better way to feel safe is to reduce how many guns other people have.
Again, I’m sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well. But I think opinions like yours are literally killing people. I expect conservatives to love guns and I don’t think anything will convince them, but I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise.
That is an extremely American comment.
That’s likely because I’m an American, living in the US, and subject to US laws and court rulings. Like the one that you’re commenting on.
Far more trans people are killed by guns
Sounds to me like more trans people need to get strapped, because the cops sure as fuck don’t care about them. I’m guessing that you’ve avoided reading about anarchists and groups like the various John Brown Gun Clubs defending drag queen story hours and groups feeding homeless people?
What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like?
Well, I certainly wouldn’t vote for Texas or Florida. But I also wouldn’t vote for Illinois, because I’ve known queer people in Chicago that have been the victims of attacks, and I’ve seen just how few fucks the cops give. Here’s the blunt truth: cops aren’t going to save LGBTQ people, because cops are on the side of the people hurting them. The sad truth is that queer people need to be able to protect themselves, and that means having access to lethal force.
Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide.
Yes, absolutely. But magazine capacity is irrelevant to suicide. But again - the problem isn’t the gun itself, the problem is that LGBTQ people are treated like shit by a society that largely doesn’t care about them. Removing guns doesn’t remove their misery. Fix the real problem, and the suicides fix themselves. (And yeah, we’ve got social and fiscal conservatives preventing solving the real problems too.)
But studies are at best inconclusive or at worst straight up say you’re more likely to be killed if you own a gun, so there is no real safety.
How many cases of defensive gun use are there annually in the US? The most conservative estimates are around 1.5M. How many lives are saved as a result of defensive gun use? That’s the real question, and there’s no way to answer it, since you can’t possibly know if someone would have definitely, 100% died if they hadn’t had a firearm to protect themselves.
I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise
deleted by creator
Actually a popular use for those guns is hog hunting, and you definitely want as many bullets as humanly possible when hunting hogs since they travel in packs.
My step dad shot one point blank in the face with a 9mm pistol and all it did was stun it long enough to grab a rifle.
What happened after the hog grabbed the rifle?
It was like the OK Corral, but with way more squealing.
The police obviously arrested it for having a 30 round magazine.
Not arrested, just a warning when they realized it was one of them.
Now to lift the ban on belt fed firearms so Americans can really live free (or at least those who aren’t … female)
Sounds we should get rid of those laws that ban women from owning and operating firearms! /s
If you interpret the 2nd amendment to only grant the right to keep and bear arms to members of the militia (not saying if that’s a right or wrong interpretation, but that’s a somewhat common argument I’ve seen,) there potentially is an interpretation that most women would not be included in that, because we have an actual definition of what constitutes the militia of the United States.
10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA
§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.
Section 313 of title 32 basically extends the age to 65 for former members of the regular army/navy/Marines/air force
So more or less, it would apply to members of the national guard (which includes some women) and all able-bodied men ages 17-45 (65 for former military,) and some states have laws defining a state militia that may or may not come into play.
Such an interpretation would also mean a whole lot of older men or anyone who isn’t able-bodied also wouldn’t be covered by the 2nd amendment.
I’m no legal scholar, I don’t know if that interpretation would hold any water under scrutiny, but the same could be said for a lot of laws that we’re stuck with.
And again, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t a good interpretation, it isn’t my interpretation, but it’s one that someone could potentially come up with from reading the laws as written.
This DM is following the D&D-2A edition RAW.
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
Correct, given it’s a constitutional right.
The constitution doesn’t guarantee magazine sizes.
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.
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.
“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.
So not your average Joe who just wants to own a gun then?
ALL able-bodied men were legally obligated to muster with the local militia when called to do so, and were also obligated to provide their own arms.
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.
3D printers: exist
10rnd AR-15 .458 SOCOM mags have entered the chat
Nobody gives a fuck what criminals and terrorists could hypothetically use, they care about what they are using, which in nearly 80% of mass shootings is a legal firearm.
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.
And where do the criminals get their guns from?
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.
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.
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.
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.
Is the magazine size restrictions the only difference between the gun laws of America and Canada?
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.
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.
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
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.
Our system works as intended. Sorry you don’t like our Freedums!
No u
Simple solution: tax the ever-loving fuck out of bullets. $1000 per. Call it a “true cost adjustment.”
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.
Use a bow, like a real man.
Says the guy who is vastly unaware of how many responsibly armed citizens they cross paths with on a daily basis, and who have demonstrably prevented mass shootings. You have no idea the hidden safety net you live under and yet you want it destroyed because of the few bad actors.
And just in case you’re looking for your “good guys with a gun,” they’re all standing outside of a school, waiting and shitting their pants. It’s pathetic.
Yup. Yes. A few bad actors spoiled it for the rest of you. Waa waa waa…grow up. Y’all can’t figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly. It’s sad that your “interests” seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others. It’s extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.
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.
Thanks!
Only rich people deserve the right to self defense eh?
Who’s gonna shoot you if mini-missles cost a grand? Defend yourself with something else.
People don’t sell untaxed smokes and booze, huh?
And those people get arrested. What aren’t we understanding here? Selling weapons of war should be easier than smokes or booze? What kind of logic is that?
Define weapons of war.
Because you have no other argument?
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
“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.
Good.
Now downvote and cry more.
Good.
Are you planning any mass shootings? Because that’s the only thing AR-15s and large magazines are good for.
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.
Now let’s watch CA push another law through the courts, wasting even more taxpayer money on lawyers defending failed legislation.
Why dont they just let those people get murdered?
Well they could try addressing systemic poverty, housing, and the mental health and addiction crises instead.
No?
Not going to do that either, huh?
No country on earth doesnt have mental health problems, homeless people arent doing any mass shootings, nor are any drugs causing people to mass murder. The US isnt unique in these metrics. Its very unique in gun availability.
The vast majority of “mass shootings” are gang violence.
And it isn’t unique in gun availability.
The typical American excess is the unique facet, not a large portion of the population being armed.
I dunno what else to tell you if you cant read numbers
A smaller mag ain’t fixing a single damn problem, pass something that actually matters like proper gun control and licensing
Less bullets=less victims. Licensing dont do shit to keep people from murdering.
If you think restricted magazines will change that at all, you’re sorely mistaken. Especially when you can just 3D print a magazine.
There are absurdly more guns than 3D printer users. Even when there is overlap, any kind of mechanical application is a big problem for 3D prints, with clearances and dimensions being a bit off, as well as being less durable. Shits pretty likely to just jam up.
We’re talking magazines, not full guns. Magazines are very simple, mechanically. And a properly calibrated 3D printer has very tight tolerances.
Plus, you can buy a 3D printer for like $100 that does well enough to make one.
And a properly calibrated 3D printer has very tight tolerances
Mmm no they dont. Resin print maybe, but thats just gonna shatter.
I have no idea why you think a resin printed magazine would shatter.
Do you know what a magazine is?
Also, I own a cheap 3D printer that would have absolutely no trouble printing a magazine
Cus ive done a lot of resin printing. Its a pretty brittle material not used for making parts for anything. Hell even a resin printed scope would probably shatter just from recoil.
I think your printed magazine would jam
What people?
