Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds
Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds
A federal judge has struck down a California law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. U.S.
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're viewing part of a thread.
Fine argument. Please also remember that militia in the context of the 2A references what is now the national guard.
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.
So after age 45 they lose their right to guns? Also, with the code definition a “well regulated” militia would be the organized militia:
A “well-regulated” militia simply meant that the processes for activating, training, and deploying the militia in official service should be efficient and orderly, and that the militia itself should be capable of competently executing battlefield operations.
However you want to argue the Constitution the claim that a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity is protected is dubious at best. The 2nd amendment really needs to be revised for modern times but it won’t likely happen in any of our lifetimes.
At this point it’s a race between whether the US falls apart first or the youth that survive the battlegrounds that are public schools, concerts, malls, public transportation etc. in the US decide they’re tired of being shot and killed and come together to quash the remaining resistance to changing it.
Some people seem to have trouble with the english in the second, so I started writing it in relation to something else to illustrate how the sentence structure works.
A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.
So, in the above revision, who would you say has the right to keep and eat food, "the people" or "a well balanced breakfast?" Clearly, as "breakfast" is a concept and incapable of "ownership," "the people" is the answer. It stays the same gramatically if you plug in "regulated militia" for "balanced breakfast" and "guns" for "food," the first part is clarifying the reasoning for them delineating the right's importance, the scond part is delineating the right itself and who has it.
It isn't saying you're only allowed to eat breakfast, it's saying that breakfast is important, and as such, your right to keep food in your fridge/pantry and cook/eat it to your specifications shall not be hampered by the government.
I disagree. I think the well regulated militia and the people are connected. The people have the right to bear arms because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State.
The average person is not a part of a “well regulated militia” but a member of the National Guard is. The broad interpretation would make more sense if the US was like Switzerland or another country with mandatory service/training.
I do agree the second amendment gives the right “to the people” because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state but there’s a dependency there that’s ignored in modern times. When the constitution was written the militia was all able bodied men but it’s not anymore, that role is filled by National Guard.
If it were a prerequisite, it would say
A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
But it doesn't, it specifically delineates "the people" as those with the right to arms.
Furthermore, under the definition of militia as per the US Gov, able bodied male citizens age 17-45, and those who wish to be citizens in that same age group, that would mean women dom't have the right to bear arms.
Also, from the wikipedia article on the second,
The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[13][14]
Clearly, the intent wasn't to give the National Guard, a subsect of the US Military, the power to fight itself.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then. The National Guard didn’t exist when the constitution was written, neither did rifles with 30+ detachable box magazines.
I find it fascinating how often specifically this argument boils down to “this is what it meant literally 230 years ago and is exactly how it should be applied now”.
I agree, I prefer the argument that "everyone deserves the right to defend themselves so long as they haven't proven they're a danger to others, and presumption of innocence is how our court system works thankfully, so only those convicted of violent crimes should be barred from ownership." Problem is everyone likes to argue about the intent, which still seems not to be "let the army have guns." I agree, we shouldn't have a standing army.
everyone deserves the right to defend themselves
Full stop. The problem is people equate firearms with defense. Firearms are not defensive, they are offensive weapons.
those convicted of violent crimes should be barred from ownership
Why? The second amendment protects the rights of “the people to keep and bear arms”. Are those not people? Let’s restrict the 2nd amendment rights of some people, but not others?
Either all amendments should be treated as literally as possible for the time they were written or they should all be interpreted in a modern view that accounts for 230 years of change and advancement.
we shouldn't have a standing army.
Great! Let’s get rid of it, use its budget to fund more social programs. We can change to the militia style military and gun control laws of Switzerland.
Firearms are not defensive, they are offensive weapons.
No, the difference is who the aggressor is.
Why? The second amendment protects the rights of “the people to keep and bear arms”. Are those not people? Let’s restrict the 2nd amendment rights of some people, but not others?
Fuck it, I'd rather them be able to have em too than nobody, fine you win. I figured you probably would agree with that one though.
Great! Let’s get rid of it, use its budget to fund more social programs.
Sure
We can change to the militia style military and gun control laws of Switzerland.
No.
Fuck it, I'd rather them be able to have em too than nobody, fine you win. I figured you probably would agree with that one though.
This highlights the absurdity of the absolutist 2nd amendment take.
We can change to the militia style military and gun control laws of Switzerland.
No
Of course not because the argument in the US isn’t pro vs anti 2nd amendment. It’s between people that value their guns over loss of life and those willing to see more restrictions to prevent loss of life. In fact, we have such a bad gun problem in the US that 70 percent of firearms reported to have been recovered in Mexico from 2014 through 2018 and submitted for tracing were U.S. sourced.
We’re so good at gun violence we export it.
A well regulated diet is a much better example, but it destroys your argument. It also goes right into the same ethos as people demanding their high capacity magazines and 64 oz sodas.
How does that destroy anything? A diet is still a concept that lacks the ability to "own." It still isn't dependant on the well balanced diet, the well balanced diet is simply the reason for delineating your right to keep and eat food.
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.
The militia was renamed to the national guard in 1903.
Part of the militia is the National Guard. The rest is us able-bodied males aged 17-45.
Please also remember that militia in the context of the 2A references what is now the national guard.
Lol, I love how people like you just say things and assume they are true.
They don't assume anything, they've been told how to interpret it so that's what they do.