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 a single thread.
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.
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.
Rather, the very nature of arbitrary restrictions - for absolutely no gain - is quite enough 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.
Any step which encroaches upon rights without direct tie to solving a problem should be resisted. Have you considered Democrats could, say, literally anything other than big scary rifle and big scary standard mags?
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?
Given these measures are well-understood as entirely ineffective yet pushed for, it is similarly well-understood there will be further restrictions as nothing will change with the identified problem - how could it, given the measures aren't in any way an addressing of those issues? Thus, we're left with a road to bans via incrementalism.
I would imagine after Roe v. Wade's pivot, you'd understand how relying on but SCOTUS isn't sound strategy - one must, instead, reject politicians pushing for such arbitrary, unhelpful measures rather than enabling the incompetence and erosion.
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.
It would be fair to say politicians are proposing changes; they're unfortunately proposing the wrong ones - neither party is currently willing to consider anything outside their respective side of the wedge issue.
Blue team could entirely win here, were they willing to abandon their ivory tower - they refuse to do so. That failing is on them and no one else.
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.
Rather, the very nature of arbitrary restrictions - for absolutely no gain - is quite enough 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.
Any step which encroaches upon rights without direct tie to solving a problem should be resisted. Have you considered Democrats could, say, literally anything other than big scary rifle and big scary standard mags?
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?
Given these measures are well-understood as entirely ineffective yet pushed for, it is similarly well-understood there will be further restrictions as nothing will change with the identified problem - how could it, given the measures aren't in any way an addressing of those issues? Thus, we're left with a road to bans via incrementalism.
I would imagine after Roe v. Wade's pivot, you'd understand how relying on but SCOTUS isn't sound strategy - one must, instead, reject politicians pushing for such arbitrary, unhelpful measures rather than enabling the incompetence and erosion.
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.
It would be fair to say politicians are proposing changes; they're unfortunately proposing the wrong ones - neither party is currently willing to consider anything outside their respective side of the wedge issue.
Blue team could entirely win here, were they willing to abandon their ivory tower - they refuse to do so. That failing is on them and no one else.
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.