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.
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.
This highlights the absurdity of the absolutist 2nd amendment take.
Which is why I think the "what the founding fathers intended" argument isn't necessarily the best path.
It’s between people that value their guns over loss of life and those willing to see more restrictions to prevent loss of life
Except it isn't though. We already have a large amount of gun laws, and we don't properly enforce those. We could start doing that, and paying attention to the root causes of the violence rather than one of many tools people use to do harm by focusing on either A) completely ineffective feel good laws that solve nothing or B) completely totalitarian laws that restrict our rights and generally disproportionately affect marginalized POC communities.
But no, gotta ban standard capacity magazines which are in 95% of people's firearms and make them disadvantaged in a deadly force encounter in which they would need full capacity. Doesn't matter that criminals could just buy a few regular followers or file the limiter down so they have full capacity but I can't because I am not running away if I have to use it in defense, so I'll get caught unlike them. Doesn't matter that a mass shooter can just put in another mag and keep shooting since there isn't anyone returning fire, so the law only affects people carrying for self defense since they are limited on how many mags they can carry unless they want to lug around a bookbag or a trenchcoat like the school shooters.
The law can just be a dumb law, it doesn't mean I support school shootings or some such nonsense argument you'd use to discredit me, you just support bad laws because "guns bad" and I actually think about their impact or lack thereof.
And how many of those firearms were provided by the ATF? What, two or three separate fucktons? I can't remember. There was the first one, then fast and furious, then I think another.
you just support bad laws because "guns bad" and I actually think about their impact or lack thereof.
But I don’t, I just don’t fetishize guns like many Americans The US has topped 500 mass shootings in 2023 already and is second in total gun deaths only to Brazil. In contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation.. You’re right though, let’s not restrict firearms any further, that clearly doesn’t work. Such gross willful ignorance.
It may "work" if we go with the totalitarian options sure, especially if we forget about the 600,000,000+ guns already out and trillions of rounds to go with them, and the people who don't want to relinquish those, but feature bans which are by and large what the legislators push are completely meaningless.
feature bans which are by and large what the legislators push are completely meaningless
In this we agree. The magazine ban in question is dumb and will serve little purpose in curbing gun violence.
It may "work" if we go with the totalitarian options sure, especially if we forget about the 600,000,000+ guns already out and trillions of rounds to go with them
Reasonable advocates for greater gun control aren’t looking for “totalitarian” control. They’re arguing for controls that won’t demonstrate great impact until long after we’re all dead and gone. They’re looking for greater accountability and more checks and balances on the purchase side.
Accountability is the big one in my opinion. If you own a gun and keep it loaded and unsecured and it is stolen and used to harm or kill others you should bear responsibility, even if it was reported stolen. If, however, you own a gun and take reasonable measures to secure it, with a gun lock or in a safe etc., and it’s stolen and used to harm or kill others you should not be responsible.
There is often such focus on individual freedom regarding firearms in the US that individual responsibility falls by the wayside.
Responsible, legal gun owners shouldn’t be impacted by greater accountability. They would be inconvenienced by reduced ease of acquisition but that should be minor things like waiting periods and more thorough checks.
One thing that should not happen with reasonable gun control is additional taxes like NFA stamps. Want to own an M2A1 Browning? Sure, just apply, then be subject to a thorough background check, mental evaluation and 1 year waiting period. You’ll also need to prove secure storage to a minimum standard for that type of weapon. The cost for the check and evaluation is born by the government, it’s their restriction after all, but you bear the cost of the storage and purchase of the weapon.
That’s just a for example off the cuff but that’s what reasonable gun control is. It’s not denying the right or taking currently legally owned guns away, it’s ensuring your right to bear arms does not pose a risk to others right to safety.