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.
Perhaps you're not an American? Perhaps you don't know the history of your own country?
From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.
Former chief justice Warren Burger called this out in 1991. That's what conservatism used to look like. What you're parroting is NRA propaganda. It's unprecedented and it's insane.
Perhaps you’re not an American? Perhaps you don’t know the history of your own country?
Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country. You obviously care way too much about the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, considering that the Second Amendment doesn't apply to or affect you at all.
From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.
-
That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment. It doesn't matter what Jefferson and Madison intended, because the text of the amendment, a legal document, prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. You can't change your mind without amending the document, just like you can't arbitrarily go and change a contract agreement after you've signed it.
-
Same thing. Just because it happened doesn't mean it was legal. Source: 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution
-
The NFA is so illegal. The ATF needs to be abolished and the NFA should be overturned or repealed. There is no way to reconcile the NFA with the 2nd Amendment.
Man, I hate it when Europeans chime in about the Second Amendment. You really have no idea what you're talking about.
Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country.
Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.
- That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment
Wrong again. The second amendment had nothing to do with gun control until the 20th century.
It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.
The NRA actually lobbied in favor of the 1934 NFA. Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.
Just because you say something is illegal doesn't make it so.
You need to read more.
Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.
v.
Just because you say something ... doesn’t make it so.
Nice.
Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.
Had me fooled.
It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.
"the people" refers to an individual right everywhere else it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And regardless, "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" doesn't mention national defense.
Just because you say something is illegal doesn’t make it so.
It's not illegal because I say it is, it's illegal because it infringes upon an enumerated right that the Bill of Rights explicitly states may not be infringed upon. This is pretty basic English comprehension.
You need to read more.
Hehe, nice try. Educate yourself and then try again with more compelling arguments.
Hehe, nice try. Educate yourself and then try again with more compelling arguments.
You'll note they're entirely unable to do so. I give it ~1 day until they try an I've got a degree therefore I'm right ploy on you, too.
We'll see. I've got a degree of my own, so that won't be much of a pwn though.
doesn’t mention national defense.
WTF do you think "necessary to the security of a free State" means?
It's really clear in the Virginia Constitution what the point is:
" That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
That's not really relevant. The United States Constitution is a separate document.
National defense is a red herring. The enumerated right is that of the people to keep and bear arms. One need not be doing so for the purpose of national defense in order to exercise this right.
-
I'd argue handwaving away rejections of your own nonsense - which appears to hinge on anything but the actual amendment and its intent - as mere "NRA propaganda" is both actively preventing useful, rational discourse and highlighting the extent to which you retreat behind your own biases rather than confront being wrong.
Ooh, cherry picking from a Heller lawyer, I'm sure that's unbiased.
edit: I liked the part where he mentions the first draft of the Virginia state constitution but not the final draft, but then omits the first draft of the US constitution. Delicious cherries.
Another one: The use of "bear arms" in an 18th century context almost always meant "in military service." Scalia even acknowledges this, but says only when used in "bear arms against."
But it doesn't matter. Halbrook points out that the Pennsylvania declaration of independence says: "That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State." Ok. Why is "in defense of themselves" a specifically enumerated right? Because the term "bear arms" doesn't apply to self-defense otherwise.
And self-defense was not the point of the second amendment, the security of a free state was.
I guess it makes a lot of sense when you just ignore all counterfactual evidence.
It's simple. For 220 years, this was not an individual, unlimited right. Then Scalia hand waved away two centuries of precedent and decided the text magically aligned with his activist agenda.
Ooh, cherry picking from a Heller lawyer, I’m sure that’s unbiased.
I'm not sure how referencing something directly relevant to the subject and the quibbling about its intent. Perhaps you could walk us through that reasoning.
edit: I liked the part where he mentions the first draft of the Virginia state constitution but not the final draft, but then omits the first draft of the US constitution. Delicious cherries.
Another one: The use of “bear arms” in an 18th century context almost always meant “in military service.” Scalia even acknowledges this, but says only when used in “bear arms against.”
You... do understand picking two references out of the entire document is actually cherry picking, right? Are you seriously so blatantly trolling?
But it doesn’t matter. Halbrook points out that the Pennsylvania declaration of independence says: “That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State.” Ok. Why is “in defense of themselves” a specifically enumerated right? Because the term “bear arms” doesn’t apply to self-defense otherwise.
And self-defense was not the point of the second amendment, the security of a free state was.
You do understand these two ideas are incompatible, right? Even aside from how that quite clearly highlights the intent was not just "defense of the state". Had you bothered to read to the following page, you'd have seen that - but I suppose that's not really in line with your cherry-picking, is it?
I guess it makes a lot of sense when you just ignore all counterfactual evidence.
Irony.
It’s simple. For 220 years, this was not an individual, unlimited right. Then Scalia hand waved away two centuries of precedent and decided the text magically aligned with his activist agenda.
Rather, it was not interpreted as such; its intent has always been quite clear.
It's simple, once put in a position to have to do more than rely on previous precedent, referring to the actual history of the amendment required course correction.