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.
No, it really doesn't. Under Federal Law 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
deleted by creator
If it were a prerequisite, it would say
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,
Clearly, the intent wasn't to give the National Guard, a subsect of the US Military, the power to fight itself.
deleted by creator
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.
deleted by creator
No, the difference is who the aggressor is.
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.
Sure
No.
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.