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.

  • Staple_Diet@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    1 year ago

    Oh mate, I thought my instance showed on my username. I'm in the regulated land of Oz so you don't need to tell me how better controls would help the situation out. Nonetheless, I'm familiar with firearms via growing up on farms and military service.

    Agree with your points, but also I would love to see stats on successful use of firearms in self-defence vs homicides where victim was armed. Not raising that in a contentious way, just would be interesting to see whether mag capacity >10 is even a relevant factor in that situation. Most pistol mags would be 10-15, except revolvers of course so limiting capacity to 10 doesn't really affect the outcome unless in a ridiculous situation as I outlined previous.

    • fluke@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      The FBI say the median number of shots to end a citizen involved shooting is 6 rounds. That's a person v person shooting.

      Would you still feel comfortable with a revolver knowing that there was a chance you would need to use it?

      Personally I don't agree with the concept of weapons for citizen self defence (vs people), it getting to that point is a total and systematic failure of every system in place that lead to that point; from mental healthcare, to education. Law enforcement to the media broadcast. However the topic is the US, and they are what they are at present. And it's a legally legitimate option.

      The fact that I am arguing is that magazine size is so completely irrelevant. It's a quick fix easy sticky plaster political knee jerk, just like every other stupid and shitty ban or regulation.

      The fact is that you can't ban gun in the US. It's just impossible. There's too many of them that any change in law in that regard would take generations to see effect and there are too many people that live in circumstances where there is a genuine reason for ownership and use (as you know living in Australia. Drop Bears).

      People in the US need to admit that the solution is from the bottom. Improving education, mental healthcare, reducing extremism, eradicating the constant divisiveness in everything, etc etc. These things have only really become real in the last 15 years against 100s of years of ingrained firearm 'rights'. But that's too hard. So just make a piece of plastic that's a bit smaller than what it once was.

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Improving education, mental healthcare, reducing extremism, eradicating the constant divisiveness in everything, etc etc.

        The overwhelming number of gun deaths that aren't suicide are ordinary crime. Fixing the economic conditions that lead to crime would probably have the single biggest effect. Cramming tons of poor people into a small geographic area, and then ensuring that they have no realistic way out of poverty sure as shit hasn't helped.

        Extremism creates orgies of violence, but poverty creates the daily grind of violence.

      • Staple_Diet@aussie.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        The fact is that you can't ban gun in the US. It's just impossible. There's too many of them that any change in law in that regard would take generations to see effect

        I find this a weak argument. Cigarettes and ICE cars were equally if not more so pervasive, and through legislation we have seen change occur to the use rates of both of those, albeit much slower in the case of the former.

        You are right in that effective gun regulation in the US will be a monumental task, but not impossible. It's just the best time to have started was yesterday.

        • fluke@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Cigarettes are consumable. And ICE cars are naturally being phased out for EV examples, not being banned with no alternative.

          The examples are non sequitur.

          • Staple_Diet@aussie.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

            I referred to them as examples of societal mainstays that have been/are being phased out generationally. But true, it's near impossible to find a good comparison.