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.

    • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      94·
      1 year ago

      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.

        • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          42·
          1 year ago

          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.

            • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              33·
              1 year ago

              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.

                • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                  33·
                  1 year ago

                  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.