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.
The most effective part of our gun laws is preventing violent offenders from obtaining a license (and maybe having a license to start with, I guess).
Beyond that, almost every other part of our laws are a ridiculous dog and pony show meant to appease some group or other in some way that's usually completely ineffective.
Exactly, it's very hard to respect the anti gun crowd when they focus on banning things that don't even matter beyond comfort or aesthetics. It's just all feel good bs that does nothing but hinder the average joe
Do you know why it's hard to respect the pro-gun crowd?
Because when a legal gun owner in Ulvade used a legally purchased gun to mutilate a room full of children beyond recognition and the entire world asked "What can we change to stop this from happening?", do you know what their pro-gun community replied?
"I don't know, maybe something to do with doors or mental health. All I know is that the gun laws in Texas are brilliant, if not too strict. There is nothing I would have changed and selling guns to someone with a history of rape threats and animal abuse is exactly what the founding fathers wanted".
But yeah sorry we don't know the intricacies of your little trinkets.
If you actually cared as much as you act like you do, you would educate yourself about these "little trinkets".
Exactly. They act like they know everything and ignore when you try to educate them. Banning any feature of a gun isn't going to matter, nothing short of a full on ban is going to put a dent in shootings and that's just not going to happen without civil war.
Arguably addressing root issues would have profound effect… though I tend to agree it won't happen without civil war, given the current state of partisan politics and waves vaguely at this post
it's very hard to respect the anti-gun crowd? because they focus on banning things that don't matter?
like focusing on red flag laws so nutbags don't buy rifles, abusive fucks don't keep their handguns? yeah none of that matters. you fuckwit.
it's impossible to have any respect for the pro-dead-children crowd. you cretins deserve so much worse.
They want due process to have their personal property taken from them? Man. That’s just crazy!
Removed by mod
Oh come on. Literally nobody is pro firearms for domestic abusers, let’s get off that straw man.
The justice system in this country is, and always has been, built on the premise that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
This isn’t merely important for guns. It’s important for every aspect of criminal justice.
mass murder after mass murder after mass murder and you're just fine with things how they are.
You seem to be making quite the set of assumptions.
Those of us in favor of firearm ownership do actively want change - but you might be surprised to hear we want changes which actually address underlying issues rather than nonsense about magazine capacities and scary black rifle.
Removed by mod
Cool. No one cares.
Did you have a point anywhere in that rant and hyperbole?
Ah, very rational.
It might surprise you to learn I'm quite the proponent of actually addressing underlying issues rather than clutching pearls about sCaRy bLaCk RiFLes.
You'll note this is the second time I've provided such an analysis - it seems you didn't bother to actually check before violently abusing your keyboard.
Your bullshit link doesn't do shit to reduce the number of firearms, bolo. You still can't recognize there's a math problem here and clutch to your premise even though it's flawed. Gonna block you now, because you're dumber than dogshit and genuinely aren't interested in stopping kids from getting murdered.
If someone has a nuclear warhead in their personal possession, I want the government to take it from them as well.
Nobody needs a gun, and if you do to feel safe you must accept you live in a shithole country.
Yeah, as a leftist who likes guns for fun, survival, self defense, and theoretical political unrest… I still think it’s ridiculous we don’t have gun licenses in the US. Or a gun ownership registry.
Bans restrict freedom for everyone.
License and registration lets you maintain that freedom for most, but still restrict it where necessary (e.g. crime, mental health), and more easily track and punish those who misuse firearms.
What particular laws have been "completely ineffective"? How are you measuring that efficiency, if not by comparing to countries without them?
We get it, gun owners get salty because they're not allowed all the toys they want. Their natural state is "tantrum" from America to Canada to Australia to the UK.
But that's too bad for them. While they may decided that increased risk of people being murdered is fine because they don't think it will be their family, those countries have decided that their hurt feelings aren't as important as other people's lives.
And oh look, they're way better places to send you kids to school or walk around at night. Who'd have fucking known?