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.
Touchy issue.
I come from a country with no gun rights, at least not for civilians.
A spare magazine is not a restricted article. Anyone can buy or make. If the matter is 10 rounds, well, you can have as many mags as you want.
Or, have a big mag with fillers in it for inspection. When you step outside the police or whatever office, you just take those fillers out.
Wouldn't the fillers be obvious just by looking at it? It's not like magazines are bigger than they need to be.
If we are talking about a pistol, like a Glock, the magazine needs to be a certain length and can't be shorter.
Something like an AR15 or AK pattern rifles can be shorter so as to only allow 10 rounds.
Pistols are used for the large majority of multiple casualty shootings.
And many handguns have come with 15-18 rounds magazines, the standard for decades. It's ludicrous to ban the standard size, with hundreds of millions out there. Even if everyone obeyed this law, three criminals breaking into your house have 30 rounds to get you, and you have 10 rounds to try to take them out. Yup, problem solved.
This argument is such a weird US-only take.
Does crime only occur one-on-one in a other countries?
Probably not, but I've also never met anyone who justified owning a gun by having fantasies of shooting up people.