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.
Law should be struck down.
As a gun owner I in my opinion think that we should have sensible laws for firearms. Do we need fully auto firearms? No not really. Are semi auto rifles a great tool for people in the country side? Sure I understand they have different dangers compare to city folks. For people that saw they should charge high taxes to own guns. Look at Mexico it ain't helping no one and makes it that the wealthy folks can afford firearms.
Oh and if we do register firearms and your gun is found in the black market without you notifying that your firearm was stolen that should be a red flag. It's an easy market to sell firearms when you buy from lax law states and they end up in Mexico.
Lastly I know this is a stretch, but the US should be checking vehicles going to Mexico. Interesting that we only check coming back but not going. Firearms trafficking would be significantly reduced if we started checking.
Last last thing, if you have kids and own a firearm and don't secure it, a big fuck you. Putting kids in danger, you fuckin cucks.
Sure, but it's not really about need and there's nothing meaningfully different about them.
You're going to see much resistance to the notion of the state owning a registry of every individual owning a firearm and what they own. Allow for the concept of a paper trail of transfers especially where private-party transfers are legal, allow those to request NICS checks, and you'll probably be set.
Alternatively, we could address the root of the problem: Between 70 to 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico can be traced back to the U.S. Drug cartels - there are policy changes we could enact to defang drug cartels while also helping enable addicts to seek the support they need.
Which is why I said need, not really. I am not saying to banned them either. We don't need a lot of things in life, but doesn't mean we don't want them. Which also goes back to country folks having different needs compared to city folks. I get that there's going to be a lot of resistance against it, there will always be resistance in everything.
Yes I believe that manufacturers have a responsibility especially when they are making narco like firearms to cater to that kind of life. (Talking about all those gold, diamond, and graphic firearms.) (No I'm not talking about the laser ingrave grips LARPS want to get.)
From reading your article, wouldn't the serial registration also help prevent US drug cartels from spamming mexico with ghost guns, which could be traced back to crime organizations? Wouldn't that dammed one of the toxic rivers and help bring attention too other rivers?
The entire premise to the ghost gun fearmongering is the lack of traceability - "serial numbers" aren't part of it.
I somehow suspect a cartel manufacturing firearms isn't going to bother registering it before trafficking it to Mexico. So, no - it would be entirely ineffective.
No, but it could stop some from buying from actual legal stores. If they are being manufactured illegal (ghost guns) that would be a different game plan. I am focusing more on the legal way to buy firearms and move them to Mexico. Like you said it is a multifaceted issue but repairing like cracks here there will help reinforce other parts of the issue.
That would be the entire point to the existing straw purchase legislation - which would be a better place to start, if such avenues are demonstrably the actual problem.
Addressing symptoms will never be as effective as addressing root issues, you'll just feel better about negligible impact. That's the problem.
This is a fantastic argument for having no laws. Ever.
It isn't. Right now it's very difficult to tell the difference between a law abiding gun owner and a criminal gun owner. In the 'defense' scenario, they are literally pitted against one another.
We shouldn't have laws because criminals won't follow them
This is only a good argument if the conduct regulated by the law is bad in and of itself.
I can turn my AR-15 into a short barrelled rifle (which is only legal after a very lengthy and intrusive federal process) by simply screwing a new barrel on. If you don't care about the law, the barrier to doing it is tiny. That's what we mean when we say it only affects people operating in good faith with the law. It's so easy to bypass that it's questionable if we should bother.
Do we have data that shows these laws have no impact? I would anticipate a lack of marketing and whatnot to have at least some benefit. Not all criminals necessarily know wtf they're doing with a gun.
I believe you have the burden backward - it's on the state to show such a restriction is likely to have an impact so as to justify its existence.
deleted by creator
It's an extremely weak argument for this very reason
deleted by creator
Oh shit they just stuff the mags with rubber? Lmao.
I like hearing from actual gun owners and users on laws like this. Sometimes there is an ignorant perception that these laws will work in a certain way.
Could you clarify your position? It's hard to tell if this is rant, sarcasm, or satire.
Got the same from the comment. Engagement is what is needed in this issue.
deleted by creator
Lol, fair enough.
Which is why I am saying that this law should be removed and makes no sense at all.
Don't know if you are offended or if you are talking about people complaining about getting checked, but if it's the first. As a gun owner and a CCW, you leaving your firearms unsecured and unattended while kids are around, yes it makes you a cuck.
What?
deleted by creator
More or less accurate.
Hard no. Background checks for guns? Sure. Waiting period? No. Absolutely not. Let me tell my stalked to just wait three weeks, 'kay? Cool? Cool.
Absolutely not. We've already seen state governments trying to pass illegal bans (i.e., California). These are being overturned by courts now. If you have a registry, the net effect is that the state gov't can pass a law, confiscate your now-illegal firearms, and then–once the law is thrown out–you've still lost your firearms.
Agree, in general, about handling the black market sales to Mexico. However, that should be the job of the Mexican border patrol; they should be the ones controlling what's coming in, rather than the US controlling what's going out (except in the case of ITAR items). And yeah, we should get serious about prosecuting straw purchasers, since right now that's usually not even a slap on the wrist.
For this, if you have a stalker and you know this which is why you are trying to buy a firearm, there could exceptions. Police report needed to show the reason for protections. Emergency restrain orders could be another reason for the exception.
Should be added to the law. If for whatever reason that gun that was legal and becomes illegal, government should pay double the retail price when bought to the owner. If over turned, there should be a automatic availability to buy the firearm with no waiting period for the person that previously had it.
Would this be the same ERPO process often touted as a solution to unhinged individuals going on a rampage that almost never works due to the current slow process, general unawareness, and issues with restoration of rights?
Try justifying the waiting period rather than creating some Rube Goldberg machine of negligible value.
You seem to miss that California has a rich and established history of using SLAP lawsuits and sandbag legislation specifically intended to require lengthy federal appeal and judgment to resolve, always with the next legislative measure ready to go no matter how unconditional.
You seem to believe such states are operating in good faith - they're not. Your suggestion only works if they are.
Additionally, the state still has information it shouldn't regarding civilians and ownersgip of firearms and has already demonstrated incompetence with such information resulting in leaks.
I can respect the brainstorming, but the answer truly is to simply address the underlying issues behind individuals and the myriad pressures toward violence.
Nope not ERPO, opposite of that. The person that is in fear of their life with proof showing merit, can bypass the waiting period. Using proof of restraining order submission (using copies and receipt) and police report all attainable same day.
I get what you mean by the leaks. Brainstorming is better and trying to implement an action is better than being "all in or nothing" and nothing being done. Some ideas could be good with others being not so great.
So a continuation of the pattern of when minutes count, help is only hours away commonly highlighted of law enforcement and related bureaucracy?
I disagree. Implementing actions by hope alone is not likely to be ineffective and, even considering the possibility of the incredibly rare sunset provision, would unavoidably be infringements without sufficient justification.
We've already done much to understand these problems outside the scope of partisan posturing. The current issue is neither party is willing to change their position even the slightest.
Consider, for example, the items highlighted by the previous article. Blue team has addressed zero of the items aside from the last-ditch firearm measures. There's so much potential for improvement here it's hard to fathom. Some of these measures are unavoidably infringements; they're at least supported by data and analysis.
Blue team has the unique opportunity to completely turn firearms messaging against Red team, should they actually care about these issues. They can come to the table asking for these measures which actually address underlying issues and, rather than quibbling about pushback and giving up, offer compromise - that they're so absolutely confident in these measures, they're willing to admit there's no point to the NFA provisions restricting suppressors/SBRs/SBSs and no data justifying it; these measures are so effective in actually solving root issues they're willing to allow more firearms - deregulating select fire, with some sort of equitable shall-issue process. But, the restrictions come with sunset provisions - if the comprehensive solution doesn't meaningfully impact things, the restrictions, the added safety nets, etc. all go away.
Blue team suddenly becomes the only party in a decade actually promoting firearm enthusiast interests, turning that voting bloc neutral/blue. They absolutely will want these and will pressure and select representatives accordingly. Blue team also manages to pass the first significant gun control reform, social safety net expansion, community resource expansion, etc. in decades in a massive win with their supporters. Red team has nothing to lose as the sunset provision provides ample safety net for rolling things back. Everyone gets most of what they actually want and we manage to actually improve lives.
Naturally, this also entirely defangs a potent inflammatory wedge issue both parties depend on while reducing the desperation they depend on, so it'll never happen.
Heh. Pretty much nailed it.
The only real problem is that so much of gun violence comes down to societal problems that are not quickly solved, and both sides have an interest in not solving. For instance, cramming a lot of poor people into a small geographic area (e.g., inner cities) results in violence. To fix the underlying problem, you'd need to eliminate poverty and economic inequality. "But that's communism!" is what one side is going to say, even though it would have a marked effect on the reduction of violence and crime across the board.
To be fair though, even in areas where Blue Team has an absolute supermajority, they still don't address the underlying issues. So I don't think that it's reasonable to say that Team Blue wants to help people, and Team Red doesn't; Team Blue says they do, and then don't, while Team Red doesn't care, and does nothing.
Violence isn't a simple problem. Taking the tools of violence doesn't solve the underlying issues that cause violence.
Proud gun owner here. I'd like to see a more proactive approach to gun registration and some sort of yearly inspections for "assault rifles" - just to appease the ones that don't know anything about guns. Kinda like how you would get "tags" on a car, if that makes sense.
However, we should be able to own fully automatic firearms and silencers/suppressors, muzzle breaks and other "evil" attachments and modifications if the previously mentioned system is in place. The more capable and dangerous the machine, the more tests and certifications you'll need to legally own them. AND we should have special firing ranges for these types of guns. Obviously this is not a realistic goal
I'm*in this current system but I just want a MP5 :'(What would you say to something like this?
Hard pass. I have zero interest in the state having constant, perfect awareness of who is armed with what. This is not information they need to have, and in an era where law enforcement is constantly making headlines for abuses of power, this is information they should not have.
Let's consider a different extreme: I would counter that the best way to appease those who don't know anything about firearms would be education; we should instead have yearly mandatory classes on firearms, safety, and proficient operation thereof. Remove the mystery and it's much harder to be scared of scary black rifle.
I would be happy with a compromise position for select-fire so long as suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, etc. are fully-deregulated; I would instead suggest we implement the majority of what has been identified as actually addressing mass violence as the compromise point and require equitable shall-issue training and certification for select-fire. This is also what I've been suggesting blue team take up as a policy jiu-jitsu reversal for nearly a decade.
I'm all for it. Serial# attachment and register it to the person that will own it. Again if that attachment is found in the black market or with someone that is not suppose to have it, red flag and background check the original owner. We are more reactionary than preventives which is counterproductive when it comes to safety.
You bought a firearm? Show that you can handle it and clear it responsively. Don't know how to handle one? Go take a day at a firing range and familiarize yourself and get certified. This will also remove any doubt of "mishandling" discharge.
Man you gun nonces are weird.
100% agree. I've always said the cringiest thing about me is my love of guns. It truly is fashion accessories for men like purses lol
A gun owner with a lot of opinions about Mexico. That about tracks.
Did you read that carefully? The comment says the US should not allow the lawful trafficking of American registered guns into Mexico. I don't think the second amendment protects Mexican cartels, tbh.