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.
You are ridiculous. Try responding to any of the arguments I quoted and put in bold.
It was you that threw up a linked and said "Duke says," no context, no quotes, no arguments.
My article contains undisputed facts.
Fact: there was no individual right before the bill of rights, in any state constitution, or in any system of English law, so how could there be one after the Bill of Rights?
Fact: for a few decades before the second amendment was written, there is no surviving text in which the usage of "bear arms" clearly refers to an individual right, and in 95% of the usage it refers expressly to the context of regimented military.
Fact: the self defense and home defense argument are utterly delusional in light of the actual statistics that offensive and suicide uses to defensive usage is 50 to 1.
Fact: the placement of the phrase "well regulated military" evidence a clear original intent for the second amendment to exist to serve the purpose of protecting state government, a purpose that does not suggest an individual right.
You are trying to revise actual history as this and the weight of all law review articles on the subject demonstrate.
You find me one instance of the phrase "bear arms" prior to 1776 suggesting clearly an individual right, and you might have a leg to stand on. You cannot.
We're still waiting for your responses to the arguments raised. You don't get to ignore the arguments made and then complain waaah respond to the arguments - out of an abundance of good will, I've addressed your source itself and highlighted its myriad flaws.
I see you haven't bothered to glance it over. That, at least, confirms the suspicions regarding your failure to do so.
See the previous comment regarding what these actually say. You seem to have just skipped right over that - perhaps continuing your trend of either not reading or failing to comprehend what one has read.
Your source does not seem to support your position in any way.
Both of which were quite clearly addressed by the previous comment - the one you seem to have not actually read.