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.
I didn’t say anything about the militia, not sure why you’re referencing that. I provided the verbatim text, which doesn’t reference capacity.
Heller did not establish protections for magazine capacity, that’s what your image says. It’s not settled law, that’s why it’s being contested. This judge was overruled on appeal on this once before. Until it’s settled law the argument magazine capacity is protected is as valid as the argument it’s not.
Yes, in context for the 1790s the people had access to the same weapons as the standing army, of course they didn’t really have a lot of choice…
It’s almost like context changes over time and laws need to as well.
This is wrong. Bruen simply held that may issue states cannot use arbitrary evaluations of need to issue permits for concealed carry. Everything else is, by definition, debatable which is why this case is working its way through the courts.
Again, this is a dumb law and not at all representative of reasonable gun control but magazine capacity is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Not yet, at least.
And I provided the opinion from a ruling which directly addressed the most common but militia arguments.
I'll take a federal judge's opinion on the matter - one which aligns with what was clearly laid out in Heller - over yours, thanks.
You seem to be intentionally neglecting that SCOTUS vacated that and kicked it back down to be revisited in light of Bruen, resulting in… this exact ruling.
Which doesn't change the intent of parity was quite clear - another thing those pesky sources highlight for you.
Do you truly believe that's all that was established in Bruen? You seem to be intentionally ignoring the majority of the outcome of that e.g. the things that triggered this to be vacated and reheard - thus this judgement we're discussing.
And the federal judges disagree with you.
Is the 9th circuit court of appeals not federal? Of course that was 2017, but since the Supreme Court vacated it and Judge Benitez ruled the same way again it’s settled law right? The ban is no longer in effect because the case is finished with this ruling, right?
What state is your BAR license from? I’d like to see how their requirements compare to mine.
Are you pretending the supreme court is not federal? Is, perhaps, devoid of authority?
You seem to be burying your head in the sand and trying to avoid that the supreme court which vacated it did so in light of a ruling which rendered the 9th circuit's ruling invalid, specifically due to Benitez' ruling.
California has appealed, as they always do. The 9th circuit may or may not accept it; it may or may not continue up to the Supreme Court.
Are you under the impression settled law is somehow sacred and fixed? That, say, there has never been any occurrence of settled law being revisited in light of better or changed understanding of an issue? Interesting.
Are you pretending the supreme court's continued establishment of precedent on an issue is meaningless?
Oh, interesting - you cannot manage to address let alone refute an argument, so you… appeal to the authority of education as proving that your unsupported position is somehow unassailable? If your law degree was somehow issued by an entity other than Bullshit University, I have serious concerns about its worth given your apparent lack of familiarity with things covered by even high school debate.
I see, you’re on of those internet “experts” without the education or background experience to support it. Thanks, I guess I wasted my own time with you.
And yet, one you hold as without education or background experience appears to be more qualified to discuss this subject - let alone engage in constructive discourse - than you. That's got to chap.
It's ironic you say these things, unable to actually make any pointed criticisms of points raised and unable to defend your own bland, unsupported assertions. It's delicious you seek to deflect and commit the fallacy of attacking a presumed lack of education.
But hey - at least you've got that hypothetical appeal to authority to fall back on. Cling tightly to that as you continue to shitpost from an imagined ivory tower.