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.
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.