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.

    • SupraMario@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      19
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      This is like saying the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a barrel on the rifle, or that it uses smokeless power or only muzzle loading muskets…go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.

      • KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        4
        ·
        1 year ago

        go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.

        The Constitution is explicit in regards to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…” This isn’t even remotely the case with the Second Amendment. There’s more truth to constitutionally allowing direct physical threats and defamation, which are considered not protected by the First Amendment, than there are magazine sizes, lmao.

        I think what trips up a lot of people, especially Americans, is the idea of something not being black and white. Just because the First Amendment talks about speech and the Second Amendment talks about guns doesn’t mean it’s a black and white, when you have this unfettered right to speech and guns. Something being in a gray area makes Americans very confused.

        • BaldProphet@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          The Second Amendment is even clearer than the First: “the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Any law that even borders on restricting the right of the people to own and use weapons is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment.

                • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  2
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Quote the rest of the definition - you seem to be intentionally missing the an introductory statement part.

                  It does provide context, that’s true - thus, it’s neither the right nor a restriction on it.

                  You’re far dumber than you think you are.

                  Given your rants, insults, and absolute lack of points made… I’ll give that due consideration.

      • swiftcasty@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        10
        ·
        1 year ago

        Pornography is protected under the first amendment, and sharing it via the internet is allowed. Child pornography is illegal and should stay illegal. Similarly there are other forms of speech that are criminal and should stay criminal, such as death threats. I think you would agree that these are reasonable regulations on our free speech.

        Here’s an example on the gun side: in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, bump stocks were used, allowing one man to kill 60 people and injure an additional 867 (just to confirm this is not a typo: 927 people were killed or harmed). Bump stocks were banned in 2018. The bump stock ban seems justified to me, does it seem justified to you?

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          12
          arrow-down
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, as knee-jerk reactions to a single facet of an outlier event are absurd.

          As an comparison, your highlight of child porn is due to the actual harm of actual abuse - the thing is banned because it cannot exist without traumatizing and abusing children. Your highlight of an outlier shooting is really the highlight of the potential harm of a future event - the thing might maybe be used for harm.

          Most of us don’t live our lives in terror of inanimate objects or overrepresented and oversensationalized events.

          • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            Point of fact: child pornography is obscene–and not covered by 1A–even if no real people are harmed. I’d have to dig up the law (I think it dates to the mid-90s), but it’s pretty broad. Lolicon may be illegal by itself, even though drawings don’t generally cause direct harm. At least one person has been convicted of obscenity for comics, albeit not lolicon. It is *likely that even AI-generated child pornography, even though it wouldn’t involve real children, would end up being ruled obscene.

            Personally, I would take your position; images and depictions of child pornography that don’t involve actual minors should not be obscene and therefore illegal, regardless of how distasteful and repellent they are.

            • BaldProphet@kbin.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              Real child pornography should only be illegal because of the harms it represents. The text of the First Amendment would clearly protect victimless obscenity.

            • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              1 year ago

              Interesting - I was not aware of that. I’ll have to dig up the law and related rulings - I suspect the judges’ opinions on the matter would help clarify the reasoning for arriving at such a stance and would help me understand if, say, they might be due to mimicry of that actual harm and actual abuse, etc.

              I appreciate that highlight.

              • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                I truly don’t know. In the case I linked to–and it’s just the Wikipedia article–SCOTUS declined to hear the case. So it’s good case law at the moment.

                Maybe if someone could get an obscene comic banned that was drawing about Nazis, our current SCOTUS would overturn it in favor of 1A rights…

          • WoahWoah@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            arrow-down
            9
            ·
            1 year ago

            Most of us don’t live our lives in terror of inanimate objects or overrepresented and oversensationalized events.

            If you say so.

        • theyoyomaster@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          It is worth pointing out that in the Las Vegas shooting the investigation never concluded if he actually used the bump stocks. Some of the guns had them installed but with his amount of preparation and knowledge of firearms he could have just as easily modified them to be fully automatic. During the course of the investigation they specifically prohibited the ATF from inspecting any of the weapons for modifications and merely said that the use of the bump stocks was a possibility, not a fact. The bottom line is it isn’t known one way or another if he actually used them, he might have but the firing rate was more consistent than most bump firing.

      • TenderfootGungi@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        14
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Guns work fine with smaller magazines. They do not work fine without a barrel.

        Edit: and I say that as someone that owns several guns. That are in a gun safe at a family members because I have kids and not a great place to store them.

        • SupraMario@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          15
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Tell that to the FBI and LEOs who run double stack mags because it keeps you in the fight. Tell that to the military…hell tell that to a hog hunter…or the pregnant woman who is having to defend herself from a home break in.