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.

  • fluke@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    arrow-down
    18
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    Going into this reply with the understanding that we both know that a perfectly legal reason for firearm ownership and use in the USA is self defence.

    So with that in mind, shooting isn’t easy. And people don’t just stop because you shot them once, or twice. Just take a look at the infinite examples where actually trained professionals have had to fire multiple accurate rounds to stop a threat.

    The issue isn’t with the weapons themselves (and contrary to your comment, belt fed weapons are no less legal to own than any other semi auto weapon) it’s with the restrictions to the individuals that can own them. The checks aren’t stern or thorough enough.

    If you take a step out of your US centric view for a moment you’ll realise that many countries in Europe have civilian gun ownership laws permitting all the same types of rifles and pistols and shotguns as the US. With all the same standard capacity magazines/optics/accessories. And yet very little to no firearm related deaths outside of organised/gang crime.

    It’s important to maintain perspective. You become extreme to the opposite then all it does is increase extremism and you achieve nothing.

    Edit: downvotes. Cool. Where am I factually incorrect or haven’t added to the conversation?

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      And people don’t just stop because you shot them once, or twice.

      Yes and no. A lot depends on both shot placement and the firearm being used. Centerfire rifles with bullets traveling more than 2200fps (roughly; some estimates say 2800fps) will stop a person much faster than a pistol, since the temporary wound cavity becomes a permanent wound cavity. But that’s going to be true for nearly any centerfire rifle, aside from old cartridges that were designed around black powder (e.g., .45-70); an AR-style rifle isn’t going to be more lethal than any other fast-moving centerfire rifle cartridge, it’s just a fairly lightweight and easy to use rifle compared to grandad’s M-1. Pistol cartridges can stop threats as effectively as rifles, but you require better shot placement, and you generally want to have defensive (e.g. hollowpoint) ammo. (There’s a reason that “failure to stop” AKA Mozambique drills are a good training tool.)

      So with that in mind, shooting isn’t easy

      A rifle is, for an able-bodied person, easier to shoot accurately and effectively than a pistol. Part of that is because you have a longer sight radius, and part of it is because you have a shoulder brace (…and a pistol with a shoulder brace is a short barrelled rifle, which is generally illegal without the BATF gittin’ all up in yo shit). It’s pretty easy, relatively speaking, to hit a target at 100y with a rifle, and very difficult with a pistol.

      many countries in Europe have civilian gun ownership laws

      Eh. Civilian gun ownership is difficult and expensive in many European countries. However, many European countries do have combined violent crime rates (defined as murder, robbery, forcible rape, and battery) significantly lower than the US. Violent crime, in general, is lower in Europe. So it’s not just that gun crimes are less likely, but that you’re also less likely to be sexually assaulted, or get jumped and beaten. There’s almost certainly something different going on in social conditions that make violent crime less likely, and that would make it less likely even if European countries had gun laws that were more relaxed.

      • fluke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        The discussion is about the pointlessness of the magazine restrictions. I’m aware of ballistics and the ease of different systems to shoot, but since it’s not about that, it wasn’t mentioned.

        And in regards to the final point, yes. That is literally what is being said.

    • Staple_Diet@aussie.zone
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      Oh mate, I thought my instance showed on my username. I’m in the regulated land of Oz so you don’t need to tell me how better controls would help the situation out. Nonetheless, I’m familiar with firearms via growing up on farms and military service.

      Agree with your points, but also I would love to see stats on successful use of firearms in self-defence vs homicides where victim was armed. Not raising that in a contentious way, just would be interesting to see whether mag capacity >10 is even a relevant factor in that situation. Most pistol mags would be 10-15, except revolvers of course so limiting capacity to 10 doesn’t really affect the outcome unless in a ridiculous situation as I outlined previous.

      • fluke@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        10
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 year ago

        The FBI say the median number of shots to end a citizen involved shooting is 6 rounds. That’s a person v person shooting.

        Would you still feel comfortable with a revolver knowing that there was a chance you would need to use it?

        Personally I don’t agree with the concept of weapons for citizen self defence (vs people), it getting to that point is a total and systematic failure of every system in place that lead to that point; from mental healthcare, to education. Law enforcement to the media broadcast. However the topic is the US, and they are what they are at present. And it’s a legally legitimate option.

        The fact that I am arguing is that magazine size is so completely irrelevant. It’s a quick fix easy sticky plaster political knee jerk, just like every other stupid and shitty ban or regulation.

        The fact is that you can’t ban gun in the US. It’s just impossible. There’s too many of them that any change in law in that regard would take generations to see effect and there are too many people that live in circumstances where there is a genuine reason for ownership and use (as you know living in Australia. Drop Bears).

        People in the US need to admit that the solution is from the bottom. Improving education, mental healthcare, reducing extremism, eradicating the constant divisiveness in everything, etc etc. These things have only really become real in the last 15 years against 100s of years of ingrained firearm ‘rights’. But that’s too hard. So just make a piece of plastic that’s a bit smaller than what it once was.

        • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          Improving education, mental healthcare, reducing extremism, eradicating the constant divisiveness in everything, etc etc.

          The overwhelming number of gun deaths that aren’t suicide are ordinary crime. Fixing the economic conditions that lead to crime would probably have the single biggest effect. Cramming tons of poor people into a small geographic area, and then ensuring that they have no realistic way out of poverty sure as shit hasn’t helped.

          Extremism creates orgies of violence, but poverty creates the daily grind of violence.

        • Staple_Diet@aussie.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          1 year ago

          The fact is that you can’t ban gun in the US. It’s just impossible. There’s too many of them that any change in law in that regard would take generations to see effect

          I find this a weak argument. Cigarettes and ICE cars were equally if not more so pervasive, and through legislation we have seen change occur to the use rates of both of those, albeit much slower in the case of the former.

          You are right in that effective gun regulation in the US will be a monumental task, but not impossible. It’s just the best time to have started was yesterday.

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

            Cigarettes are consumable. And ICE cars are naturally being phased out for EV examples, not being banned with no alternative.

            The examples are non sequitur.

            • Staple_Diet@aussie.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              1 year ago

              I referred to them as examples of societal mainstays that have been/are being phased out generationally. But true, it’s near impossible to find a good comparison.