A federal judge has struck down a California law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. U.S.

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.

  • BombOmOm@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1820·
    1 year ago

    Now to lift the ban on belt fed firearms so Americans can really live free (or at least those who aren’t … female)

    Sounds we should get rid of those laws that ban women from owning and operating firearms! /s

    • Fondots@lemmy.world
      174·
      1 year ago

      If you interpret the 2nd amendment to only grant the right to keep and bear arms to members of the militia (not saying if that’s a right or wrong interpretation, but that’s a somewhat common argument I’ve seen,) there potentially is an interpretation that most women would not be included in that, because we have an actual definition of what constitutes the militia of the United States.

      10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA
      §246. Militia: composition and classes
      (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

      (b) The classes of the militia are—

      (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

      (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

      Section 313 of title 32 basically extends the age to 65 for former members of the regular army/navy/Marines/air force

      So more or less, it would apply to members of the national guard (which includes some women) and all able-bodied men ages 17-45 (65 for former military,) and some states have laws defining a state militia that may or may not come into play.

      Such an interpretation would also mean a whole lot of older men or anyone who isn’t able-bodied also wouldn’t be covered by the 2nd amendment.

      I’m no legal scholar, I don’t know if that interpretation would hold any water under scrutiny, but the same could be said for a lot of laws that we’re stuck with.

      And again, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t a good interpretation, it isn’t my interpretation, but it’s one that someone could potentially come up with from reading the laws as written.

      • BombOmOm@lemmy.worldEnglish
        66·
        1 year ago

        And again, I’m not saying that it is or isn’t a good interpretation, it isn’t my interpretation, but it’s one that someone could potentially come up with from reading the laws as written.

        It is also the interpretation that has been proven in court to be incorrect. Both lingustic and historical readings demonstrate it is the right of the people to keep and bear arms, not the right of the militia to keep and bear arms. The poster above has no grounds to stand on in arguing that women do not have a right to keep and bear arms.