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.

  • BaldProphet@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    1 year ago

    The Second Amendment doesn’t say that it only applies to guns with 3-round magazines or muskets. It applies to all arms.

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

      Ah yes, because the authors could have foreseen personal arsenals, rampant use of guns in crimes, etc. Bullshit argument, that.

      It applied to the arms that existed at the time. Funny how 2A’ers are simultaneously originalists (they meant guns for everyone!) and then shun the framework in which the original 2A was written - single fire rifles for protection on the frontier, protecting a growing nation without a large standing military, and to put food on the table.

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

        The Second Amendment is a legal document. The only legal way to change it’s meaning (that the right of the people to keep arms shall not be infringed) is to amend it to limit the definition of “arms”. As written, the Second Amendment covers all weapons, and at the time of its ratification that included modern naval warships and artillery pieces.

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

          When you can’t win the framing of the argument, go for technically correct. IOW, I do care what they thought, it says I get to have a fuckton of guns and a battleship. Must be disappointing to not be able to own a personal and navy for some.

          You’re not gonna bend me. The 2A has been bastardized and fucked over as a political football and twisted to allow people to have personal arsenals. Guns were a tool. Fuckers have turned them into statements and fashion accessories.

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

            As long as the government has them, I need them. Disarm the government and I’ll be marginally more open to compromise.

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

              I’m not opposed to owning firearms at all. Disarm the government? Guess you want anarchy, and/or mob justice.

              The truly fucked up thing is gun owners are so obsessed with firearms they let everything else slip away. Once they’ve taken everything else they can, they’ll come for the guns too. You’ll finally be right, but you’ll be dead. Fat lot of good that’ll do. Damn fool idea to be so myopic that guns are gonna defeat the government - and for that matter, what a shit world it’s gonna be if people are ever actually put in a position where they have to do so. They just skip to the end where they win in the imaginary battle. But what did they win? The right to be an ostracized and impoverished pocket surrounded by an enemy. Yay?

              “Against the government” has to be one of the worst arguments ever.

              • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                3
                ·
                1 year ago

                The truly fucked up thing is gun owners are so obsessed with firearms they let everything else slip away.

                I wonder if you’re aware the extent to which this is deliciously ironic.

                  • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    arrow-down
                    3
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Once more with the delicious irony.

                    I’m interested in your thoughts on how I’ve elevated authoritarians; you seem to know quite a bit about who I’ve voted for… or to be talking out your ass once more.

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

            You’re not gonna bend me.

            That is generally the case when one is operating on sheer, blind faith rather than an understanding of the subject.

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

              lol, I grew up with firearms, and still own some. Your declaration of my understanding doesn’t make it so. Blind faith? I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at. Save your thoughts and prayers for the next person.

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

                lol, I grew up with firearms, and still own some.

                You do understand the as an [X]/hello fellow kids is pretty transparent, right?

                Your declaration of my understanding doesn’t make it so.

                It is, rather, your showing your lack of understanding in various comments that shows it is so.

                Blind faith? I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at. Save your thoughts and prayers for the next person

                Yes, you do. While I enjoy the implied conservative lean - I always enjoy when a rando demonstrates the extent to which they’re partisan biased and irrational - you miss in your assumption.

                I’d argue I care more about this problem than those of you do cannot help but make bland insults when faced with disagreement and who cannot manage to actually try identifying and solving problems amidst their rants and hyperbole.

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

      A piece of plastic is not an arm.

      Doesn’t matter if it’s a 30 round magazine or a bump stock.

      This idea that somehow the second amendment is unlimited is unprecedented and insane.

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

        I mean… perhaps you aren’t a native English speaker? The text of the law is literally unlimited. Any weapon restriction is an infringement of the right to keep and bear arms.

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

          Perhaps you’re not an American? Perhaps you don’t know the history of your own country?

          From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.

          Former chief justice Warren Burger called this out in 1991. That’s what conservatism used to look like. What you’re parroting is NRA propaganda. It’s unprecedented and it’s insane.

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

            Perhaps you’re not an American? Perhaps you don’t know the history of your own country?

            Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country. You obviously care way too much about the freedoms enjoyed by Americans, considering that the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to or affect you at all.

            From Jefferson and Madison banning guns on campus to gun control being commonplace in the old west to the 1934 NFA that outlawed sawed off shotguns to the 1986 NFA that banned full-autos, it has never been unlimited.

            1. That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment. It doesn’t matter what Jefferson and Madison intended, because the text of the amendment, a legal document, prohibits the government from infringing on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Period. You can’t change your mind without amending the document, just like you can’t arbitrarily go and change a contract agreement after you’ve signed it.

            2. Same thing. Just because it happened doesn’t mean it was legal. Source: 2nd Amendment, U.S. Constitution

            3. The NFA is so illegal. The ATF needs to be abolished and the NFA should be overturned or repealed. There is no way to reconcile the NFA with the 2nd Amendment.

            Man, I hate it when Europeans chime in about the Second Amendment. You really have no idea what you’re talking about.

            • ScornForSega@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              Ok, we have now established that I am debating with someone from a different country.

              Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.

              1. That ban is illegal per the Second Amendment

              Wrong again. The second amendment had nothing to do with gun control until the 20th century.

              It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.

              The NRA actually lobbied in favor of the 1934 NFA. Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.

              Just because you say something is illegal doesn’t make it so.

              You need to read more.

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

                Gangsters with street sweepers is not responsible gun ownership.

                v.

                Just because you say something … doesn’t make it so.

                Nice.

              • BaldProphet@kbin.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                Wrong. American and from the south, no less. 0 points for you ad hominem attack.

                Had me fooled.

                It was widely understood to be a collective right to provide for the national defense.

                “the people” refers to an individual right everywhere else it is mentioned in the Bill of Rights. And regardless, “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed” doesn’t mention national defense.

                Just because you say something is illegal doesn’t make it so.

                It’s not illegal because I say it is, it’s illegal because it infringes upon an enumerated right that the Bill of Rights explicitly states may not be infringed upon. This is pretty basic English comprehension.

                You need to read more.

                Hehe, nice try. Educate yourself and then try again with more compelling arguments.

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

                  Hehe, nice try. Educate yourself and then try again with more compelling arguments.

                  You’ll note they’re entirely unable to do so. I give it ~1 day until they try an I’ve got a degree therefore I’m right ploy on you, too.

                • ScornForSega@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  doesn’t mention national defense.

                  WTF do you think “necessary to the security of a free State” means?

                  It’s really clear in the Virginia Constitution what the point is:

                  " That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defence of a free State; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided, as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."

                  • BaldProphet@kbin.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    2
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    That’s not really relevant. The United States Constitution is a separate document.

                    National defense is a red herring. The enumerated right is that of the people to keep and bear arms. One need not be doing so for the purpose of national defense in order to exercise this right.

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

            I’d argue handwaving away rejections of your own nonsense - which appears to hinge on anything but the actual amendment and its intent - as mere “NRA propaganda” is both actively preventing useful, rational discourse and highlighting the extent to which you retreat behind your own biases rather than confront being wrong.

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

              Ooh, cherry picking from a Heller lawyer, I’m sure that’s unbiased.

              edit: I liked the part where he mentions the first draft of the Virginia state constitution but not the final draft, but then omits the first draft of the US constitution. Delicious cherries.

              Another one: The use of “bear arms” in an 18th century context almost always meant “in military service.” Scalia even acknowledges this, but says only when used in “bear arms against.”

              But it doesn’t matter. Halbrook points out that the Pennsylvania declaration of independence says: “That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State.” Ok. Why is “in defense of themselves” a specifically enumerated right? Because the term “bear arms” doesn’t apply to self-defense otherwise.

              And self-defense was not the point of the second amendment, the security of a free state was.

              I guess it makes a lot of sense when you just ignore all counterfactual evidence.

              It’s simple. For 220 years, this was not an individual, unlimited right. Then Scalia hand waved away two centuries of precedent and decided the text magically aligned with his activist agenda.

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

                Ooh, cherry picking from a Heller lawyer, I’m sure that’s unbiased.

                I’m not sure how referencing something directly relevant to the subject and the quibbling about its intent. Perhaps you could walk us through that reasoning.

                edit: I liked the part where he mentions the first draft of the Virginia state constitution but not the final draft, but then omits the first draft of the US constitution. Delicious cherries.

                Another one: The use of “bear arms” in an 18th century context almost always meant “in military service.” Scalia even acknowledges this, but says only when used in “bear arms against.”

                You… do understand picking two references out of the entire document is actually cherry picking, right? Are you seriously so blatantly trolling?

                But it doesn’t matter. Halbrook points out that the Pennsylvania declaration of independence says: “That the people have a right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State.” Ok. Why is “in defense of themselves” a specifically enumerated right? Because the term “bear arms” doesn’t apply to self-defense otherwise.

                And self-defense was not the point of the second amendment, the security of a free state was.

                You do understand these two ideas are incompatible, right? Even aside from how that quite clearly highlights the intent was not just “defense of the state”. Had you bothered to read to the following page, you’d have seen that - but I suppose that’s not really in line with your cherry-picking, is it?

                I guess it makes a lot of sense when you just ignore all counterfactual evidence.

                Irony.

                It’s simple. For 220 years, this was not an individual, unlimited right. Then Scalia hand waved away two centuries of precedent and decided the text magically aligned with his activist agenda.

                Rather, it was not interpreted as such; its intent has always been quite clear.

                It’s simple, once put in a position to have to do more than rely on previous precedent, referring to the actual history of the amendment required course correction.

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

          Who wrote that, Benitez?

          He’s making shit up and he knows it.

          I’m sure you guys won’t complain if every magazine, optic and accessory is required to ship to an FFL for paperwork before getting to the customer. 'Cause they’re “arms” now, right?

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

            Who wrote that, Benitez?

            He’s making shit up and he knows it.

            That’s an interesting assertion - especially given the lack of actual criticism of his ruling and its arguments.

            This wouldn’t be denial, would it?

            I’m sure you guys won’t complain if every magazine, optic and accessory is required to ship to an FFL for paperwork before getting to the customer. 'Cause they’re “arms” now, right?

            You might want to revisit his provided statement on the matter - it wasn’t very ambiguous.

            That said, you’re certainly welcome to try to push for such - SCOTUS has a history of slapping down such ban-incrementalist measures lately and I suspect that such a laughable overreach is more likely to result in erosion of FFL processes and requirements.

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

              That’s an interesting assertion - especially given the lack of actual criticism of his ruling and its arguments.

              Really. He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism. He’s legislating from the bench.

              You might want to revisit his provided statement on the matter - it wasn’t very ambiguous.

              And you might want to link it. I just guessed.

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

                He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism.

                Is that what he did? Reclassify?

                I’m increasingly confident you haven’t actually read any of it and are just talking out of your ass.

                He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism.

                Ah, so you are just straight-up full of shit. Fair enough. Way to own it. You don’t see that often.

                I was pretty sure I’d referenced the ruling in this comment chain, but on the off chance I haven’t, here’s the relevant part. Also, here’s where it was already provided.