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.

  • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
    23·
    10 months ago

    Every constitutional right has limits. There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies. You certainly don’t need that many rounds to bring down a deer. What high capacity firearms do allow is criminals to maximize the damage they do in a short period of time.

    • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.socialEnglish
      4·
      10 months ago

      There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds.

      Asserting a negative - bold strategy. I’d be interested in seeing your support for such a position.

      I frequently legally use standard capacity magazines at the shooting range, though, so you may have a hard time here.

      More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies.

      Is this one of those Works Cited: Crack Pipe moments?

      What high capacity firearms do allow is criminals to maximize the damage they do in a short period of time.

      Ah - so you only care about mass shootings, the vast minority of firearm violence let alone homicide.

    • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
      2·
      9 months ago

      Every constitutional right has limits.

      Generally, I would be inclined to say yes, but things become more tricky when the constitutional right in question specifically states “Shall not be infringed”. That being said, the limits in question could certainly lie within the definion of “Arms”, and “bear”.

      There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don’t happen in self defense situations. It’s just a fiction from movies. You certainly don’t need that many rounds to bring down a deer.

      Don’t forget the original intent of the 2nd Amendment (I encourage you to read the Federalist Papers, to hear it striaght from the source) was to ensure that the people have the capability to resist their own government. Without a populace who believes in it, and will defend it with force if need be, a constitution is no more than a piece of paper, and a dream. Pay close attention to the wording of the 2nd Amendment:

      A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

      As well as how it would interract with what was stated in the declaration of independence:

      […] We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. […]

      • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
        1·
        9 months ago

        It is important to remember that prior to the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was understood to only apply to the states, not the federal government. The 2nd when written was never intended to apply to the federal government. Another important distinction is the use of the term “bears”. A person hunting deer is not “bearing arms”. A soldier bears arms. It is a term specifically that refers to fighting for a state, not self defense or any generalized use of weapons. In short, the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent states from disarming militias in order to preserve the ability to assemble a national military. It has nothing to do with one person defending themselves against another.

        • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
          1·
          9 months ago

          It is important to remember that prior to the 14th amendment, the Bill of Rights was understood to only apply to the states, not the federal government.

          You raise a good point about the 14th Amendment. I would argue that it even further enforces the idea that the states, individually, cannot create firearm legislation as it would violates the 2nd Amendment, which, in turn, violates the 14th Amendment.

          Another important distinction is the use of the term “bears”. A person hunting deer is not “bearing arms”. A soldier bears arms.

          While I do agree that paying attention to the exact terminology used is crucial to the Amendment’s interpretation, from what I can see, the definition that you stated is not without contention.

          • ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
            1·
            9 months ago

            I would argue that it even further enforces the idea that the states, individually, cannot create firearm legislation

            I agree which is why we need a federal ban on high capacity weapons.

            the definition that you stated is not without contention

            The roundness of the Earth is under contention too.