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.

  • Poob@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    96
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    1 year ago

    Magazine size laws aren’t really effective at doing anything. Up in Canada you can’t have a rifle magazine with more than 5 rounds. However, almost all of the magazines are full size magazines that have been modified to hold fewer rounds. All of the responsible owners leave them at 5, but with a minute or two of work you could turn most of them into full size again. We don’t have mass shootings every day.

    Gun violence in America is a culture issue. You’re broken.

    • mctoasterson@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      49
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      A magazine is literally just a box of certain geometry with a spring inside it. They can be 3D printed or made by hand. No government anywhere can stop the signal. Instead we need to focus on the cultural rot that made narcissists decide it was OK to assault random strangers.

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

      In addition to this, there is no limitation on the magazine size for rimfire longuns in Canada.

      [source] With some exceptions, there is no limit to the magazine capacity for:

      • semi-automatic, rim-fire long guns
      • other long guns that are not semi-automatics
    • librechad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      One of the hillbillies I know have a fully automatic M14 with a 20 round magazine from the Korean War. It was a pleasure to fire that thing.

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        21
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The most effective part of our gun laws is preventing violent offenders from obtaining a license (and maybe having a license to start with, I guess).

        Beyond that, almost every other part of our laws are a ridiculous dog and pony show meant to appease some group or other in some way that’s usually completely ineffective.

        • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          3
          ·
          1 year ago

          What particular laws have been “completely ineffective”? How are you measuring that efficiency, if not by comparing to countries without them?

          We get it, gun owners get salty because they’re not allowed all the toys they want. Their natural state is “tantrum” from America to Canada to Australia to the UK.

          But that’s too bad for them. While they may decided that increased risk of people being murdered is fine because they don’t think it will be their family, those countries have decided that their hurt feelings aren’t as important as other people’s lives.

          And oh look, they’re way better places to send you kids to school or walk around at night. Who’d have fucking known?

      • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        No. Canada has a whole host of prohibitions, and restrictions. The sale and transfer of handguns was recently made illegal (source), in 2020, 1500 models of what the Canadian government deemed to be an “Assault Rifle” were banned (source), Canada has extreme restrictions on the transportation of “Restricted Firearms” (handguns are an example of this) in that, to be able to transport them, you must obtain an “Authorization to transport”, to be able to carry a “Restricted”, or “Prohibited” firearm, one must obtain an “Authorization to Carry” (unless, possibly, it is for wilderness protection (source)), and, as outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Firearms Act, there are also many restrictions on the general transport, handling, storage, display, and transfer of firearms. Not to mention that in addition to all of this, as outlined in the Firearms Act, every firearm owner must be licensed for the use of “non-restricted” firearms (Possession and Acquisition License, PAL), and “restricted” firearms (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License, RPAL), respectively. The acquisition of each of these licenses requires a 1 day course, the successful passing of both a practical, and written exam, and a background check performed by the RCMP. After filling out, and submitting one’s application, the prospective firearm owner’s application, as mandated by legislation, will sit idle with the RCMP for a 28-day cooldown period. Only after that cooldown period has completed will they begin to process one’s application, which can then take much longer depending on the speed of the government at any given time.

        I can provide no guarantee that this list is exhaustive.

      • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Gun deaths in Canada isn’t exactly in a good place, it’s just way better than the US.

        It’s also mostly a problem caused by guns smuggled in from the US, where it’s far too easy for people with bad intentions to get guns.

        • CoderKat@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Yeah, 85% of traceable guns used for crime came from the US. Our asshole neighbours refusal to get their shit together is killing Canadians because they consider their right to kill black people knocking at their door to outweigh the good of everyone else.

          And then if we criticize them, they’ll tell us to mind our own business, as if it’s a harmless hobby that doesn’t hurt anyone else.

          Yeah, I know, I’m being a little over the top in this comment, but all I can do is air frustrations. Guns are like every other issue conservatives care about. You’ll never change their mind. The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.

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

            Lmao are you really shifting blame from the Canadian criminal to the American gun? You really believe the criminal wouldn’t have committed the crime without a gun? Like above nothing short of a total ban will impact crime, and that’s not going to happen for a few reasons. We are all frustrated from crazies killing people but the solution isn’t in the guns, we need to treat the person.

            Also you seem a bit brain washed thinking gun owners just want to kill black people. Maybe you should think hard about that line and who gains from you believing that.

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

            Hold up. Canada’s failure to manage its borders is our issue? This, even aside from how you apparently only care that crime was committed with those darn American handguns rather than that crime was committed. Aren’t you supposed to be the country doing better?

            Also, what’s this about right to kill black people? Is this more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?

            The US is too many school shootings in to admit they have a problem.

            When either party is willing to actually address underlying issues, feel free to revisit that high horse.