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.

  • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    19
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    1 year ago

    Law should be struck down.

    • magazines are easy to return to 30/30 from a 10/30
    • only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law
    • background checks and waiting period should be automatic in the US to purchase. Period.
    • Guns should be registered.

    As a gun owner I in my opinion think that we should have sensible laws for firearms. Do we need fully auto firearms? No not really. Are semi auto rifles a great tool for people in the country side? Sure I understand they have different dangers compare to city folks. For people that saw they should charge high taxes to own guns. Look at Mexico it ain’t helping no one and makes it that the wealthy folks can afford firearms.

    Oh and if we do register firearms and your gun is found in the black market without you notifying that your firearm was stolen that should be a red flag. It’s an easy market to sell firearms when you buy from lax law states and they end up in Mexico.

    Lastly I know this is a stretch, but the US should be checking vehicles going to Mexico. Interesting that we only check coming back but not going. Firearms trafficking would be significantly reduced if we started checking.

    Last last thing, if you have kids and own a firearm and don’t secure it, a big fuck you. Putting kids in danger, you fuckin cucks.

    • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      Do we need fully auto firearms? No not really.

      Sure, but it’s not really about need and there’s nothing meaningfully different about them.

      Guns should be registered.

      You’re going to see much resistance to the notion of the state owning a registry of every individual owning a firearm and what they own. Allow for the concept of a paper trail of transfers especially where private-party transfers are legal, allow those to request NICS checks, and you’ll probably be set.

      Lastly I know this is a stretch, but the US should be checking vehicles going to Mexico. Interesting that we only check coming back but not going. Firearms trafficking would be significantly reduced if we started checking.

      Alternatively, we could address the root of the problem: Between 70 to 90 percent of guns recovered at crime scenes in Mexico can be traced back to the U.S. Drug cartels - there are policy changes we could enact to defang drug cartels while also helping enable addicts to seek the support they need.

    • ZzyzxRoad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law

      This is a fantastic argument for having no laws. Ever.

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        It isn’t. Right now it’s very difficult to tell the difference between a law abiding gun owner and a criminal gun owner. In the ‘defense’ scenario, they are literally pitted against one another.

    • DaBabyAteMaDingo@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Proud gun owner here. I’d like to see a more proactive approach to gun registration and some sort of yearly inspections for “assault rifles” - just to appease the ones that don’t know anything about guns. Kinda like how you would get “tags” on a car, if that makes sense.

      However, we should be able to own fully automatic firearms and silencers/suppressors, muzzle breaks and other “evil” attachments and modifications if the previously mentioned system is in place. The more capable and dangerous the machine, the more tests and certifications you’ll need to legally own them. AND we should have special firing ranges for these types of guns. Obviously this is not a realistic goal I’m *in this current system but I just want a MP5 :'(

      What would you say to something like this?

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Proud gun owner here. I’d like to see a more proactive approach to gun registration and some sort of yearly inspections for “assault rifles” - just to appease the ones that don’t know anything about guns. Kinda like how you would get “tags” on a car, if that makes sense.

        Hard pass. I have zero interest in the state having constant, perfect awareness of who is armed with what. This is not information they need to have, and in an era where law enforcement is constantly making headlines for abuses of power, this is information they should not have.

        Let’s consider a different extreme: I would counter that the best way to appease those who don’t know anything about firearms would be education; we should instead have yearly mandatory classes on firearms, safety, and proficient operation thereof. Remove the mystery and it’s much harder to be scared of scary black rifle.

        However, we should be able to own fully automatic firearms and silencers/suppressors, muzzle breaks and other “evil” attachments and modifications if the previously mentioned system is in place. The more capable and dangerous the machine, the more tests and certifications you’ll need to legally own them.

        I would be happy with a compromise position for select-fire so long as suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, etc. are fully-deregulated; I would instead suggest we implement the majority of what has been identified as actually addressing mass violence as the compromise point and require equitable shall-issue training and certification for select-fire. This is also what I’ve been suggesting blue team take up as a policy jiu-jitsu reversal for nearly a decade.

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

          100% agree. I’ve always said the cringiest thing about me is my love of guns. It truly is fashion accessories for men like purses lol

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      1 year ago

      only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law

      More or less accurate.

      background checks and waiting period should be automatic in the US to purchase. Period.

      Hard no. Background checks for guns? Sure. Waiting period? No. Absolutely not. Let me tell my stalked to just wait three weeks, 'kay? Cool? Cool.

      Guns should be registered.

      Absolutely not. We’ve already seen state governments trying to pass illegal bans (i.e., California). These are being overturned by courts now. If you have a registry, the net effect is that the state gov’t can pass a law, confiscate your now-illegal firearms, and then–once the law is thrown out–you’ve still lost your firearms.

      Agree, in general, about handling the black market sales to Mexico. However, that should be the job of the Mexican border patrol; they should be the ones controlling what’s coming in, rather than the US controlling what’s going out (except in the case of ITAR items). And yeah, we should get serious about prosecuting straw purchasers, since right now that’s usually not even a slap on the wrist.

      • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        Hard no. Background checks for guns? Sure. Waiting period? No. Absolutely not. Let me tell my stalked to just wait three weeks, 'kay? Cool? Cool.

        For this, if you have a stalker and you know this which is why you are trying to buy a firearm, there could exceptions. Police report needed to show the reason for protections. Emergency restrain orders could be another reason for the exception.

        Absolutely not. We’ve already seen state governments trying to pass illegal bans (i.e., California). These are being overturned by courts now. If you have a registry, the net effect is that the state gov’t can pass a law, confiscate your now-illegal firearms, and then–once the law is thrown out–you’ve still lost your firearms.

        Should be added to the law. If for whatever reason that gun that was legal and becomes illegal, government should pay double the retail price when bought to the owner. If over turned, there should be a automatic availability to buy the firearm with no waiting period for the person that previously had it.

        • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          Emergency restrain orders could be another reason for the exception.

          Would this be the same ERPO process often touted as a solution to unhinged individuals going on a rampage that almost never works due to the current slow process, general unawareness, and issues with restoration of rights?

          Try justifying the waiting period rather than creating some Rube Goldberg machine of negligible value.

          Should be added to the law. If for whatever reason that gun that was legal and becomes illegal, government should pay double the retail price when bought to the owner. If over turned, there should be a automatic availability to buy the firearm with no waiting period for the person that previously had it.

          You seem to miss that California has a rich and established history of using SLAP lawsuits and sandbag legislation specifically intended to require lengthy federal appeal and judgment to resolve, always with the next legislative measure ready to go no matter how unconditional.

          You seem to believe such states are operating in good faith - they’re not. Your suggestion only works if they are.

          Additionally, the state still has information it shouldn’t regarding civilians and ownersgip of firearms and has already demonstrated incompetence with such information resulting in leaks.

          I can respect the brainstorming, but the answer truly is to simply address the underlying issues behind individuals and the myriad pressures toward violence.

    • Blinx615@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      10
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year ago

      only affects law abiding citizens while criminals ignore the law

      We shouldn’t have laws because criminals won’t follow them

      • frezik@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        I can turn my AR-15 into a short barrelled rifle (which is only legal after a very lengthy and intrusive federal process) by simply screwing a new barrel on. If you don’t care about the law, the barrier to doing it is tiny. That’s what we mean when we say it only affects people operating in good faith with the law. It’s so easy to bypass that it’s questionable if we should bother.

        • Blinx615@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Do we have data that shows these laws have no impact? I would anticipate a lack of marketing and whatnot to have at least some benefit. Not all criminals necessarily know wtf they’re doing with a gun.

          • Jeremy [Iowa]@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            1 year ago

            I believe you have the burden backward - it’s on the state to show such a restriction is likely to have an impact so as to justify its existence.

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

        they really dont work though. inherently flawed and lackadaisically enforced. We need something Different. I do not know what that is. but its not awful to say things are not working as they are.

    • ColorcodedResistor@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      People need to Understand How Easy.

      a Shotgun with a 3rnd Limit, has just a rubber stopper. It can be unscrewed an removed as easy as taking in and out lead in a mechanical penicl. Now my shotgun has 7rnd tube cap in under 5mins.

      10rnd mags? they are 30rnd mags with rubber stoppers in them. yes…they make little shorty stacks. but to be legal. the rubber stopper is added. Why would a firearm manufacturer Create and Design a new mag when it can Legally add a simple fix.

      gun laws are absolute jokes. They Need to be Much more stringent, and i am a CCW owner. I own 3 I.D.s to carry. Im more a legal citizen than half of you cucks. the more hoops i jump through, the more untouchable legally with a gun i get. help me make myself more legal. Please.

      thats what youre doing with gun laws. making those who want them Legal and those who dont care are showing you the laws dont matter. a piece of paper and threat to do legsl action when someones got a gun in your face is not deterence.

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        1 year ago

        Oh shit they just stuff the mags with rubber? Lmao.

        I like hearing from actual gun owners and users on laws like this. Sometimes there is an ignorant perception that these laws will work in a certain way.

      • not_that_guy05@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        People need to Understand How Easy.a Shotgun with a 3rnd Limit, has just a rubber stopper. It can be unscrewed an removed as easy as taking in and out lead in a mechanical penicl. Now my shotgun has 7rnd tube cap in under 5mins.10rnd mags? they are 30rnd mags with rubber stoppers in them. yes…they make little shorty stacks. but to be legal. the rubber stopper is added. Why would a firearm manufacturer Create and Design a new mag when it can Legally add a simple fix.

        Which is why I am saying that this law should be removed and makes no sense at all.

        gun laws are absolute jokes. They Need to be Much more stringent, and i am a CCW owner. I own 3 I.D.s to carry. Im more a legal citizen than half of you cucks.

        Don’t know if you are offended or if you are talking about people complaining about getting checked, but if it’s the first. As a gun owner and a CCW, you leaving your firearms unsecured and unattended while kids are around, yes it makes you a cuck.

        thats what youre doing with gun laws. making those who want them Legal and those who dont care are showing you the laws dont matter. a piece of paper and threat to do legsl action when someones got a gun in your face is not deterence.

        What?

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

          i dont leave my guns out…why would i go through the trouble of getting and needing 3 I.D.s to pull amatuer garbage like that?..the what part, ill break down. Every time, i have to jump through, a legal measure (why do i have 3 IDs for a gun? legal hoops.) now because ive gotten those measures and IDs. You cant say anything to me other than ‘have a nice day legal and law abiding citizen’ …but now take a white niggardly fellow who steals a Saturday Night Special and jams it in your face. Are they worried about the Law? The Law that is written down, on a piece of paper,.in a cabinet somewhere. that is all Laws are…pieces of paper that have words written on em. if people follow that paper. Yay. if they dont…can we really blame them for such a deterrent?

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

      A gun owner with a lot of opinions about Mexico. That about tracks.

      • Franzia@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Did you read that carefully? The comment says the US should not allow the lawful trafficking of American registered guns into Mexico. I don’t think the second amendment protects Mexican cartels, tbh.