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.

  • ScornForSega@lemmy.world
    1·
    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.socialEnglish
      3·
      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
        1·
        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.socialEnglish
          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.