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.

  • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.socialEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    And “team red” takes $16 million a year from the gun lobby and are adamant the solutions just coincidentally align with what’s most profitable.

    Ah, I see we’re forgetting about Bloomberg and his profiteering off of sensationalism of violence.

    Of course you would be, because you’re looking for excuses to do nothing, especially excuses that might take decades to prove wrong.

    Feel free to highlight any comment I’ve made where I suggest doing nothing.

    Take all the time you need.

    You want a half solution that doesn’t impact you, not an actual solution.

    In point of fact, I quite explicitly argue for actual solutions.

    • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      1·
      1 year ago

      Ah, I see we’re forgetting about Bloomberg and his profiteering off of sensationalism of violence.

      Yeah who knows why he bothers with the abstraction when he can just take bribes directly from the gun lobby. Maybe he’s secretly bankrolled by a shady lobby group representing school children and abused partners.

      Feel free to highlight any comment I’ve made where I suggest doing nothing.

      You’re a representative of the pro-gun community, using their talking points to push their agenda, making you a representative of them. If that label upsets you, it sounds like a problem you should take up with them.

      In point of fact, I quite explicitly argue for actual solutions.

      Did you even read your own link? They openly acknowledge that changes to gun need to be a key part of the solution since “curing everybody of violence forever” is 100 years away.

      Accessing someone’s past behaviour and restricting or denying them guns accordingly? Congratulations, you’ve invented red flag laws and background checks that actually check backgrounds, 25 years later than everyone else. Go forth and spread the word to your pro-gun brethren and try not to reflect on who could have been saved

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.socialEnglish
        1·
        1 year ago

        Yeah who knows why he bothers with the abstraction when he can just take bribes directly from the gun lobby. Maybe he’s secretly bankrolled by a shady lobby group representing school children and abused partners.

        I’m not sure I’d call it abstraction given it’s literally his media business, but hey, whatever makes you feel better.

        You’re a representative of the pro-gun community, using their talking points to push their agenda, making you a representative of them. If that label upsets you, it sounds like a problem you should take up with them.

        Oh, I see - generalizations are okay when they’re your generalizations.

        I’m not sure how you interpret an actual focus on actual problem solving as a pro-gun agenda - a rational individual would reflect and consider that when basic problem solving is given a demeaning label, it might be indicative of a bad opinion on the matter. Let me know when you get to that point.

        you even read your own link? They openly acknowledge that changes to gun need to be a key part of the solution since “curing everybody of violence forever” is 100 years away.

        And you’re confused by this… how?

        Accessing someone’s past behaviour and restricting or denying them guns accordingly? Congratulations, you’ve invented red flag laws and background checks that actually check backgrounds, 25 years later than everyone else. Go forth and spread the word to your pro-gun brethren and try not to reflect on who could have been saved

        Ah, so two things we already have, excellent

        We can then proceed to the rest of the preventative measures and actually improve some lives, eh?