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
    5
    ·
    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
      5
      ·
      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.

    • librechad@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      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.

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

      • ikidd@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        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.

        • ApostleO@startrek.website
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          7 months ago

          Yeah, as a leftist who likes guns for fun, survival, self defense, and theoretical political unrest… I still think it’s ridiculous we don’t have gun licenses in the US. Or a gun ownership registry.

          Bans restrict freedom for everyone.

          License and registration lets you maintain that freedom for most, but still restrict it where necessary (e.g. crime, mental health), and more easily track and punish those who misuse firearms.

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

          Exactly, it’s very hard to respect the anti gun crowd when they focus on banning things that don’t even matter beyond comfort or aesthetics. It’s just all feel good bs that does nothing but hinder the average joe

  • Staple_Diet@aussie.zone
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Yeah, how are Americans meant to shoot and kill the 11 intruders that come into their bedroom at night as they sleep if their AR-15 mag is limited to 10 rounds.

    Good to see common sense prevail. Now to lift the ban on belt fed firearms so Americans can really live free (or at least those who aren’t brown, black, female, queer, progressive, poor or school children).

    • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      1 year ago

      Gun rights are also trans rights. And gay rights. It’s also veeeeeeeeeery interesting how interested the state is in making sure that certain groups of people aren’t armed, e.g., black and brown people.

      I’m guessing that you haven’t heard of The Pink Pistols or Operation Blazing Sword, or heard the saying, “armed queers bash back”. You might be vaguely aware that MLK Jr. was denied the right to a pistol permit (back when many states in the south had ‘may issue’ laws, rather than ‘shall issue’), and as a result was usually surrounded by people that were armed, because this non-violent stuff’ll get you killed.

      • CoderKat@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I’m gonna be honest here. That is an extremely American comment. You guys aren’t exactly the pinnacle of LGBT rights. Far more trans people are killed by guns than save themselves thanks to a gun. Defending guns is killing people and visible minorities are the most at risk.

        What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like? And why would you think more guns are the solution when countries like Canada so inarguably better than you at this without the guns (we’re still very flawed and have a long way to go, but I’m so glad I’m not American and feel bad for my LGBT friends in the US)?

        And why focus on homicides when suicide is by far the bigger cause of death? Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide. To be clear, the real solution we need is cultural acceptance because studies show that having an accepting environment massively reduces the suicide risk, but access to guns 100% makes it worse!

        I know there’s something about having access to a means to protect yourself that gives some measure of psychological safety. But studies are at best inconclusive or at worst straight up say you’re more likely to be killed if you own a gun, so there is no real safety. And I assure you that an even better way to feel safe is to reduce how many guns other people have.

        Again, I’m sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well. But I think opinions like yours are literally killing people. I expect conservatives to love guns and I don’t think anything will convince them, but I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise.

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

          That is an extremely American comment.

          That’s likely because I’m an American, living in the US, and subject to US laws and court rulings. Like the one that you’re commenting on.

          Far more trans people are killed by guns

          Sounds to me like more trans people need to get strapped, because the cops sure as fuck don’t care about them. I’m guessing that you’ve avoided reading about anarchists and groups like the various John Brown Gun Clubs defending drag queen story hours and groups feeding homeless people?

          What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like?

          Well, I certainly wouldn’t vote for Texas or Florida. But I also wouldn’t vote for Illinois, because I’ve known queer people in Chicago that have been the victims of attacks, and I’ve seen just how few fucks the cops give. Here’s the blunt truth: cops aren’t going to save LGBTQ people, because cops are on the side of the people hurting them. The sad truth is that queer people need to be able to protect themselves, and that means having access to lethal force.

          Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide.

          Yes, absolutely. But magazine capacity is irrelevant to suicide. But again - the problem isn’t the gun itself, the problem is that LGBTQ people are treated like shit by a society that largely doesn’t care about them. Removing guns doesn’t remove their misery. Fix the real problem, and the suicides fix themselves. (And yeah, we’ve got social and fiscal conservatives preventing solving the real problems too.)

          But studies are at best inconclusive or at worst straight up say you’re more likely to be killed if you own a gun, so there is no real safety.

          How many cases of defensive gun use are there annually in the US? The most conservative estimates are around 1.5M. How many lives are saved as a result of defensive gun use? That’s the real question, and there’s no way to answer it, since you can’t possibly know if someone would have definitely, 100% died if they hadn’t had a firearm to protect themselves.

          I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise

    • 🇰 🌀 🇱 🇦 🇳 🇦 🇰 ℹ️@yiffit.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Yeah, how are Americans meant to shoot and kill the 11 intruders that come into their bedroom at night as they sleep if their AR-15 mag is limited to 10 rounds.

      Skill issue. Line them up so you kill multiple targets with 1 round, and learn how to reload faster.

  • blazera@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    1 year ago

    You can fire the next bullet in a mag magnitudes faster than you can fire the first bullet in the next mag. Not only drastically lowering the rate a gunman can kill, but dissuading it in the first place

  • Alex@lemmy.ml
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    I have no doubt you are well trained and safety conscious. Despite living in a none right to bear arms country I’ve also had some training on safe handling of firearms through cadets. I think we agree that safety training for handling firearms is a good thing.

    However this obviously isn’t a mandatory requirement in the states as evidenced by the number of children who have been killed because firearms have not been securely stored. The US does seem unwilling to have any regulation to improve firearm safety lest it be seen as an infringement on a universal “right”.

    • Diplomjodler@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Are you planning any mass shootings? Because that’s the only thing AR-15s and large magazines are good for.

  • some_guy@lemmy.sdf.org
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    “There have been, and there will be, times where many more than 10 rounds are needed to stop attackers,” Benitez wrote. “Yet, under this statute, the State says ‘too bad.’”

    I’m sorry, but if ten shots don’t make your attackers run away, you’re pretty fucked.

    I was gonna throw in some sarcastic humor, but it keeps coming out very dark, so I’m withholding that. This sucks.

  • Coach@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    0
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    Simple solution: tax the ever-loving fuck out of bullets. $1000 per. Call it a “true cost adjustment.”

    • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      I wish you the best of luck with that. Poor taxes were the strategy behind the NFA - its incredible unpopularity guarantees it won’t make it through either branch of Congress let alone both.

    • Draupnir@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      Says the guy who is vastly unaware of how many responsibly armed citizens they cross paths with on a daily basis, and who have demonstrably prevented mass shootings. You have no idea the hidden safety net you live under and yet you want it destroyed because of the few bad actors.

      • Coach@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        And just in case you’re looking for your “good guys with a gun,” they’re all standing outside of a school, waiting and shitting their pants. It’s pathetic.

      • Coach@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Yup. Yes. A few bad actors spoiled it for the rest of you. Waa waa waa…grow up. Y’all can’t figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly. It’s sad that your “interests” seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others. It’s extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.

    • Bakkoda@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      1 year ago

      What a brilliantly uneducated idea. Thanks for turning my hunting season into a 3k dollar minimum adventure instead of a cheap way for me to put food on my table.