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.
Correct, given it’s a constitutional right.
The constitution doesn’t guarantee magazine sizes.
This is like saying the Constitution doesn’t guarantee a barrel on the rifle, or that it uses smokeless power or only muzzle loading muskets…go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.
The Constitution is explicit in regards to the First Amendment, “Congress shall make no law…” This isn’t even remotely the case with the Second Amendment. There’s more truth to constitutionally allowing direct physical threats and defamation, which are considered not protected by the First Amendment, than there are magazine sizes, lmao.
I think what trips up a lot of people, especially Americans, is the idea of something not being black and white. Just because the First Amendment talks about speech and the Second Amendment talks about guns doesn’t mean it’s a black and white, when you have this unfettered right to speech and guns. Something being in a gray area makes Americans very confused.
Shall not be infringed… literally the same thing.
It’s the only Amendment that explicitly says the right be “well regulated.” A “well regulated” right shall not be “infringed” is undeniably different than “Congress shall make no law” which has no limitation to its attached right.
It appears you have some reading to do.
Well regulated militia…aka one of good working order. It is not in the same breath of the right of the people to bear arms…does it say the right of the militia or people?
The Second Amendment is even clearer than the First: “the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.” Any law that even borders on restricting the right of the people to own and use weapons is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment.
Except the whole first part about being “well regulated,” which you conveniently left out.
You don’t seem to understand what a preamble is…
Removed by mod
Quote the rest of the definition - you seem to be intentionally missing the an introductory statement part.
It does provide context, that’s true - thus, it’s neither the right nor a restriction on it.
Given your rants, insults, and absolute lack of points made… I’ll give that due consideration.
Pornography is protected under the first amendment, and sharing it via the internet is allowed. Child pornography is illegal and should stay illegal. Similarly there are other forms of speech that are criminal and should stay criminal, such as death threats. I think you would agree that these are reasonable regulations on our free speech.
Here’s an example on the gun side: in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, bump stocks were used, allowing one man to kill 60 people and injure an additional 867 (just to confirm this is not a typo: 927 people were killed or harmed). Bump stocks were banned in 2018. The bump stock ban seems justified to me, does it seem justified to you?
No, as knee-jerk reactions to a single facet of an outlier event are absurd.
As an comparison, your highlight of child porn is due to the actual harm of actual abuse - the thing is banned because it cannot exist without traumatizing and abusing children. Your highlight of an outlier shooting is really the highlight of the potential harm of a future event - the thing might maybe be used for harm.
Most of us don’t live our lives in terror of inanimate objects or overrepresented and oversensationalized events.
Point of fact: child pornography is obscene–and not covered by 1A–even if no real people are harmed. I’d have to dig up the law (I think it dates to the mid-90s), but it’s pretty broad. Lolicon may be illegal by itself, even though drawings don’t generally cause direct harm. At least one person has been convicted of obscenity for comics, albeit not lolicon. It is *likely that even AI-generated child pornography, even though it wouldn’t involve real children, would end up being ruled obscene.
Personally, I would take your position; images and depictions of child pornography that don’t involve actual minors should not be obscene and therefore illegal, regardless of how distasteful and repellent they are.
Real child pornography should only be illegal because of the harms it represents. The text of the First Amendment would clearly protect victimless obscenity.
Interesting - I was not aware of that. I’ll have to dig up the law and related rulings - I suspect the judges’ opinions on the matter would help clarify the reasoning for arriving at such a stance and would help me understand if, say, they might be due to mimicry of that actual harm and actual abuse, etc.
I appreciate that highlight.
I truly don’t know. In the case I linked to–and it’s just the Wikipedia article–SCOTUS declined to hear the case. So it’s good case law at the moment.
Maybe if someone could get an obscene comic banned that was drawing about Nazis, our current SCOTUS would overturn it in favor of 1A rights…
If you say so.
It is worth pointing out that in the Las Vegas shooting the investigation never concluded if he actually used the bump stocks. Some of the guns had them installed but with his amount of preparation and knowledge of firearms he could have just as easily modified them to be fully automatic. During the course of the investigation they specifically prohibited the ATF from inspecting any of the weapons for modifications and merely said that the use of the bump stocks was a possibility, not a fact. The bottom line is it isn’t known one way or another if he actually used them, he might have but the firing rate was more consistent than most bump firing.
Guns work fine with smaller magazines. They do not work fine without a barrel.
Edit: and I say that as someone that owns several guns. That are in a gun safe at a family members because I have kids and not a great place to store them.
Tell that to the FBI and LEOs who run double stack mags because it keeps you in the fight. Tell that to the military…hell tell that to a hog hunter…or the pregnant woman who is having to defend herself from a home break in.
The judgement highlights how they’re considered bearable arms therefore protected.
You mean REGULATING guns or gun magazines violates the well REGULATED militia of the constitution? Are the caps enough for you or do I need to spell it out?
“Well regulated” in the context of the constitution clearly meant well-trained/mobilized/deployed, in an efficient and orderly manner, and should be adequately capable. This is clear if you look at it from an unbiased linguistic standpoint, and look at the usage of the phrase around the time. Words don’t constantly have the same exact meaning that we’re primarily used to, they’re a spectrum of different definitions that form, morph, and wane over time.
Plus the first/second clause in the sentence is clearly just a justification for the other 2 clauses, it’s not a directive or even the subject. That alone would make the “well regulated” part meaningless for anything other than explaining why the constitution is in place in the first place. It doesn’t give orders to “regulate” militias, or even that militias are the only things which should have access to guns in the first place.
The point of arguing against current treatment of guns isn’t to argue what the syntax or basic meaning of the amendment was, no that’s clear if you actually know what you’re talking about (and you can find plenty of actual linguists breaking it down for you), it’s to argue to what extent the amendment’s directive (disallowing infringement on the people’s right to bear arms) applies, or especially if the amendment is even beneficial or if it’s harmful to a modern America and should be amended.
Then there is also the other issue that the other drafted forms of the amendment don’t even include that clause, indicating more clearly the main point, that they didn’t want the government to be able to restrict citizens’ right to bear arms, after the episode they just had with the British government trying to limit arms to prevent an armed resistance in favor of colonial independence - said conflict having been kicked off specifically by an attempt to seize arms.
You can think one way or the other about how the state should treat guns, but people have this inclination to try to rewrite history about what it says and why. It’s pretty clear if you take the blinders off, regardless of what you think about the issue.
Fine argument. Please also remember that militia in the context of the 2A references what is now the national guard.
No, it really doesn’t. Under Federal Law 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:
If you’re an able-bodied male between the ages of 17 and 45, a citizen or have declared an intention to become a citizen of the US, you’re part of the militia.
deleted by creator
Some people seem to have trouble with the english in the second, so I started writing it in relation to something else to illustrate how the sentence structure works.
So, in the above revision, who would you say has the right to keep and eat food, “the people” or “a well balanced breakfast?” Clearly, as “breakfast” is a concept and incapable of “ownership,” “the people” is the answer. It stays the same gramatically if you plug in “regulated militia” for “balanced breakfast” and “guns” for “food,” the first part is clarifying the reasoning for them delineating the right’s importance, the scond part is delineating the right itself and who has it.
It isn’t saying you’re only allowed to eat breakfast, it’s saying that breakfast is important, and as such, your right to keep food in your fridge/pantry and cook/eat it to your specifications shall not be hampered by the government.
deleted by creator
If it were a prerequisite, it would say
But it doesn’t, it specifically delineates “the people” as those with the right to arms.
Furthermore, under the definition of militia as per the US Gov, able bodied male citizens age 17-45, and those who wish to be citizens in that same age group, that would mean women dom’t have the right to bear arms.
Also, from the wikipedia article on the second,
Clearly, the intent wasn’t to give the National Guard, a subsect of the US Military, the power to fight itself.
A well regulated diet is a much better example, but it destroys your argument. It also goes right into the same ethos as people demanding their high capacity magazines and 64 oz sodas.
How does that destroy anything? A diet is still a concept that lacks the ability to “own.” It still isn’t dependant on the well balanced diet, the well balanced diet is simply the reason for delineating your right to keep and eat food.
The National Guard is a component of the United States Army. A militia is a civilian force and would never be deployed to fight in other countries outside of wartime.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Guard_(United_States)#:~:text=With the Militia Act of,units serving overseas was dropped.
The militia was renamed to the national guard in 1903.
Part of the militia is the National Guard. The rest is us able-bodied males aged 17-45.
Lol, I love how people like you just say things and assume they are true.
They don’t assume anything, they’ve been told how to interpret it so that’s what they do.
Clearly meant in your opinion.
So not your average Joe who just wants to own a gun then?
ALL able-bodied men were legally obligated to muster with the local militia when called to do so, and were also obligated to provide their own arms.
Lol, tell me you don’t understand the constitution without saying you’re a fucking idiot. Oh wait.
No it isn’t.
Looks like the feds disagree with you.