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.
But I don’t, I just don’t fetishize guns like many Americans The US has topped 500 mass shootings in 2023 already and is second in total gun deaths only to Brazil. In contrast to the U.S. and Latin America, gun deaths are extremely rare in countries like Japan, the United Kingdom, Norway, and Australia. These countries have implemented incentives or passed legislation to decrease the number of firearms in circulation.. You’re right though, let’s not restrict firearms any further, that clearly doesn’t work. Such gross willful ignorance.
It may “work” if we go with the totalitarian options sure, especially if we forget about the 600,000,000+ guns already out and trillions of rounds to go with them, and the people who don’t want to relinquish those, but feature bans which are by and large what the legislators push are completely meaningless.
In this we agree. The magazine ban in question is dumb and will serve little purpose in curbing gun violence.
Reasonable advocates for greater gun control aren’t looking for “totalitarian” control. They’re arguing for controls that won’t demonstrate great impact until long after we’re all dead and gone. They’re looking for greater accountability and more checks and balances on the purchase side.
Accountability is the big one in my opinion. If you own a gun and keep it loaded and unsecured and it is stolen and used to harm or kill others you should bear responsibility, even if it was reported stolen. If, however, you own a gun and take reasonable measures to secure it, with a gun lock or in a safe etc., and it’s stolen and used to harm or kill others you should not be responsible.
There is often such focus on individual freedom regarding firearms in the US that individual responsibility falls by the wayside.
Responsible, legal gun owners shouldn’t be impacted by greater accountability. They would be inconvenienced by reduced ease of acquisition but that should be minor things like waiting periods and more thorough checks.
One thing that should not happen with reasonable gun control is additional taxes like NFA stamps. Want to own an M2A1 Browning? Sure, just apply, then be subject to a thorough background check, mental evaluation and 1 year waiting period. You’ll also need to prove secure storage to a minimum standard for that type of weapon. The cost for the check and evaluation is born by the government, it’s their restriction after all, but you bear the cost of the storage and purchase of the weapon.
That’s just a for example off the cuff but that’s what reasonable gun control is. It’s not denying the right or taking currently legally owned guns away, it’s ensuring your right to bear arms does not pose a risk to others right to safety.
Not according to the legislation they’ve been attempting recently. It’s almost always something that is too far, or just a feature ban.
Define unsecured. This is too subjective, to some it means on your person or locked in a house, to some it means stored in a safe with the ammo in another safe (neither of which I’ll have time to open in a break in).
Good.
Individual responsibility would have the theif be responsible for the theft, not the victim for “being too easy to steal from.” You don’t actually want individual responsibility to take a front seat, you want to pawn it off on people you feel were culpable for being victimized.
You contradict yourself.
Waiting periods have shown to have a negligable effect on crime. It is specifically for “crimes of passion,” and “suicide prevention,” but typically those will be commited regardless with whatever is on hand or they’ll just wait the 10 days if they’re really intent on going through with it, and if they don’t this time they can pick it up and just have it for next time. Mass shootings fall outside the purview of waiting periods, those psychos plan their attacks for months.
“More thorough checks” is also subjective and often how we get into ableist conversations on how “the ‘mentally ill’ catagorically do not deserve rights.” I’m not typically for them. If we actually enforced the laws we already have too that’d be a good start but we can’t even do that.
Ah, yeah, that ableism. Not into it. Which mental illnesses should preclude one from their rights, pray tell? And a murderer one year a murderer the next, they’ll bide their time. In fact statistically the ATF says average “time to crime,” (that is, time from purchase at a store until it shows up at a crime scene) is *11 years."
And that still doesn’t address the 600,000,000+ guns and trillions of rounds already unregistered.
Clearly you just don’t want any gun control. Free for all for the firearm circle jerkers. I hope it becomes totalitarian and they take everyone’s guns away or you all kill each other in “self defense” and leave the rest of us in peace.
You don’t care about innocent people your only concern is “muh guns”.
I find you to be gross and selfish.
So, you wish for a totalitarian state and death to people you disagree with? And I’m supposed to be the “violent” gun nut?
Ok. Have fun.