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.

    • DragonTypeWyvern@literature.cafe
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      28
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      Well they could try addressing systemic poverty, housing, and the mental health and addiction crises instead.

      No?

      Not going to do that either, huh?

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        No country on earth doesnt have mental health problems, homeless people arent doing any mass shootings, nor are any drugs causing people to mass murder. The US isnt unique in these metrics. Its very unique in gun availability.

      • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        8
        ·
        1 year ago

        I’ve got a better idea: we’ll take your guns away and you can have them back once you’ve finished fixing all that shit – which casually includes curing mental health problems far beyond our ability to treat, for every man, woman and child in America, including the ones that don’t want help, for free, faster than someone can buy a gun.

    • Fades@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      22
      arrow-down
      6
      ·
      1 year ago

      A smaller mag ain’t fixing a single damn problem, pass something that actually matters like proper gun control and licensing

    • bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Why don’t they tackle the issue at the root: people who feel like they have nothing to live for, so they take their frustration out on society.

      Oh wait, that involves reducing the disparity in wealth. I guess we know why the ruling class is making us squabble over gun laws, then.

      • blazera@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        1 year ago

        We just had the story of a judge getting road rage and firing wildly.

        The root of gun violence is guns.

        • Vytle@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          6
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          Then why isnt this a problem in say, switzerland? They have lax gun laws as well, but you dont really hear about mass shootings there. This is a mental health issue.

            • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Owning a 2nd or 5th gun doesn’t make one magically murderous. The fact that guns are widely owned in Switzerland and they don’t have the same crime issues proves something else is at play. The highest crimes areas in the US are the poorest, it’s fundamentally an economic issue to be solved. Make sure people have a happy and fulfilling life and many, many fewer people choose to murder.

          • Honytawk@lemmy.zip
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            4
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Because nobody has ammo in Switzerland.

            And everyone who owns a gun got one during their military training.

            So they are trained and ammoless.

            Switzerland isn’t the argument you ammosexuals think it is.

            • BombOmOm@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Because nobody has ammo in Switzerland.

              What are you talking about? Gun owners can freely buy ammo in Switzerland.

              Are you referring to the fact that military-owned ammo stays on the military base? If so, I would like to emphasize we are talking about civilian ownership and civilians can buy ammo.

        • bobman@unilem.org
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Right. But, proportionally speaking, who is significantly more likely to go on a shooting spree because they ‘feel like they have nothing to live for, so they take their frustration out on society’?

          Is it going to be your exceptions, or my rules?

          • blazera@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            1 year ago

            Why does it only matter if they go on shooting sprees for the reasons convenient to you?

            • bobman@unilem.org
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Because addressing why people want to throw their lives away and kill others is important to solving the problem.

              You say “convenient to me.” That’s cute, you’re trying to make this all about me, lol.

              What’s “convenient for me” is these problems not existing in the first place. Wish that didn’t need to be spelled out for you.

      • Chozo@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        The list of people killed in mass shootings this year, alone, has too many characters to fit into a Lemmy comment. Even if you just used first names.

        • gdog05@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          No, I get that. And the arguments on both sides ad-nauseam. I was legit asking because the OP wasn’t talking about gun deaths. It seemed to be a comment to come out from other threads. I just started using Boost for Lemmy and I was trying to figure out if comments weren’t nested in a way that I understand.