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.
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.
So after age 45 they lose their right to guns? Also, with the code definition a “well regulated” militia would be the organized militia:
However you want to argue the Constitution the claim that a magazine with more than a 10 round capacity is protected is dubious at best. The 2nd amendment really needs to be revised for modern times but it won’t likely happen in any of our lifetimes.
At this point it’s a race between whether the US falls apart first or the youth that survive the battlegrounds that are public schools, concerts, malls, public transportation etc. in the US decide they’re tired of being shot and killed and come together to quash the remaining resistance to changing it.
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.
I disagree. I think the well regulated militia and the people are connected. The people have the right to bear arms because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free State.
The average person is not a part of a “well regulated militia” but a member of the National Guard is. The broad interpretation would make more sense if the US was like Switzerland or another country with mandatory service/training.
I do agree the second amendment gives the right “to the people” because a well regulated militia is necessary for the security of a free state but there’s a dependency there that’s ignored in modern times. When the constitution was written the militia was all able bodied men but it’s not anymore, that role is filled by National Guard.
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.
We’ll have to agree to disagree then. The National Guard didn’t exist when the constitution was written, neither did rifles with 30+ detachable box magazines.
Many historians agree that the primary reason for passing the Second Amendment was to prevent the need for the United States to have a professional standing army. At the time it was passed, it seems it was not intended to grant a right for private individuals to keep weapons for self-defense.
I find it fascinating how often specifically this argument boils down to “this is what it meant literally 230 years ago and is exactly how it should be applied now”.
I agree, I prefer the argument that “everyone deserves the right to defend themselves so long as they haven’t proven they’re a danger to others, and presumption of innocence is how our court system works thankfully, so only those convicted of violent crimes should be barred from ownership.” Problem is everyone likes to argue about the intent, which still seems not to be “let the army have guns.” I agree, we shouldn’t have a standing army.
Full stop. The problem is people equate firearms with defense. Firearms are not defensive, they are offensive weapons.
Why? The second amendment protects the rights of “the people to keep and bear arms”. Are those not people? Let’s restrict the 2nd amendment rights of some people, but not others?
Either all amendments should be treated as literally as possible for the time they were written or they should all be interpreted in a modern view that accounts for 230 years of change and advancement.
Great! Let’s get rid of it, use its budget to fund more social programs. We can change to the militia style military and gun control laws of Switzerland.
No, the difference is who the aggressor is.
Fuck it, I’d rather them be able to have em too than nobody, fine you win. I figured you probably would agree with that one though.
Sure
No.
Removed by mod
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.