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.

  • Vytle@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    10
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    9 months ago

    “Mass shooting” refers to any shooting where 3 or more people are injured, and it usually happens in areas with high unemployment. Kinda sounds like a class issue to me.

      • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        You have it backwards - fix the class issues and you’ll have nothing to removed about regarding firearms.

        That is, unless you just hate firearms.

            • PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              arrow-down
              3
              ·
              9 months ago

              Yep, we know. It’s the climate change denier strategy. However much evidence there is, demand even more before you’ll consider acting.

              But who gives a shit if you’re ever convinced? We can just build something without your rubber stamp of approval and you can join the ranks of people who opposed things like food safety and DUI laws.

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

                Yep, we know. It’s the climate change denier strategy. However much evidence there is, demand even more before you’ll consider acting.

                Arguably, we’re still waiting for any evidence at all supporting the notion it’s the firearms that are the root of the violence problem rather than merely the implement used.

                The analog here would be that you seem to only care climate change can be caused by residential cars to the complete neglect of the fossil fuel contributions of the energy industry.

                But who gives a shit if you’re ever convinced? We can just build something without your rubber stamp of approval and you can join the ranks of people who opposed things like food safety and DUI laws.

                Feel free to find any support for the notion that I - or others here - have opposed such things.

                Take all the time you need.

                When you’ve accepted failure, consider adopting positions which may actually address root issues here rather than continuing to clutch your pearls most tightly about those darned firearms.