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.
We really could solve so many issues if we just did the basics. Stronger background checks, better gun storage laws, provide basic firearm education (maybe even make it mandatory).
I’m pro gun. But think about the people you know who should never own one. That’s what we should be focusing on. Weeding out irresponsible gun owners and harsher punishments for those that ignore the laws.
Every pro gunner likes to use murder as a comparison against gun laws, “well murder is illegal, but people still do it!” Yeah, but can you imagine how high murder rates would skyrocket if they were legal? You’re not going to stop all gun deaths, but we could do a shit ton to at least minimize them the best we can.
It’s so frustrating because all we need to do is implement common sense gun restrictions to keep them out of the wrong hands, but nooooo. That takes too much brain power for half of the US, apparently.
How exactly does one enforce gun storage laws? Are we going to be inviting the police in for surprise inspections? Are you willing to sign away your 4th amendments rights to keep your 2nd amendment rights?
This sounds like an argument in favor of banning all guns. Sure, criminals might still get a hold of them on the black market, but there will be far fewer, and any time one is seen it can be taken by the police and that person can be arrested, instead of waiting until it’s used. School shootings aren’t generally done by kids buying guns out of the of a car downtown.
This would also eliminate the need for the stronger background checks, gun storage, and firearm education… so we don’t have to worry about getting those perfect, since all of those things are much easier said than done.
So are you saying you think banning all guns would be the solution?
I wouldn’t disagree. I just don’t know if it would be entirely possible given how deep the gun culture in America is. I’m just trying to come up with solutions that would make everyone happy.
When it comes to gun storage laws, no. Not having random gun inspections. But say in a situation like a young child getting ahold of a gun that has just been left out, which seems to happen frequently, that should be a massive penalty. I feel like there should be more laws that penalize irresponsible gun owners much more harshly and maybe people would treat them with more respect.
I live in an area of the country where it seems like a bunch of people who are idiots and completely irresponsible love to have a firearm. I vividly remember hanging out with an older buddy years ago driving down a gravel road, he thought he saw a cat on the side so he pulled over really fast and grabbed his handgun so he could shoot it. Those are the type of guys I do not think should have guns. They’re not fucking toys. They’re literal machines made for death. They need to be treated as such.
That’s just my view though. I’m sure there’s others out there with more knowledge on the subject that could come up with better solutions. I just feel like no one is and it’s annoying as shit.
I’d love to see your source for such positions, especially regarding the magnitude of improvement expected and the justification for such.
We already have extensive background checks for nearly every firearm purchase. I’ve yet to see support for the notion that any meaningful percentage of firearm violence is committed by those who legally purchased a firearm but somehow bypassed a background check.
Similarly, I’ve yet to see any support for the notion that legally requiring safe storage - constitutional violation concerns aside - would make any meaningful improvement. This, at least, one could do much to promote without adding restrictions - I’ve yet to see any blue team support for, say, subsiding safes.
And similarly, there’s no blue team support for subsided, equitable, shall-issue training and licensing - and a lack of indication it would make a difference.
Oh? Who are those people? How would you objectively identify such?
Ironically, you highlight the reason such a highlight is raised - you do nothing at all about the underlying issue (violence and the pressures for it) and, instead, focus only on the fact firearms are a tool used; tacking on more restrictions which create additional burden for those already doing nothing wrong yet are unlikely to meaningfully impact the crime is absurd. You ignore that the current laws and proposed laws continue to ignore the problems.
“Common sense” is such a laughably disingenuous phase here. It implies the solutions are obvious and intuitive yet the solutions proposed do nothing for the issue at all beyond setting the stage for fire and fury when such measures are rightly resisted.
You are right that there are a few simple things we can do to meaningfully impact things… but you might be surprised as to what they are.
I agree with all of this. I think almost all of Canada’s gun control laws are sensible. We have sensible laws about transport, storage, safety training, and other things. Magazine size and banning weapons that look scary is not effective though.