A federal judge has struck down a California law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. U.S.

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.

  • sylver_dragon@lemmy.worldEnglish
    2114·
    1 年前

    No, it really doesn’t. Under Federal Law 10 U.S. Code § 246 - Militia: composition and classes:

    (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
    (b) The classes of the militia are—
    (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
    (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

    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.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        177·
        1 年前

        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.

        A well balanced breakfast, being necessary to the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed.

        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.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            94·
            1 年前

            If it were a prerequisite, it would say

            A well regulated militia, being necessary for the security of the free state, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

            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,

            The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, “a standing army … would be opposed [by] militia.” He argued that State governments “would be able to repel the danger” of a federal army, “It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.” He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as “afraid to trust the people with arms”, and assured that “the existence of subordinate governments … forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition”.[13][14]

            Clearly, the intent wasn’t to give the National Guard, a subsect of the US Military, the power to fight itself.

              • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                42·
                1 年前

                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.

                  • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
                    33·
                    1 年前

                    Firearms are not defensive, they are offensive weapons.

                    No, the difference is who the aggressor is.

                    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?

                    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.

                    Great! Let’s get rid of it, use its budget to fund more social programs.

                    Sure

                    We can change to the militia style military and gun control laws of Switzerland.

                    No.

        • bradorsomething@ttrpg.network
          27·
          1 年前

          A well regulated diet is a much better example, but it destroys your argument. It also goes right into the same ethos as people demanding their high capacity magazines and 64 oz sodas.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            61·
            1 年前

            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.