- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
Magazine size?
Magazines are considered arms, within the meaning of the Second Amendment, therefore protected especially from arbitrary and capricious restrictions.
Doesn’t the 2 amendment talk about the right to bear arms, and doesn’t say we can’t restrict weapons?
As long as you are allowed to have a flintlock pistol, your constitution is not violated. So we can ban every other gun in existence.
‘As long as you have a quill and paper, your right to free speech is not violated’
Your argument is not how the Bill of Rights works. I for one am happy about that, I enjoy having free speech on the internet, and presumably you do too.
Not really - It doesn’t read the right to bear flintlock pistols. It reads the right to bear arms.
Nah they aren’t. Read history instead of trying to rewrite it to fit your anmosexual narrative.
All laws fail scrutiny if they are arbitrary and capricious.
It’s ironic that your best argument is to suggest one read history - with mindless disparaging insult - in response to actual history and analysis, with citations.
Narrative, indeed.