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.

  • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
    5·
    1 year ago

    and psychiatric tests

    I can’t see any way that this could possibly go wrong, not ever. /s

    Let’s look at this on multiple fronts.

    First, who is going to pay for that? Are you going to require people to pay for the ability to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed rights? What other rights would you say that people should need to pay for in order to be able to use them?

    Second, what criteria would you use to determine if someone is “fit”? A criminal background check is objective; wither you’ve been convicted of a crime or you haven’t. A psychiatric test is about an indeterminate future, an even that hasn’t happened yet. How are you going to guarantee that only people who will create a crime are being prevented from having rights, and not any other people?

    Third, how do you distinguish between a protected political opinion (“the bourgeoisie need to be violently overthrown through force of arms by the proletariat”) and beliefs that have no rational basis in protected political speech (“pedophile Jews are killing people with space lasers, therefore I need to murder everyone at Lollapalooza”)? Given that involuntary commitment is already a disqualifying factor for owning a firearm, how is your proposal meaningfully different unless you are arguing that many people should not be permitted to exercise their protected rights because they might act in a criminal way at some indeterminate point in the future?

    • /home/pineapplelover@lemm.ee
      11·
      1 year ago

      Dude I’m just saying basic stuff like people shouldn’t carry handheld people killers if they’re clinically insane or beats their spouse each night

      • HelixDab2@lemm.ee
        2·
        1 year ago

        if they’re clinically insane

        That’s already covered on form 4473; if you have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated as mentally defective, you are not able to own a firearm legally. States are legally obligated to report this information.

        or beats their spouse each night

        This is also already covered on form 4473; if you have been convicted of any domestic violence offense–misdemeanor or felony–or you are the subject of a protective order, you are not eligible to legally own a firearm. States are legally obligated to report this information.

        So what are you asking for, since both of the things you say you really want are already covered by existing laws?