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.

  • Jeremy [Iowa]@midwest.socialEnglish
    1·
    1 year ago

    I humped my m4 and m16a2 for 7 fucking years, get fucked with your ‘black rifle scary’ bullshit, sideways.

    Cool. No one cares.

    how are large capacity magazines in any way ‘controversial’ to you fuckwits? fewer rounds in the mag require more reloads bright eyes, it’s pretty fucking simple. you assholes want to justify bump stocks and rotary triggers, you’re not interested in safely keeping and using firearms, you’re interested in not having to give up anything to anyone when the issue is firearms. no compromise, no sanity, just bullshit games about nomenclature and freedumbs.

    it’s always telling to me, too, the ones who’s minds get changed when their family members are shot. cause that’s what it takes with your fuckwits, you have neither the imagination or empathy so it literally requires one of your family getting shot at school to actually dig in that theere MAY BEEE A PROBLEM with 400 MILLION FIREARMS in a country of 330 million people.

    Did you have a point anywhere in that rant and hyperbole?

    so yeah, I got 'sumptions. I’m assuming you’re some bolo fuckmuppet who loves his AR more than he thinks kids should be able to go to school terrorized about getting shot.

    Ah, very rational.

    It might surprise you to learn I’m quite the proponent of actually addressing underlying issues rather than clutching pearls about sCaRy bLaCk RiFLes.

    You’ll note this is the second time I’ve provided such an analysis - it seems you didn’t bother to actually check before violently abusing your keyboard.

    • vivadanang@lemm.eeEnglish
      11·
      1 year ago

      Your bullshit link doesn’t do shit to reduce the number of firearms, bolo. You still can’t recognize there’s a math problem here and clutch to your premise even though it’s flawed. Gonna block you now, because you’re dumber than dogshit and genuinely aren’t interested in stopping kids from getting murdered.