Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds

Oh mate, I thought my instance showed on my username. I'm in the regulated land of Oz so you don't need to tell me how better controls would help the situation out. Nonetheless, I'm familiar with firearms via growing up on farms and military service.

Agree with your points, but also I would love to see stats on successful use of firearms in self-defence vs homicides where victim was armed. Not raising that in a contentious way, just would be interesting to see whether mag capacity >10 is even a relevant factor in that situation. Most pistol mags would be 10-15, except revolvers of course so limiting capacity to 10 doesn't really affect the outcome unless in a ridiculous situation as I outlined previous.

Trans and gay people would be a whole hell of a lot safer if the people who wanted to kill them were unarmed.

I'm gonna be honest here. That is an extremely American comment. You guys aren't exactly the pinnacle of LGBT rights. Far more trans people are killed by guns than save themselves thanks to a gun. Defending guns is killing people and visible minorities are the most at risk.

What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like? And why would you think more guns are the solution when countries like Canada so inarguably better than you at this without the guns (we're still very flawed and have a long way to go, but I'm so glad I'm not American and feel bad for my LGBT friends in the US)?

And why focus on homicides when suicide is by far the bigger cause of death? Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide. To be clear, the real solution we need is cultural acceptance because studies show that having an accepting environment massively reduces the suicide risk, but access to guns 100% makes it worse!

I know there's something about having access to a means to protect yourself that gives some measure of psychological safety. But studies are at best inconclusive or at worst straight up say you're more likely to be killed if you own a gun, so there is no real safety. And I assure you that an even better way to feel safe is to reduce how many guns other people have.

Again, I'm sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well. But I think opinions like yours are literally killing people. I expect conservatives to love guns and I don't think anything will convince them, but I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise.

The most effective part of our gun laws is preventing violent offenders from obtaining a license (and maybe having a license to start with, I guess).

Beyond that, almost every other part of our laws are a ridiculous dog and pony show meant to appease some group or other in some way that's usually completely ineffective.

You have zero freedom.

Gun deaths in Canada isn't exactly in a good place, it's just way better than the US.

It's also mostly a problem caused by guns smuggled in from the US, where it's far too easy for people with bad intentions to get guns.

You mean REGULATING guns or gun magazines violates the well REGULATED militia of the constitution? Are the caps enough for you or do I need to spell it out?

No it isn't.

3D printers: exist

I mean.. if you really cared, its a few hour drive to a state where you can legally buy them. Its not a large burden, and could be done in an afternoon.

Edit: i like the downvotes this comment gets, as if its some sort of morality claim. Its just a fact. Im not personally pro gun, however i dont think the solution is an easy all guns are bad all the time. Its a very complex issue in america.

However, i am very against political theater, California isnt going to to fix gun problems unless they can outlaw handguns, which are used in more than 90% of all gun related crimes. Just like they arnt going to fix water shortages by stopping people watering their lawns or washing cars when around 95% or the water usage is corporations.

How'd that work out for the drug bans? Cause man I could buy so much weed in college (in an illegal state), and trust me I literally never asked.

Straw purchases are the main way, like 85% or more...so illegally...

3d printers and illegal markets

I am against all abortion bans but I don't see what one has to do with the other.

The same way we allow cops to arrest people and transport them into a police station for booking. There are exceptions to rules. Does that not make sense to you?

I can turn my AR-15 into a short barrelled rifle (which is only legal after a very lengthy and intrusive federal process) by simply screwing a new barrel on. If you don't care about the law, the barrier to doing it is tiny. That's what we mean when we say it only affects people operating in good faith with the law. It's so easy to bypass that it's questionable if we should bother.

Hard no. Background checks for guns? Sure. Waiting period? No. Absolutely not. Let me tell my stalked to just wait three weeks, 'kay? Cool? Cool.

For this, if you have a stalker and you know this which is why you are trying to buy a firearm, there could exceptions. Police report needed to show the reason for protections. Emergency restrain orders could be another reason for the exception.

Absolutely not. We've already seen state governments trying to pass illegal bans (i.e., California). These are being overturned by courts now. If you have a registry, the net effect is that the state gov't can pass a law, confiscate your now-illegal firearms, and then--once the law is thrown out--you've still lost your firearms.

Should be added to the law. If for whatever reason that gun that was legal and becomes illegal, government should pay double the retail price when bought to the owner. If over turned, there should be a automatic availability to buy the firearm with no waiting period for the person that previously had it.

Which is why I said need, not really. I am not saying to banned them either. We don't need a lot of things in life, but doesn't mean we don't want them. Which also goes back to country folks having different needs compared to city folks. I get that there's going to be a lot of resistance against it, there will always be resistance in everything.

Yes I believe that manufacturers have a responsibility especially when they are making narco like firearms to cater to that kind of life. (Talking about all those gold, diamond, and graphic firearms.) (No I'm not talking about the laser ingrave grips LARPS want to get.)

From reading your article, wouldn't the serial registration also help prevent US drug cartels from spamming mexico with ghost guns, which could be traced back to crime organizations? Wouldn't that dammed one of the toxic rivers and help bring attention too other rivers?

Could you clarify your position? It's hard to tell if this is rant, sarcasm, or satire.

People need to Understand How Easy.a Shotgun with a 3rnd Limit, has just a rubber stopper. It can be unscrewed an removed as easy as taking in and out lead in a mechanical penicl. Now my shotgun has 7rnd tube cap in under 5mins.10rnd mags? they are 30rnd mags with rubber stoppers in them. yes...they make little shorty stacks. but to be legal. the rubber stopper is added. Why would a firearm manufacturer Create and Design a new mag when it can Legally add a simple fix.

Which is why I am saying that this law should be removed and makes no sense at all.

gun laws are absolute jokes. They Need to be Much more stringent, and i am a CCW owner. I own 3 I.D.s to carry. Im more a legal citizen than half of you cucks.

Don't know if you are offended or if you are talking about people complaining about getting checked, but if it's the first. As a gun owner and a CCW, you leaving your firearms unsecured and unattended while kids are around, yes it makes you a cuck.

thats what youre doing with gun laws. making those who want them Legal and those who dont care are showing you the laws dont matter. a piece of paper and threat to do legsl action when someones got a gun in your face is not deterence.

What?

Man you gun nonces are weird.

Use a bow, like a real man.

Oh fuck off. No one gives a flying fuck about your bloodlust beyond other psychos.

And just in case you're looking for your "good guys with a gun," they're all standing outside of a school, waiting and shitting their pants. It's pathetic.

Yup. Yes. A few bad actors spoiled it for the rest of you. Waa waa waa...grow up. Y'all can't figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly. It's sad that your "interests" seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others. It's extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.

If some of them die when working with explosives, I can only see it as a win.

But this already isn't true. Even if I could afford it, I can't buy an F16, anthrax or a nuclear warhead. So, isn't this just about where the line is being drawn? The line itself both already exists and doesn't seem to be contested.

Yes, and flintlocks are arms as well.

So give them access to those, and none other. So their 2nd amendment isn't infringed and the real deadly guns aren't being sold on the black market anymore.

3 round mag is a perfectly functional firearm. I own one. Works great.

Nobody’s infringing. When they wrote the amendment a single-fire cap and ball was perfectly acceptable as a firearm, should be good enough for today.

Every constitutional right has limits. There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds. More than 90% of self defense situations end with only 2-3 shots being fired. Long, drawn out gun fights with both sides firing 20-30 rounds simply don't happen in self defense situations. It's just a fiction from movies. You certainly don't need that many rounds to bring down a deer. What high capacity firearms do allow is criminals to maximize the damage they do in a short period of time.

This is false. The Chambers gun, the Girandoni air rifle, and other "high capacity" repeating arms existed and were known to the framers of the Constitution.

The 2nd Amendment specifically says "the right to bear arms", not "the right to bear muskets".

Lol no they are not. They're just plastic rifles, they function the same as any other semi-auto rifle. Lol you anti-2a people are hilarious, you're so ignorant of firearms and even statistics you end up looking like those idiots who want to ban abortion.

Oh, wow - I'll have to let my hunting group know our AR-15s chambered in .350 Legend complete with standard magazines just aren't any good for deer because this rando on the Internet said so.

Fun fact, you can carry two rifles.

So now you have two AR-15s with 10 bullets.

This law wouldn't have stopped anything.

Ah, yes. Both sides.

And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.

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

I remember when that would-be school shooter was like, "Damn, I would have proceeded with this school shooting but I have a ammo limit! Nooooooo!"

This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Fortunately, we have an abundance of analysis on the subject including that used in the ruling to help clarify.

Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.

This, too, was covered.

However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context

That depends quite a bit on whether or not there were historical analogues, though it's fair to say that felons and "illegal" drug users e.g. marijuana are trending toward correcting.

That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.

... with complete technological parity with the standing armed forces of the time, in context.

Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”

Fortunately, we have quite a bit of other text including that from Madison on the subject; a specific limited-scope purpose in one instance does not negate his other statements.

It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.

And in the post-Bruen world, there's much less room for debate, especially for arbitrary and capricious restrictions on a right.

Ad hominem attacks. Ah yes I care what you think.

Conservatives have won the popular vote for a presidential election exactly once since 2000, and it was Bush in 2004. They are, by definition, unpopular. Accordingly, you can expect that in open forums the conversation will skew against Republicans. You don’t get to enjoy minority rule and popular opinion at the same time, sorry. If you’re tired of being the minority in every space, perhaps you should consider trying to win people over. Here’s a good start: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

So, in your estimation, does Congress just... not exist? Does it have zero relevance to the United States, e.g. in legislation? As far as I'm aware, they're popular enough to have control of at least one of the houses of Congress at the moment - and that's even leaving aside Governors and other elected positions.

Setting that aside, you you believe forums - especially niche forums - are in any way a sample set indicative of the general population? There's, say, no selection bias at all?

Interesting.

By your own rationale, you should consider the extent to which you should consider trying to win people over e.g. so as to address the incredible skew toward Republicans in current elected positions.

That said, about that poll - you seem to trust it at face-value. Are you aware of its methodology? Its respondent set? Can you think of zero flaws with its methodology which might, say, skew the respondent set?

The majority want stricter gun laws. If you don’t want to be derided, I suggest trying to meet people in the middle and discussing sensible gun control laws. Raising the legal ownership age to 21 seems like an extremely popular measure that the majority of Republicans even support.

Is that so? I'm interested in seeing your support for such a notion.

If we're going by your Gallup poll, the best to be said is 57% of the population perceives current legislation as benefitting from laws which would be more strict and 44% of the population disagrees. That 12% delta doesn't seem to be the silver bullet, so to speak, that you believe it is. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend it was - If a blue team candidate doesn't push a given restrictive position, do you believe blue team voters would... suddenly vote for red? Conversely, if a blue team candidate doesn't push a given restrictive position... do you believe there are zero independents who would consider them more palatable?

We have a fantastic data point on this - in Iowa's 2022 elections, in a state with a roughly three-way split between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, Iowa codified a strict scrutiny clause for the right to bear arms in its state constitution with an unprecedented ~66% 'yay' rate. Similarly, the Republican candidate - Kim Reynolds - won with ~58% of the vote against a Democratic candidate pushing more restrictions. Clearly, Iowa's Democrats are in need of considering trying to win people over - by data. I realize it's mere anecdote, but the general responses when asked about voter apathy or active rejection of blue candidates are due to such restrictions not sufficiently balanced by bringing anything to the table.

Or you can go ahead and keep coping and whining about conservatism not being popular without an ounce of self awareness. Your choice. I suggest trying to be part of the solution instead of trying to stop the inevitable.

I find your without an ounce of self-awareness criticism rather laughable, all things considered. You seem to believe yourself part of the solution and inevitable - much like Agent Smith, funnily enough - for no reason other than your own apparent smug.

Congratulations - you may not have intended to do so, but you embody the detrimental effect of such a liberal attitude on constructive discourse.