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.

  • rahmad
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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.

    • trafficnab@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      15
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      You very much can buy an F16 assuming you can find one for sale, a civilian owned company already bought 29 of them from Israel (Same goes for fully functional tanks as long as you fill out the proper paperwork)

      • rahmad
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        Technically true, but it needs to be non militarized, can’t purchase the missile mounts (or the missiles etc.). My point stands.

        • LifeInMultipleChoice
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The jet isn’t the weapon. It’s the missles I agree.

          Want people to change their mind, tell them Bill Gates/Elon Musk and such are starting a nuclear program. They’ll want to ban it, they are arms after all.

          “Musk is adding AI controlled weapons to Starlink” Immediate call for reform haha

    • Kalcifer@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      I try to look at these examples from the perspective of the Non-Agression Principle – to come to the conclusion that a specific technology must be kept from the public, it must be shown that that technology, by it’s very nature of existence, infringes on the rights and freedoms of those around it. For example, if we look a nuclear warhead, as you mentioned, it could certainly be argued that it’s private ownership would violate the NAP, as it’s very existence is an indiscriminate threat to the life, and property of any proximal to it. A similar argument could be made for your other example of anthrax. Making a similar argument for an outright ban on the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet is much more difficult to justify, however. I would argue that it would, instead, be more logical to regulate, rather than prohibit, the civilian ownership of a fighter-jet, much in the same manner as the civilian ownership of any other typical aircraft.

      It also should be noted that it entirely depends on wording/language. The 2nd Amendment specifically states “[…] the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”. One needs to have a precise definition for “bear”, and “Arms”. Perhaps it could be argued that an individual cannot “bear” a nuclear warhead. Perhaps “Arms” are only those used by the military, or other federal entities. I have no definite answer, but these are the sorts of things that one must consider.