A federal judge has struck down a California law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. U.S.

Some mentioned the other one was old. Heres a two-day old article on the same issue.

    • JingJang@lemmy.world
      64·
      3 years ago

      Here are a few:

      1. Because it’s our right. (I know you know this but it’s still the first reason).

      2. Because when recreationally shooting a gun like this it’s more enjoyable to have larger capacities.

      3. Number 1 again.

      • PizzaMan@lemmy.world
        42·
        3 years ago

        Because it’s our right.

        The 2nd amendment says nothing about regulation of magazines. And regulating magazines doesn’t effect your right to own guns.

        Because when recreationally shooting a gun like this it’s more enjoyable to have larger capacities.

        So your personal enjoyment is more important than the lives of children?

        • FireTower@lemmy.world
          11·
          3 years ago

          Arms as mentioned in the 2A encompasses more than just firearms. It also includes things the magazines, tasers, and armor.

          Per US SC Caetano v. Massachusetts “”[w]eapo[n] of offence" or “thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands,” that is “carr[ied] . . . for the purpose of offensive or defensive action.” 554 U. S., at 581, 584

    • FireTower@lemmy.world
      1·
      3 years ago

      Self defense is but one reason to own a rifle. I’d suggest that people are entitled to own the most apt means of self preservation. And it seems that in the era of intermediate cartridges the most pragmatic sum for a rifle to hold is usually 30 rounds beyond that magazine start to become a hindrance. In most cases people might not use even all ten rounds. Having the additional capacity doesn’t prohibit one from using fewer rounds, but having only 10 does inhibit you from using more than 10 rounds.

      Another reason for ownership of rifles is in common defense as alluded to in the 2A by the “Necessary to the security of a free State”. The standard on the global stage for an intermediate cartridge rifle is also 30 rounds of capacity. Meaning most threats to the security of our state would have three times the capacity of a 10 rd magazine.

        • Polarsailor@kbin.social
          24·
          3 years ago

          I don’t believe you’re asking in good faith or would find any reason presented as valid, and I’m not going to play whack-a-mole or engage beyond this reply.

          Locality isn’t really relevant in terms of federal constitutionality. Moreover, it’s not wise to demand demonstration of a need to justify a right at the level of an individual. Why do you need to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures? One could argue that we’d be a lot safer if the cops could shake everyone down and catch the baddies early. Why do you need to be secure against cruel and unusual punishment? One could argue that we’d be a lot safer if there was more gruesome public deterrence. Why do you need to be able to freely speak your mind in public? So on and so forth. Individual need is not the fulcrum.

          I get it though, you don’t like this one right in particular, so you’ll want to wiggle about how it’s different or outdated or misapplied as to individuals. I’m going to assume your life is fairly stable and secure, based on your original question. Good for you. But don’t assume everyone has your privilege, and try to appreciate that this is a large nation with a great many ways of life and circumstances that are outside your personal experience.

          I hope we all get to keep all of our rights, as they keep us, by virtue of their nature and our nature. As to need, I sure hope you never have to individually assert any of your rights because you have an acute need, but if you do, I hope you still enjoy whichever right you need in that moment and haven’t pissed it away.

          (Edit for small typos)

  • sudo22@lemmy.world
    33·
    3 years ago

    Good. California regulations have done nothing to improve gun violence in their state when compared to less restrictive states like Texas. Even ignoring the blatant constitutional issues.

    Texas has 3.2 gun murders per 100k. California has 3.4/100k.

    Source, from the Murders section

    Better social safety nets would be far more effective at reducing all forms of violence.