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.
Only rich people deserve the right to self defense eh?
TIL the only form of self defence is bullets. Nothing else. Only bullets.
Next time you’re walking down a sketchy alley, make sure you’ve got a pocket full of bullets!
Well, if you can’t fight then a gun is your best option.
Can you fight?
Didn’t think so.
What does it matter if I can fight? Without bullets, I have no right to self defense.
It matters because if you can’t fight, you’re going to lose to someone who can.
You’re more likely to shoot a friend or family member, not the bad guy with a gun that you’re hoping for.
I’m the one being told I should have a gun, not the one saying I have a gun! Besides, the right to self-defense is all about bullets it seems, so as long as I can chuck bullets at the guy, I’ll be legally protected!
I was replying to bobman and it shows up that way for me.
Does it not for you?
I think you may have accidentally replied to me, it’s in my inbox and I see it under my comment.
I could be a kung fu master but apparently if I don’t have bullets, I have no right to self-defense, so I will be legally screwed either way!
Well, better than a knife that makes you get close to an armed attacker, and they don’t make holsters for baseball bats, tasers are 60% effective and that’s the ones the police can get that we can’t, and mace is for non-deadly threats, so you should have that too, but time and place
A knife doesn’t make you come close to an attacker. You use it when the attacker comes close.
The point of self defence is to defend, not to go out of your way to kill.
Ok fair, I worded that poorly, I should have said “is only effective when the attacker gets in close enough proximity to stab, which puts you at undue risk of harm” but I didn’t think the Pedantic Police would be out, my mistake.
Even if I was the world’s foremost knife fighter, and took them all out, I’d be in legal trouble because I have no rights to self-defense if I don’t have bullets.
Idk where you live, but afaik there isn’t a place where armed self defense is only legal with guns. Sucks if true, but then “you should change that.”
I can only suggest you go back and read the comment I first responded to, and then see if my comments take on a new meaning.
Pocket
sandbullets!Well… I’m not seeing a ton of these mass shootings committed by the ultra wealthy, where are you seeing that?
Oh so you admit it? Fuck poor people!
Glad to hear you say it.
LMFAO, yeah, fuck me alright.
And me, evidentially.
deadliest mass shooting by a lone individual in U.S. history, dude was a millionaire.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Paddock
We’re talking the outlier that was Vegas, right?
I’m not going to start scoring mass killings for you, the guy asked for data, there it is.
Yeah… no. You’re being disingenuous as fuck, perhaps unintentionally.
Their statement was I’m not seeing a ton of these mass shootings committed by the ultra wealthy, where are you seeing that? You provided a single reference to an outlier - seemingly aware it’s an outlier e.g. calling-out deadliest.
It’s hard to see how a single data-point - an outlier, at that - is somehow the requested data let alone ton of.
No only responsible gun owners deserve the right. Responsibility means underwriting yourself or with an insurer the cost of the risks posed by your toys.
Toys? This is the mentality that makes reform difficult. You are part of the problem, not the solution.
There are those of us who use these tools exactly as they are meant to and really get annoyed at both the “AR at the grocery store” crowd and the “Thousand dollar bullets will show them” crowd.
Right so only rich people, got it. Gotta spend money to prove your life is worth protecting after all, if you have no money you might as well go ahead and be victimized and die, good riddance!
So you admit the cost of gun violence it outsized and paid by innocent communities?
I admit your “rich people only” gun policy is.
Who’s gonna shoot you if mini-missles cost a grand? Defend yourself with something else.
People don’t sell untaxed smokes and booze, huh?
And those people get arrested. What aren’t we understanding here? Selling weapons of war should be easier than smokes or booze? What kind of logic is that?
Interestingly enough, so do those committing crimes with firearms.
Define weapons of war.
Because you have no other argument?
Because you’re likely using it as a tactic to make them sound scary, and you likely don’t know what you’re talking about. Do you mean the Colt 1911 or m1 garand that were a gun of choice for the first and second world war, or the AR-15 that has been taken to no wars ever by anyone anywhere?
Weapons used in wartime.
So every gun.
(Well actually not)
And also every knife, they use knives too, so gotta ban those!
Only rich people should be allowed to shoot up malls and schools. If you only use them in self defense, bullets are worth a grand each. This is an plutocracy, and such delights of mass murder should not belong to the common man.
So if I don’t have $10,000 I can’t have a full mag with which to defend myself? $15,000 for one standard capacity at that?
Yeah, “only rich people can defend themselves, you poors don’t deserve to live anyway.”
It’s like they’ve learned nothing from the attempted-privilege-making-poor tax that is the NFA.
the really shitty part is regulating suppressors. I wonder how cheap they’d actually be nowadays if it weren’t for the NFA.
There’s certainly an argument to be made that we’d be seeing much more innovation and availability if not for the sheer SOT sandbagging.
It continues to blow my mind that basic hearing protection is somehow restricted especially when the countries the restrict/ban crowd loves comparing the US to generally consider suppressors to be essential equipment because of the sound reduction.