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.

  • @stillwater@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    14
    edit-2
    2 years ago

    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!

    • @bobman@unilem.org
      link
      fedilink
      102 years ago

      Well, if you can’t fight then a gun is your best option.

      Can you fight?

      Didn’t think so.

          • SatansMaggotyCumFart
            link
            fedilink
            12 years ago

            You’re more likely to shoot a friend or family member, not the bad guy with a gun that you’re hoping for.

            • @stillwater@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              12 years ago

              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!

          • @stillwater@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            1
            edit-2
            2 years ago

            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

      • @Honytawk@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        22 years ago

        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.

      • @stillwater@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        English
        12 years ago

        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.”

          • @stillwater@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            English
            12 years ago

            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.