![Jeremy [Iowa]](https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/cf578083-5772-4b2f-a181-51285d32757b.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds
There is no legal use of a gun that requires a gun capable of holding more than 6 rounds.
Asserting a negative - bold strategy. I'd be interested in seeing your support for such a position.
I frequently legally use standard capacity magazines at the shooting range, though, so you may have a hard time here.
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.
Is this one of those Works Cited: Crack Pipe moments?
What high capacity firearms do allow is criminals to maximize the damage they do in a short period of time.
Ah - so you only care about mass shootings, the vast minority of firearm violence let alone homicide.
These idiots need to look at themselves in the mirror and realise that they have an obsession with a tool designed on a single purpose, killing and most of which designed for killing humans.
Have you considered it may be you with the obsession, given your fixation on firearms to the complete neglect of the underlying issues of violence?
No criminals won’t follow the law but everyone has the potential to break the law or steal guns from someone who does abide by the law. It’s tough but they are killing machines and if you can’t see that you are a f*cking idiot
Not to interrupt what's clearly a rational take in rant form, but logically, one should address the killing rather than quibbling about the implement used.
Speaking with 2A militants is a waste of time.
Only because you're so unbelievably entrenched in your opinion about the validity of a thing you seek to support it using whatever you can muster and, when that fails, you fall back on hyperbole, emotional appeal, defeatism, and insult rather than consider that you may be putting your conclusion before any support.
I’ve quoted statistics, scientific studies, framed 2A in founder’s terms (that’s actually a reference you’ve ignored completely)
I seem to have missed those - were they in the form of hyperbolic bullshit? You have provided quite a bit of that.
ETA: Feel free to highlight where you've done so.
so let’s skip to the end, finish with your snark and smugness, and walk away.
I see you're working on your projection.
You don’t give a fuck about it as long as you can buy your gun.
I'd argue I care about the issues at hand far more given my arguments for actually addressing those issues rather than taking offense a specific tool is used to the neglect of the actual suffering.
But hey, don't let that get in the way of your narrative. You seem to be concocting quite the substitute for reality.
Lol, fair enough.
Nope not ERPO, opposite of that. The person that is in fear of their life with proof showing merit, can bypass the waiting period. Using proof of restraining order submission (using copies and receipt) and police report all attainable same day.
So a continuation of the pattern of when minutes count, help is only hours away commonly highlighted of law enforcement and related bureaucracy?
Brainstorming is better and trying to implement an action is better than being “all in or nothing” and nothing being done. Some ideas could be good with others being not so great.
I disagree. Implementing actions by hope alone is not likely to be ineffective and, even considering the possibility of the incredibly rare sunset provision, would unavoidably be infringements without sufficient justification.
We've already done much to understand these problems outside the scope of partisan posturing. The current issue is neither party is willing to change their position even the slightest.
Consider, for example, the items highlighted by the previous article. Blue team has addressed zero of the items aside from the last-ditch firearm measures. There's so much potential for improvement here it's hard to fathom. Some of these measures are unavoidably infringements; they're at least supported by data and analysis.
Blue team has the unique opportunity to completely turn firearms messaging against Red team, should they actually care about these issues. They can come to the table asking for these measures which actually address underlying issues and, rather than quibbling about pushback and giving up, offer compromise - that they're so absolutely confident in these measures, they're willing to admit there's no point to the NFA provisions restricting suppressors/SBRs/SBSs and no data justifying it; these measures are so effective in actually solving root issues they're willing to allow more firearms - deregulating select fire, with some sort of equitable shall-issue process. But, the restrictions come with sunset provisions - if the comprehensive solution doesn't meaningfully impact things, the restrictions, the added safety nets, etc. all go away.
Blue team suddenly becomes the only party in a decade actually promoting firearm enthusiast interests, turning that voting bloc neutral/blue. They absolutely will want these and will pressure and select representatives accordingly. Blue team also manages to pass the first significant gun control reform, social safety net expansion, community resource expansion, etc. in decades in a massive win with their supporters. Red team has nothing to lose as the sunset provision provides ample safety net for rolling things back. Everyone gets most of what they actually want and we manage to actually improve lives.
Naturally, this also entirely defangs a potent inflammatory wedge issue both parties depend on while reducing the desperation they depend on, so it'll never happen.
Is the 9th circuit court of appeals not federal? Of course that was 2017, but since the Supreme Court vacated it and Judge Benitez ruled the same way again it’s settled law right? The ban is no longer in effect because the case is finished with this ruling, right?
Are you pretending the supreme court is not federal? Is, perhaps, devoid of authority?
You seem to be burying your head in the sand and trying to avoid that the supreme court which vacated it did so in light of a ruling which rendered the 9th circuit's ruling invalid, specifically due to Benitez' ruling.
California has appealed, as they always do. The 9th circuit may or may not accept it; it may or may not continue up to the Supreme Court.
Are you under the impression settled law is somehow sacred and fixed? That, say, there has never been any occurrence of settled law being revisited in light of better or changed understanding of an issue? Interesting.
Are you pretending the supreme court's continued establishment of precedent on an issue is meaningless?
What state is your BAR license from? I’d like to see how their requirements compare to mine.
Oh, interesting - you cannot manage to address let alone refute an argument, so you... appeal to the authority of education as proving that your unsupported position is somehow unassailable? If your law degree was somehow issued by an entity other than Bullshit University, I have serious concerns about its worth given your apparent lack of familiarity with things covered by even high school debate.
Interestingly enough, only one of us has referenced relevant materials on the matter - you wouldn't be projecting regarding your bullshit, would you?
Certainly not.
You may have had some ground to stand on there if you'd actually meaningfully engaged in the discussion and made an argument, perhaps provided actual criticism of addressed that made, but all you've managed to do is provide childish no, u!, insult, and deflection.
Freedom…your freedom to make the rest of the country suffer your hobby.
Fortunately, my hobby involves no harm to others and involves no items with agency or agenda of their own; it's quite impossible for my hobbies to be the cause of anyone's suffering.
I would say the county suffers from quite the violence epidemic, though, and unlike you, I actually argue for addressing it rather than taking offense a specific tool is used to the neglect of the actual suffering.
Stronger background checks, better gun storage laws, provide basic firearm education (maybe even make it mandatory).
I'd love to see your source for such positions, especially regarding the magnitude of improvement expected and the justification for such.
We already have extensive background checks for nearly every firearm purchase. I've yet to see support for the notion that any meaningful percentage of firearm violence is committed by those who legally purchased a firearm but somehow bypassed a background check.
Similarly, I've yet to see any support for the notion that legally requiring safe storage - constitutional violation concerns aside - would make any meaningful improvement. This, at least, one could do much to promote without adding restrictions - I've yet to see any blue team support for, say, subsiding safes.
And similarly, there's no blue team support for subsided, equitable, shall-issue training and licensing - and a lack of indication it would make a difference.
I'm pro gun. But think about the people you know who should never own one. That’s what we should be focusing on. Weeding out irresponsible gun owners and harsher punishments for those that ignore the laws.
Oh? Who are those people? How would you objectively identify such?
Every pro gunner likes to use murder as a comparison against gun laws, “well murder is illegal, but people still do it!” Yeah, but can you imagine how high murder rates would skyrocket if they were legal? You’re not going to stop all gun deaths, but we could do a shit ton to at least minimize them the best we can.
Ironically, you highlight the reason such a highlight is raised - you do nothing at all about the underlying issue (violence and the pressures for it) and, instead, focus only on the fact firearms are a tool used; tacking on more restrictions which create additional burden for those already doing nothing wrong yet are unlikely to meaningfully impact the crime is absurd. You ignore that the current laws and proposed laws continue to ignore the problems.
It’s so frustrating because all we need to do is implement common sense gun restrictions to keep them out of the wrong hands, but nooooo. That takes too much brain power for half of the US, apparently.
"Common sense" is such a laughably disingenuous phase here. It implies the solutions are obvious and intuitive yet the solutions proposed do nothing for the issue at all beyond setting the stage for fire and fury when such measures are rightly resisted.
You are right that there are a few simple things we can do to meaningfully impact things... but you might be surprised as to what they are.
Emergency restrain orders could be another reason for the exception.
Would this be the same ERPO process often touted as a solution to unhinged individuals going on a rampage that almost never works due to the current slow process, general unawareness, and issues with restoration of rights?
Try justifying the waiting period rather than creating some Rube Goldberg machine of negligible value.
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.
You seem to miss that California has a rich and established history of using SLAP lawsuits and sandbag legislation specifically intended to require lengthy federal appeal and judgment to resolve, always with the next legislative measure ready to go no matter how unconditional.
You seem to believe such states are operating in good faith - they're not. Your suggestion only works if they are.
Additionally, the state still has information it shouldn't regarding civilians and ownersgip of firearms and has already demonstrated incompetence with such information resulting in leaks.
I can respect the brainstorming, but the answer truly is to simply address the underlying issues behind individuals and the myriad pressures toward violence.
Could you clarify your position? It's hard to tell if this is rant, sarcasm, or satire.
I'd argue handwaving away rejections of your own nonsense - which appears to hinge on anything but the actual amendment and its intent - as mere "NRA propaganda" is both actively preventing useful, rational discourse and highlighting the extent to which you retreat behind your own biases rather than confront being wrong.
He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism.
Is that what he did? Reclassify?
I'm increasingly confident you haven't actually read any of it and are just talking out of your ass.
He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism.
Ah, so you are just straight-up full of shit. Fair enough. Way to own it. You don't see that often.
I was pretty sure I'd referenced the ruling in this comment chain, but on the off chance I haven't, here's the relevant part. Also, here's where it was already provided.
Who wrote that, Benitez?
He’s making shit up and he knows it.
That's an interesting assertion - especially given the lack of actual criticism of his ruling and its arguments.
This wouldn't be denial, would it?
I'm sure you guys won’t complain if every magazine, optic and accessory is required to ship to an FFL for paperwork before getting to the customer. 'Cause they’re “arms” now, right?
You might want to revisit his provided statement on the matter - it wasn't very ambiguous.
That said, you're certainly welcome to try to push for such - SCOTUS has a history of slapping down such ban-incrementalist measures lately and I suspect that such a laughable overreach is more likely to result in erosion of FFL processes and requirements.
Ah, I see - criticism and correction of your misunderstandings is supporting firearm ownership without nuance - a thing of freedoms and rights; therefore I'm an authoritarian.
With leaps like that, you could do gymnastics.
That would explain why they're all you provide.
Once more with the delicious irony.
I'm interested in your thoughts on how I've elevated authoritarians; you seem to know quite a bit about who I've voted for... or to be talking out your ass once more.
Unfortunately, your other statements speak to it quite effectively.
No, but it could stop some from buying from actual legal stores.
That would be the entire point to the existing straw purchase legislation - which would be a better place to start, if such avenues are demonstrably the actual problem.
Like you said it is a multifaceted issue but repairing like cracks here there will help reinforce other parts of the issue.
Addressing symptoms will never be as effective as addressing root issues, you'll just feel better about negligible impact. That's the problem.
Could you help me understand how sexual abuse of minors is somehow related to firearms? I have serious concerns regarding the state of your mental health if you actually entertain the notion that people should be able to sexually abuse minors.
Does such a reality intersect at all with your hyperbole?