518
Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds (apnews.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/news@lemmy.world
571 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 17 points 2 years ago* (3 children)

Well I think the best legislation is just heavy background checks and checkups on gun owners. Yes, you could introduce laws like this where people can just get around it or actually go deep down the the fundamental issue, which is why these mass shooters are mass shooters. Background checks and psychiatric tests are the way to go. Guns shouldn't and can't be illegal, make sure gun owning individuals are sound of mind enough to own them.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    We've already done the research on mass shooters and understand how to address the problem - it's a multi-faceted, systemic approach.

    So, naturally, neither party is willing to make any progress on it.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 13 points 2 years ago

    Summarised by Chat GPT:

    The article is an interview with two professors, Jillian Peterson and James Densley, who have conducted a comprehensive study on mass shooters in the US. They have created a database of every mass shooter since 1966 and interviewed some of them, as well as their families and friends. They have also talked to people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.

    The main findings of their research are:

    • Mass shooters share four common traits: childhood trauma, social isolation, suicidal thoughts and access to firearms.
    • Mass shooters often have a crisis point that triggers their violent behavior, such as a breakup, a job loss or a humiliation.
    • Mass shooters are not born evil or mentally ill, but rather they are shaped by their life experiences and circumstances.
    • Mass shooters can be prevented if they are identified and treated early, before they reach the point of no return.

    The article also discusses the challenges and implications of their research, such as:

    • The need for more funding and political will to address the root causes of mass shootings, such as mental health, social support and gun control.
    • The importance of changing the narrative and language around mass shooters, such as avoiding terms like "monster" or "lone wolf" that dehumanize them and obscure their motives.
    • The role of the media and the public in reducing the glorification and copycat effect of mass shootings, such as not naming the shooter or showing their manifesto.
    • The potential for using their database and methodology to study other forms of violence, such as domestic terrorism or hate crimes.
  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Ah, yes. Both sides.

    And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Ah, yes. Both sides.

    Let's not pretend Blue team is absent of any responsibility or blame here - doing so does them a disservice in withholding the necessary pressures to change and do better, enabling the exact mediocrity and incompetence currently on display.

    It may shock you to realize that one can correctly lay fault at the hands of a party while understanding that party is overall less problematic than its opponent.

    And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.

    It was, in point of fact, the thing I was responding to.

    I'm not sure if you'd actually read that source let alone much else on the subject - do you believe there is zero overlap between the general pressures toward violence (firearm or otherwise) and the observed pathway to becoming a mass shooter?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Mass shooters are the reason cited for most gun laws though. Detachable magazines, full-auto, short-barreled weapons, etc.

    The issue is one party hates social programs but loves guns, and the other party hates guns specifically because the other one loves them.

    I don't understand the Democrats" hatred of firearms. All their attempts to go after them are ineffective at preventing gun violence.

    Meanwhile, pro-gun people are one of the largest single-issue voting blocks in the county. So all the Dems are really doing is handing votes over to Republicans.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago

    Meanwhile, pro-gun people are one of the largest single-issue voting blocks in the county. So all the Dems are really doing is handing votes over to Republicans.

    This is a point that cannot be stressed enough.

    As of 2022, Iowa had a ballot initiative for codifying a strict scrutiny clause on restrictions on the right to bear arms in our state constitution. We have a ~3-way split of Democrat, Republican, and Independent voters. The measure passed with ~66% support.

    On an entirely unrelated note, our Republican governor won her election with ~58% the vote against a Democrat pushing - admittedly mild - restrictions on firearms.

    Blue team isn't going to lose blue team die-hard votes by dropping these points. They are, however, demonstrably alienating Independents who reject such restrictions.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    Democrats don't hate firearms. They're ambivalent or even slightly favorable to firearms. They hate men, especially white men.

    Gather up some actual American leftists, interrupt their busy day of adding stripes to the rainbow flag, and ask them the following questions and note their answers:

    • What do you think of Andrew Tate?

    • Why do you think so many young white men are drawn to Andrew Tate?

    • What messaging do you have for young white men?

    • Why should young white men be on board with your cause?

    • What does your cause have to offer young white men?

    The answers I would expect from them/have heard from them:

    • He's a degenerate scumbag who should be in prison.

    • Because all white men are just as evil as he is.

    • Go die in a war.

    • They shouldn't; the left isn't for them.

    • Nothing; white men already have everything and deserve nothing.

    To the left, white men are boogeymen. "Historical oppressors." Present-day Republicans. The patriarchy. And they apply this hatred to ALL white males including the unborn. "I'd have an abortion if I found out the fetus was male."

    The actual problems that cause mass shooters are childhood trauma, isolation, lack of social safety nets. The right hates social safety nets because the yacht owning class has told them to for so long. The left loves social safety nets...except for white men.

    Addressing the needs of white men, giving them actual help and care, devoting resources to them to allow them to lead healthy productive lives, overcome and escape trauma...unthinkable in either party. So the right says "that's what you get for sending your kids to school instead of church" and the left says "What about making the magazine release harder to push?"

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago

    I'm a single, white, male firearm owner. I don't feel hated by the left at all.

    Recognizing that white men have been privileged and addressing the institutional issues that have given white men an unfair leg up for centuries isn't an assault on white men.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago

    Yikes dude get off Rumble and turn off Tucker Carlson. I'm a white man on the left ambivalent to guns but want more restrictions. And your whole post is all fantasy to feed a victim complex, it's seriously embarrassing.

    Are you a Tate fan since you brought him up multiple times? Dude is a piece of filth scumbag.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    No thank you. You're asking the US government to do that? Practically, this would get sourced to your local police department and weaponized against minorities.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    Well that sounds like it would be a drastic change from the status quo /s

    And anyway, CA just passed a bill to do exactly that (psychiatric commitment solely through the criminal justice system) but for any crime. It's supposed to address homelessness (?) but that kind of power will get fucked up and out of control really fast. It's like they got it backwards. God forbid they address the people with the literal murder weapons. No. Let's go punish the people without rent bills and mortgages. That makes perfect sense.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    and psychiatric tests

    I can't see any way that this could possibly go wrong, not ever. /s

    Let's look at this on multiple fronts.

    First, who is going to pay for that? Are you going to require people to pay for the ability to exercise their constitutionally-guaranteed rights? What other rights would you say that people should need to pay for in order to be able to use them?

    Second, what criteria would you use to determine if someone is "fit"? A criminal background check is objective; wither you've been convicted of a crime or you haven't. A psychiatric test is about an indeterminate future, an even that hasn't happened yet. How are you going to guarantee that only people who will create a crime are being prevented from having rights, and not any other people?

    Third, how do you distinguish between a protected political opinion ("the bourgeoisie need to be violently overthrown through force of arms by the proletariat") and beliefs that have no rational basis in protected political speech ("pedophile Jews are killing people with space lasers, therefore I need to murder everyone at Lollapalooza")? Given that involuntary commitment is already a disqualifying factor for owning a firearm, how is your proposal meaningfully different unless you are arguing that many people should not be permitted to exercise their protected rights because they might act in a criminal way at some indeterminate point in the future?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Dude I'm just saying basic stuff like people shouldn't carry handheld people killers if they're clinically insane or beats their spouse each night

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] 2 points 2 years ago

    if they’re clinically insane

    That's already covered on form 4473; if you have been involuntarily committed or adjudicated as mentally defective, you are not able to own a firearm legally. States are legally obligated to report this information.

    or beats their spouse each night

    This is also already covered on form 4473; if you have been convicted of any domestic violence offense--misdemeanor or felony--or you are the subject of a protective order, you are not eligible to legally own a firearm. States are legally obligated to report this information.

    So what are you asking for, since both of the things you say you really want are already covered by existing laws?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent