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.
Simple solution: tax the ever-loving fuck out of bullets. $1000 per. Call it a “true cost adjustment.”
Only rich people deserve the right to self defense eh?
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.
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!
Pocket
sandbullets!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
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.
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
Weapons used in wartime.
So every gun.
(Well actually not)
And also every knife, they use knives too, so gotta ban those!
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?
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.
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.
I wish you the best of luck with that. Poor taxes were the strategy behind the NFA - its incredible unpopularity guarantees it won’t make it through either branch of Congress let alone both.
Thanks!
deleted by creator
If some of them die when working with explosives, I can only see it as a win.
You seem like a pleasant individual, wishing death on those you disagree with views on Constitutional rights.
FYI the powder used in manufacturing ammo is not explosive. Smokeless powder simply burns fast, and it’s generally safe and relatively easy to construct your own ammo at home. I have a couple of reloading presses at home, have made hundreds of cartridges of high quality ammo for cheaper than you can buy it. The cartridges that I produce with novice to intermediate level experience on the press are actually higher quality than factory ammo, unless you spend extra for the Match Grade stuff.
Better than the “profiteering off of the death of kids” community.
Ah yes, let’s just arbitrarily throw out the Bill of Rights and make it so that only rich people can access tools with which to protect themselves.
What a brilliantly uneducated idea. Thanks for turning my hunting season into a 3k dollar minimum adventure instead of a cheap way for me to put food on my table.
Use a bow, like a real man.
We do during bow season, and then we hunt with rifles during rifle season. It’s the best way to get more deer meat in the freezer.
Oh fuck off. No one gives a flying fuck about your bloodlust beyond other psychos.
Ah, I see hunting for food is now bloodlust. Completely rational take.
It literally is when we live in this day and age. If you aren’t living in a tribe somewhere, the bottom line is, you do this because you want to end something’s life.
I’ll be sure to inform my hunting friends we’re all full of bloodlust for our interest in filling the freezer with cheap, quality meat which also serves to provide population control for an invasive and damaging species because a rando on the Internet said so.
I feel for you and your apparent limited ability to consider other situations.
Removed by mod
Yikes. Are you sure the bloodlust isn’t your own issue?
Lol, calm down.
Says the guy who is vastly unaware of how many responsibly armed citizens they cross paths with on a daily basis, and who have demonstrably prevented mass shootings. You have no idea the hidden safety net you live under and yet you want it destroyed because of the few bad actors.
None, because I don’t live in a shithole where you need guns in order to feel safe in your own home.
And just in case you’re looking for your “good guys with a gun,” they’re all standing outside of a school, waiting and shitting their pants. It’s pathetic.
I’m not sure anyone - anyone - would argue police are “good guys”. If anything, they’re an active demonstration that those in power cannot be the only ones with firearms given the extent to which they maliciously misuse that power.
But sure - use the incompetence and cowardice of a given police department as some absurd emotional appeal.
Yup. Yes. A few bad actors spoiled it for the rest of you. Waa waa waa…grow up. Y’all can’t figure out if guns are a hobby or a necessity, but you seem to always fall back on both points pretty quickly. It’s sad that your “interests” seem to threaten our very existence, yet you feel like you have some inalienable right to kill others. It’s extremely sad and disappointing. I suggest you grow up and find other ways to entertain yourself.
Yikes, the projection.
Oh? I’m not sure how you interpreted their highlight of the sheer commonality of those legally carrying with no issue as either of these things.
I’m not sure how you feel threatened by the mere existence of inanimate objects. Even extrapolating to the action - that of homicide - I’m not sure how you’d feel threatened by such a thing, especially so disproportionately to its lack of prevalence related to the other ways you can be killed and their statistical likelihood.
I’m also not sure how you interpret the right to bear arms - repeatedly highlighted for self-defense purposes in judgements and judge opinions - as somehow an inalienable right to kill others. Unless I’m missing something, that kill others part tends to result in the offender spending quite some time in prison.
You may wish to take your own advice - you seem unable to think beyond your own preconceived and irrational views on a thing, even aside from your demonstrated inability to consider how your criticisms and suggestions might apply to yourself rather hypocritically.