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.
Why don’t they tackle the issue at the root: people who feel like they have nothing to live for, so they take their frustration out on society.
Oh wait, that involves reducing the disparity in wealth. I guess we know why the ruling class is making us squabble over gun laws, then.
We just had the story of a judge getting road rage and firing wildly.
The root of gun violence is guns.
Then why isnt this a problem in say, switzerland? They have lax gun laws as well, but you dont really hear about mass shootings there. This is a mental health issue.
We have way more guns than switzerland.
Owning a 2nd or 5th gun doesn’t make one magically murderous. The fact that guns are widely owned in Switzerland and they don’t have the same crime issues proves something else is at play. The highest crimes areas in the US are the poorest, it’s fundamentally an economic issue to be solved. Make sure people have a happy and fulfilling life and many, many fewer people choose to murder.
Because nobody has ammo in Switzerland.
And everyone who owns a gun got one during their military training.
So they are trained and ammoless.
Switzerland isn’t the argument you ammosexuals think it is.
What are you talking about? Gun owners can freely buy ammo in Switzerland.
Are you referring to the fact that military-owned ammo stays on the military base? If so, I would like to emphasize we are talking about civilian ownership and civilians can buy ammo.
Right. But, proportionally speaking, who is significantly more likely to go on a shooting spree because they ‘feel like they have nothing to live for, so they take their frustration out on society’?
Is it going to be your exceptions, or my rules?
Why does it only matter if they go on shooting sprees for the reasons convenient to you?
Because addressing why people want to throw their lives away and kill others is important to solving the problem.
You say “convenient to me.” That’s cute, you’re trying to make this all about me, lol.
What’s “convenient for me” is these problems not existing in the first place. Wish that didn’t need to be spelled out for you.