- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
- cross-posted to:
- [email protected]
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.
Oh look, another confidently incorrect Australian putting their piece into a gun debate.
Australia definitely has not banned civilian firearm ownership.
Very debatable. Letting the government have the monopoly on lethal tools is giving a lot of trust to the people a fairly significant portion of the population consider corrupt.
Considering you think civilians can’t have firearms I’d be surprised you even know what people can own in your own country
Americans can’t even own (new) assault rifles. AR15’s are not assault rifles, and civilians do own them in Australia too, ask me how I know.
They definitely do not have a single purpose, anyone who blindly says this has no idea how huge shooting sports are. In most western countries it’s literally the biggest sport participation wise by a huge margin.
Don’t need to do that these days, submachine guns are super easy to manufacture at home, rifles and pistols are just around the corner. You’d probably be surprised how many illegal firearms are already out there, the ADF has lost a lot of stuff over the years too.
You can say that about so many more things than firearms, the end use is what always matters though. I’d be able to argue the opposite when shooting sports are the safest sport to participate in, in Australia anyway.