this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023
523 points (97.1% liked)

News

23376 readers
2489 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

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
[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ScornForSega@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

That’s an interesting assertion - especially given the lack of actual criticism of his ruling and its arguments.

Really. He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that's not a valid criticism. He's legislating from the bench.

You might want to revisit his provided statement on the matter - it wasn’t very ambiguous.

And you might want to link it. I just guessed.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] ScornForSega@lemmy.world 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Where's the link to the actual court filing?

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

On the off chance you'll actually read this one, it's pretty easy to find, but in case you need a direct link...