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

News

23376 readers
2261 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
rjc@lemmy.world
Thekingoflorda@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
JonsJava@lemmy.world
gedaliyah@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
jeffw@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
523
Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds (apnews.com)
submitted 1 year ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world
609 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
[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

And “team red” takes $16 million a year from the gun lobby and are adamant the solutions just coincidentally align with what’s most profitable.

Ah, I see we're forgetting about Bloomberg and his profiteering off of sensationalism of violence.

Of course you would be, because you’re looking for excuses to do nothing, especially excuses that might take decades to prove wrong.

Feel free to highlight any comment I've made where I suggest doing nothing.

Take all the time you need.

You want a half solution that doesn’t impact you, not an actual solution.

In point of fact, I quite explicitly argue for actual solutions.

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ah, I see we're forgetting about Bloomberg and his profiteering off of sensationalism of violence.

Yeah who knows why he bothers with the abstraction when he can just take bribes directly from the gun lobby. Maybe he's secretly bankrolled by a shady lobby group representing school children and abused partners.

Feel free to highlight any comment I've made where I suggest doing nothing.

You're a representative of the pro-gun community, using their talking points to push their agenda, making you a representative of them. If that label upsets you, it sounds like a problem you should take up with them.

In point of fact, I quite explicitly argue for actual solutions.

Did you even read your own link? They openly acknowledge that changes to gun need to be a key part of the solution since "curing everybody of violence forever" is 100 years away.

Accessing someone's past behaviour and restricting or denying them guns accordingly? Congratulations, you've invented red flag laws and background checks that actually check backgrounds, 25 years later than everyone else. Go forth and spread the word to your pro-gun brethren and try not to reflect on who could have been saved

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

Yeah who knows why he bothers with the abstraction when he can just take bribes directly from the gun lobby. Maybe he’s secretly bankrolled by a shady lobby group representing school children and abused partners.

I'm not sure I'd call it abstraction given it's literally his media business, but hey, whatever makes you feel better.

You’re a representative of the pro-gun community, using their talking points to push their agenda, making you a representative of them. If that label upsets you, it sounds like a problem you should take up with them.

Oh, I see - generalizations are okay when they're your generalizations.

I'm not sure how you interpret an actual focus on actual problem solving as a pro-gun agenda - a rational individual would reflect and consider that when basic problem solving is given a demeaning label, it might be indicative of a bad opinion on the matter. Let me know when you get to that point.

you even read your own link? They openly acknowledge that changes to gun need to be a key part of the solution since “curing everybody of violence forever” is 100 years away.

And you're confused by this... how?

Accessing someone’s past behaviour and restricting or denying them guns accordingly? Congratulations, you’ve invented red flag laws and background checks that actually check backgrounds, 25 years later than everyone else. Go forth and spread the word to your pro-gun brethren and try not to reflect on who could have been saved

Ah, so two things we already have, excellent

We can then proceed to the rest of the preventative measures and actually improve some lives, eh?