A federal judge has struck down a California law banning gun magazines that hold more than 10 rounds. U.S.

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.

  • @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    6•9 months ago

    Considering the armed attackers have guns themselves and not every shot you make is going to be a cool john wick™ shot through their eye, they may take multiple rounds and you may miss one while they’re shooting back at you, yeah that’s exactly when you need standard capacity magazines.

    What, do you think this is for people shooting a bunch of unarmed pedestrians in a tight space with poor egress paths? Magazines are quick to reload if you aren’t being actively shot at, it’s trivial for them to “press button, grab other mag from wherever it was staged, slap in, charge round, and go” takes about 2sec if you’re untrained, fraction of a second if you practiced in your room for a month with your gear and these fuckfaces plan their shit for months, they have the time. Look up a couple videos on reloading anything with a detachable magazine, mag bans are meaningless.

    • @ChonkyOwlbear@lemmy.world
      1•9 months ago

      Long drawn out gunfights are just more John Wick stuff. More than 90% of self defense gun uses fire fewer than 3 shots. A gun with 6 shots is more than enough for any civilian situation.

      • @ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        2•9 months ago

        Well, that stat was completely made up by you. Especially with anemic handgun rounds people can take a lot of shots before they flee or go down, depending on caliber, motivation of the attacker, what drugs are in their bloodstream, and the anatomical significance of the shots (or them being on target at all.) There’s plenty of videos that show people taking 10+ rounds before they stop attacking. The actual stat is that civilians (unlike police) are unlikely to reload in defensive encounters and so do fire less but it still may need to be more than 6 in many cases. (The reason may surprise you: Civilians, unlike the police, are actually responsible for what their rounds strike. The police don’t have to give a fuck, citizens do.)

      • Jeremy [Iowa]English
        2•9 months ago

        Long drawn out gunfights are just more John Wick stuff. More than 90% of self defense gun uses fire fewer than 3 shots. A gun with 6 shots is more than enough for any civilian situation.

        Do you have any support for this position, or is it more Works Cited: Crack Pipe nonsense?

    • @PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee
      -1•9 months ago

      Considering the armed attackers have guns themselves

      Thanks to legal gun owners and the deeply flawed systems they won’t let anyone change.