Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds

narcissists

thank you!! this country has a narcissism problem. the hyper-focus on individuality and celebrities not only encourages it, but celebrates it. lots of people look up to narcissistic psychopaths as if being a ruthless egotistical asshole is something to strive for.

i knew a guy that had one poster up, and it was of Tony Montana from Scarface. he would show it off to people as if he were unaware he was indirectly telling everyone that he was an asshole. the guy i knew looked up to a machiavellian drug dealer that easily murdered anyone that got in his way of wealth and power, despite that Tony had a horrible relationship with his wife, was paranoid, and ended up dying from his own shit behaviors.

i knew a girl with a social circle that was all about social media likes. her and her best friend went to Hawaii to take pictures to post on instagram and facebook. i mean, they spent thousands of dollars and planned their days out in Hawaii around going to scenic places so they could waste hours taking and retaking 100s of pictures to post a few of the best ones. these girls had terrible relationships characterized by antagonism and competition. they would hit on each other's boyfriends and cheat on their own, then get surprisingly upset if anyone else did a 1/10 of what they did to their so-called friends and boyfriends. it was disgusting how they treated each other. even their own individual mentality was marred by these delusions of grandiosity and entitlement that weren't rooted in rationality or care for others.

whenever i visit other countries, i'm refreshed by the humanity of people there. i think it's one of the reasons i like traveling so much. i just cannot deal with the narcissism here. it's exhausting and alienating. anyone have any tips on how to remedy these feelings i get?

The most effective part of our gun laws is preventing violent offenders from obtaining a license (and maybe having a license to start with, I guess).

Beyond that, almost every other part of our laws are a ridiculous dog and pony show meant to appease some group or other in some way that's usually completely ineffective.

No. Canada has a whole host of prohibitions, and restrictions. The sale and transfer of handguns was recently made illegal (source), in 2020, 1500 models of what the Canadian government deemed to be an "Assault Rifle" were banned (source), Canada has extreme restrictions on the transportation of "Restricted Firearms" (handguns are an example of this) in that, to be able to transport them, you must obtain an "Authorization to transport", to be able to carry a "Restricted", or "Prohibited" firearm, one must obtain an "Authorization to Carry" (unless, possibly, it is for wilderness protection (source)), and, as outlined in the Canadian Criminal Code, and the Firearms Act, there are also many restrictions on the general transport, handling, storage, display, and transfer of firearms. Not to mention that in addition to all of this, as outlined in the Firearms Act, every firearm owner must be licensed for the use of "non-restricted" firearms (Possession and Acquisition License, PAL), and "restricted" firearms (Restricted Possession and Acquisition License, RPAL), respectively. The acquisition of each of these licenses requires a 1 day course, the successful passing of both a practical, and written exam, and a background check performed by the RCMP. After filling out, and submitting one's application, the prospective firearm owner's application, as mandated by legislation, will sit idle with the RCMP for a 28-day cooldown period. Only after that cooldown period has completed will they begin to process one's application, which can then take much longer depending on the speed of the government at any given time.

I can provide no guarantee that this list is exhaustive.

Gun deaths in Canada isn't exactly in a good place, it's just way better than the US.

It's also mostly a problem caused by guns smuggled in from the US, where it's far too easy for people with bad intentions to get guns.

You have zero freedom.

my man doesn't affix a bayonet and it shows

Killing them is not the problem, dropping them before they and their pack successfully charge you is the bigger problem

Trans and gay people would be a whole hell of a lot safer if the people who wanted to kill them were unarmed.

I'm gonna be honest here. That is an extremely American comment. You guys aren't exactly the pinnacle of LGBT rights. Far more trans people are killed by guns than save themselves thanks to a gun. Defending guns is killing people and visible minorities are the most at risk.

What states do you think are the best for LGBT people and how do you think their guns culture is like? And why would you think more guns are the solution when countries like Canada so inarguably better than you at this without the guns (we're still very flawed and have a long way to go, but I'm so glad I'm not American and feel bad for my LGBT friends in the US)?

And why focus on homicides when suicide is by far the bigger cause of death? Trans people are at considerably higher risk of suicide and owning a gun is strongly linked to increased chance of successfully commiting suicide. To be clear, the real solution we need is cultural acceptance because studies show that having an accepting environment massively reduces the suicide risk, but access to guns 100% makes it worse!

I know there's something about having access to a means to protect yourself that gives some measure of psychological safety. But studies are at best inconclusive or at worst straight up say you're more likely to be killed if you own a gun, so there is no real safety. And I assure you that an even better way to feel safe is to reduce how many guns other people have.

Again, I'm sorry for being so blunt. I know you mean well. But I think opinions like yours are literally killing people. I expect conservatives to love guns and I don't think anything will convince them, but I do think people like you can be convinced otherwise.

What happened after the hog grabbed the rifle?

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.

Considering the armed attackers have guns themselves

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

And people don’t just stop because you shot them once, or twice.

Yes and no. A lot depends on both shot placement and the firearm being used. Centerfire rifles with bullets traveling more than 2200fps (roughly; some estimates say 2800fps) will stop a person much faster than a pistol, since the temporary wound cavity becomes a permanent wound cavity. But that's going to be true for nearly any centerfire rifle, aside from old cartridges that were designed around black powder (e.g., .45-70); an AR-style rifle isn't going to be more lethal than any other fast-moving centerfire rifle cartridge, it's just a fairly lightweight and easy to use rifle compared to grandad's M-1. Pistol cartridges can stop threats as effectively as rifles, but you require better shot placement, and you generally want to have defensive (e.g. hollowpoint) ammo. (There's a reason that "failure to stop" AKA Mozambique drills are a good training tool.)

So with that in mind, shooting isn’t easy

A rifle is, for an able-bodied person, easier to shoot accurately and effectively than a pistol. Part of that is because you have a longer sight radius, and part of it is because you have a shoulder brace (...and a pistol with a shoulder brace is a short barrelled rifle, which is generally illegal without the BATF gittin' all up in yo shit). It's pretty easy, relatively speaking, to hit a target at 100y with a rifle, and very difficult with a pistol.

many countries in Europe have civilian gun ownership laws

Eh. Civilian gun ownership is difficult and expensive in many European countries. However, many European countries do have combined violent crime rates (defined as murder, robbery, forcible rape, and battery) significantly lower than the US. Violent crime, in general, is lower in Europe. So it's not just that gun crimes are less likely, but that you're also less likely to be sexually assaulted, or get jumped and beaten. There's almost certainly something different going on in social conditions that make violent crime less likely, and that would make it less likely even if European countries had gun laws that were more relaxed.

Oh mate, I thought my instance showed on my username. I'm in the regulated land of Oz so you don't need to tell me how better controls would help the situation out. Nonetheless, I'm familiar with firearms via growing up on farms and military service.

Agree with your points, but also I would love to see stats on successful use of firearms in self-defence vs homicides where victim was armed. Not raising that in a contentious way, just would be interesting to see whether mag capacity >10 is even a relevant factor in that situation. Most pistol mags would be 10-15, except revolvers of course so limiting capacity to 10 doesn't really affect the outcome unless in a ridiculous situation as I outlined previous.

If you interpret the 2nd amendment to only grant the right to keep and bear arms to members of the militia (not saying if that's a right or wrong interpretation, but that's a somewhat common argument I've seen,) there potentially is an interpretation that most women would not be included in that, because we have an actual definition of what constitutes the militia of the United States.

10 USC Ch. 12: THE MILITIA
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

Section 313 of title 32 basically extends the age to 65 for former members of the regular army/navy/Marines/air force

So more or less, it would apply to members of the national guard (which includes some women) and all able-bodied men ages 17-45 (65 for former military,) and some states have laws defining a state militia that may or may not come into play.

Such an interpretation would also mean a whole lot of older men or anyone who isn't able-bodied also wouldn't be covered by the 2nd amendment.

I'm no legal scholar, I don't know if that interpretation would hold any water under scrutiny, but the same could be said for a lot of laws that we're stuck with.

And again, I'm not saying that it is or isn't a good interpretation, it isn't my interpretation, but it's one that someone could potentially come up with from reading the laws as written.

Like slavery, but not bodily autonomy or the right to representative government or the right to not be discriminated against, or the right against infringement of property rights or ...

The constitution doesn't guarantee magazine sizes.

You mean REGULATING guns or gun magazines violates the well REGULATED militia of the constitution? Are the caps enough for you or do I need to spell it out?

Magazine size?

Lol, tell me you don't understand the constitution without saying you're a fucking idiot. Oh wait.

No it isn't.

It seems that you are saying simultaneously that this is a very weak measure, and also it is a strong enough measure to upset people.

Rather, the very nature of arbitrary restrictions - for absolutely no gain - is quite enough to upset people.

So then, we have a problem. Something must be done, but even this very small step gets blocked, fought against, and has individuals such as yourself encouraging others to not support it.

Any step which encroaches upon rights without direct tie to solving a problem should be resisted. Have you considered Democrats could, say, literally anything other than big scary rifle and big scary standard mags?

You’ve said that it could be used as ‘ammo’ against Democrats, to say that “They are coming for your guns.” But couldn’t you also say that its the opposite? Like, if someone is worried that “they” are going to take guns away, maybe that person could be placated by knowing that this near-nothing step is what is actually being asked for. It isn’t taking guns away. It’s a step that, as you say, won’t make a lot of difference anyway. So can’t that help reduce fear of change?

Given these measures are well-understood as entirely ineffective yet pushed for, it is similarly well-understood there will be further restrictions as nothing will change with the identified problem - how could it, given the measures aren't in any way an addressing of those issues? Thus, we're left with a road to bans via incrementalism.

I would imagine after Roe v. Wade's pivot, you'd understand how relying on but SCOTUS isn't sound strategy - one must, instead, reject politicians pushing for such arbitrary, unhelpful measures rather than enabling the incompetence and erosion.

From my point of view, something must change. Some people propose big changes, some propose small changes. And both meet resistance. I suggest that if you also want change, then it’s probably best to support even small changes without worrying about someone else might get upset that a change was attempted at all.

It would be fair to say politicians are proposing changes; they're unfortunately proposing the wrong ones - neither party is currently willing to consider anything outside their respective side of the wedge issue.

Blue team could entirely win here, were they willing to abandon their ivory tower - they refuse to do so. That failing is on them and no one else.

Which is why I said need, not really. I am not saying to banned them either. We don't need a lot of things in life, but doesn't mean we don't want them. Which also goes back to country folks having different needs compared to city folks. I get that there's going to be a lot of resistance against it, there will always be resistance in everything.

Yes I believe that manufacturers have a responsibility especially when they are making narco like firearms to cater to that kind of life. (Talking about all those gold, diamond, and graphic firearms.) (No I'm not talking about the laser ingrave grips LARPS want to get.)

From reading your article, wouldn't the serial registration also help prevent US drug cartels from spamming mexico with ghost guns, which could be traced back to crime organizations? Wouldn't that dammed one of the toxic rivers and help bring attention too other rivers?

It isn't. Right now it's very difficult to tell the difference between a law abiding gun owner and a criminal gun owner. In the 'defense' scenario, they are literally pitted against one another.

This is only a good argument if the conduct regulated by the law is bad in and of itself.

I can turn my AR-15 into a short barrelled rifle (which is only legal after a very lengthy and intrusive federal process) by simply screwing a new barrel on. If you don't care about the law, the barrier to doing it is tiny. That's what we mean when we say it only affects people operating in good faith with the law. It's so easy to bypass that it's questionable if we should bother.

It's an extremely weak argument for this very reason

Hard no. Background checks for guns? Sure. Waiting period? No. Absolutely not. Let me tell my stalked to just wait three weeks, 'kay? Cool? Cool.

For this, if you have a stalker and you know this which is why you are trying to buy a firearm, there could exceptions. Police report needed to show the reason for protections. Emergency restrain orders could be another reason for the exception.

Absolutely not. We've already seen state governments trying to pass illegal bans (i.e., California). These are being overturned by courts now. If you have a registry, the net effect is that the state gov't can pass a law, confiscate your now-illegal firearms, and then--once the law is thrown out--you've still lost your firearms.

Should be added to the law. If for whatever reason that gun that was legal and becomes illegal, government should pay double the retail price when bought to the owner. If over turned, there should be a automatic availability to buy the firearm with no waiting period for the person that previously had it.

Proud gun owner here. I’d like to see a more proactive approach to gun registration and some sort of yearly inspections for “assault rifles” - just to appease the ones that don’t know anything about guns. Kinda like how you would get “tags” on a car, if that makes sense.

Hard pass. I have zero interest in the state having constant, perfect awareness of who is armed with what. This is not information they need to have, and in an era where law enforcement is constantly making headlines for abuses of power, this is information they should not have.

Let's consider a different extreme: I would counter that the best way to appease those who don't know anything about firearms would be education; we should instead have yearly mandatory classes on firearms, safety, and proficient operation thereof. Remove the mystery and it's much harder to be scared of scary black rifle.

However, we should be able to own fully automatic firearms and silencers/suppressors, muzzle breaks and other “evil” attachments and modifications if the previously mentioned system is in place. The more capable and dangerous the machine, the more tests and certifications you’ll need to legally own them.

I would be happy with a compromise position for select-fire so long as suppressors, SBRs, SBSs, etc. are fully-deregulated; I would instead suggest we implement the majority of what has been identified as actually addressing mass violence as the compromise point and require equitable shall-issue training and certification for select-fire. This is also what I've been suggesting blue team take up as a policy jiu-jitsu reversal for nearly a decade.

I'm all for it. Serial# attachment and register it to the person that will own it. Again if that attachment is found in the black market or with someone that is not suppose to have it, red flag and background check the original owner. We are more reactionary than preventives which is counterproductive when it comes to safety.

You bought a firearm? Show that you can handle it and clear it responsively. Don't know how to handle one? Go take a day at a firing range and familiarize yourself and get certified. This will also remove any doubt of "mishandling" discharge.

Man you gun nonces are weird.

Did you read that carefully? The comment says the US should not allow the lawful trafficking of American registered guns into Mexico. I don't think the second amendment protects Mexican cartels, tbh.

Summarised by Chat GPT:

The article is an interview with two professors, Jillian Peterson and James Densley, who have conducted a comprehensive study on mass shooters in the US. They have created a database of every mass shooter since 1966 and interviewed some of them, as well as their families and friends. They have also talked to people who planned a mass shooting but changed their mind.

The main findings of their research are:

• Mass shooters share four common traits: childhood trauma, social isolation, suicidal thoughts and access to firearms.
• Mass shooters often have a crisis point that triggers their violent behavior, such as a breakup, a job loss or a humiliation.
• Mass shooters are not born evil or mentally ill, but rather they are shaped by their life experiences and circumstances.
• Mass shooters can be prevented if they are identified and treated early, before they reach the point of no return.

The article also discusses the challenges and implications of their research, such as:

• The need for more funding and political will to address the root causes of mass shootings, such as mental health, social support and gun control.
• The importance of changing the narrative and language around mass shooters, such as avoiding terms like "monster" or "lone wolf" that dehumanize them and obscure their motives.
• The role of the media and the public in reducing the glorification and copycat effect of mass shootings, such as not naming the shooter or showing their manifesto.
• The potential for using their database and methodology to study other forms of violence, such as domestic terrorism or hate crimes.

Ah, yes. Both sides.

And, of course, the only problem with guns is mass shooters.

Well that sounds like it would be a drastic change from the status quo /s

And anyway, CA just passed a bill to do exactly that (psychiatric commitment solely through the criminal justice system) but for any crime. It's supposed to address homelessness (?) but that kind of power will get fucked up and out of control really fast. It's like they got it backwards. God forbid they address the people with the literal murder weapons. No. Let's go punish the people without rent bills and mortgages. That makes perfect sense.

Dude I'm just saying basic stuff like people shouldn't carry handheld people killers if they're clinically insane or beats their spouse each night

I can't tell if this is a joke or not, and that makes me sad

Tell us how a capacity ban makes us safer and should be upheld by the courts. Caveat: I'm a liberal and a gun owner who is well versed in firearms. I doubt you'll like my rebuttals, but I always hope to learn something new by these discussions.

If we are talking about a pistol, like a Glock, the magazine needs to be a certain length and can't be shorter.

Something like an AR15 or AK pattern rifles can be shorter so as to only allow 10 rounds.

Pistols are used for the large majority of multiple casualty shootings.

Probably easier to get those in CA that a gun right now.

3D printers: exist

How'd that work out for the drug bans? Cause man I could buy so much weed in college (in an illegal state), and trust me I literally never asked.

I mean.. if you really cared, its a few hour drive to a state where you can legally buy them. Its not a large burden, and could be done in an afternoon.

Edit: i like the downvotes this comment gets, as if its some sort of morality claim. Its just a fact. Im not personally pro gun, however i dont think the solution is an easy all guns are bad all the time. Its a very complex issue in america.

However, i am very against political theater, California isnt going to to fix gun problems unless they can outlaw handguns, which are used in more than 90% of all gun related crimes. Just like they arnt going to fix water shortages by stopping people watering their lawns or washing cars when around 95% or the water usage is corporations.

The ATF.

Straw purchases are the main way, like 85% or more...so illegally...

3d printers and illegal markets

We're not talking about guns, we're talking about mags. Which are trivial to make.

I am against all abortion bans but I don't see what one has to do with the other.

This is a discussion about magazines, not guns.

Yeah, well, sometimes your home is invaded and you get killed in your sleep. Shit happens. A gun isn't going to stop that. You're way more likely to use it to shoot yourself anyway.

The same way we allow cops to arrest people and transport them into a police station for booking. There are exceptions to rules. Does that not make sense to you?

Given the internet doesn't really need any more assholes, what are you bringing to the table exactly?

This isn’t the gotcha you think it is. The only thing the 2nd amendment covers is “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

Fortunately, we have an abundance of analysis on the subject including that used in the ruling to help clarify.

Your argument that bullet capacity is covered is as valid as another’s argument that it’s not because it’s not explicitly stated, so it’s left to interpretation.

This, too, was covered.

However, if someone would like to own a Chambers gun or any other firearm that existed in 1791 when the amendment was ratified then they should be allowed to without restriction, including felons, children, people with mental health issues, illegal drug users etc. This is what the 2nd amendment guarantees in context

That depends quite a bit on whether or not there were historical analogues, though it's fair to say that felons and "illegal" drug users e.g. marijuana are trending toward correcting.

That context is important though. 230 years ago the most common weapons owned and available to the people were muskets and flintlock pistols. Single shot, muzzle loading weapons.

... with complete technological parity with the standing armed forces of the time, in context.

Let’s also not forget that James Madison redrafted the Second Amendment into its current form "for the specific purpose of assuring the Southern states, and particularly his constituents in Virginia, that the federal government would not undermine their security against slave insurrection by disarming the militia.”

Fortunately, we have quite a bit of other text including that from Madison on the subject; a specific limited-scope purpose in one instance does not negate his other statements.

It is incredibly easy in modern times in the US to be able to access firearms capable of dealing significantly greater death and harm than in 1791. It’s fair to argue that, in current context, the intent of the 2nd amendment would not protect magazine capacity. In fact the case that defined bearable arms, District of Columbia v. Heller, leaves much to debate about whether a magazine constitutes a “bearable arm”.

And in the post-Bruen world, there's much less room for debate, especially for arbitrary and capricious restrictions on a right.

Ad hominem attacks. Ah yes I care what you think.

Yep. I argue with Europeans a lot about guns.

If I had a genie where I can magically wish guns away, I'd do it.

But right now, armed Nazi fucks parade around the city, PROTECTED BY COPS, and they want to pass laws that make it harder for my brown hands to protect myself?

I do believe the timing of the new accounts is an able indicator.

do not assume anyone’s political leaning just because they’re against every Joe Schmoe packing heat

It's generally more an assessment of the talking point used and coherence of the argument - you seem to be doing some assuming yourself.

Conservatives have won the popular vote for a presidential election exactly once since 2000, and it was Bush in 2004. They are, by definition, unpopular. Accordingly, you can expect that in open forums the conversation will skew against Republicans. You don’t get to enjoy minority rule and popular opinion at the same time, sorry. If you’re tired of being the minority in every space, perhaps you should consider trying to win people over. Here’s a good start: https://news.gallup.com/poll/1645/guns.aspx

So, in your estimation, does Congress just... not exist? Does it have zero relevance to the United States, e.g. in legislation? As far as I'm aware, they're popular enough to have control of at least one of the houses of Congress at the moment - and that's even leaving aside Governors and other elected positions.

Setting that aside, you you believe forums - especially niche forums - are in any way a sample set indicative of the general population? There's, say, no selection bias at all?

Interesting.

By your own rationale, you should consider the extent to which you should consider trying to win people over e.g. so as to address the incredible skew toward Republicans in current elected positions.

That said, about that poll - you seem to trust it at face-value. Are you aware of its methodology? Its respondent set? Can you think of zero flaws with its methodology which might, say, skew the respondent set?

The majority want stricter gun laws. If you don’t want to be derided, I suggest trying to meet people in the middle and discussing sensible gun control laws. Raising the legal ownership age to 21 seems like an extremely popular measure that the majority of Republicans even support.

Is that so? I'm interested in seeing your support for such a notion.

If we're going by your Gallup poll, the best to be said is 57% of the population perceives current legislation as benefitting from laws which would be more strict and 44% of the population disagrees. That 12% delta doesn't seem to be the silver bullet, so to speak, that you believe it is. But, for the sake of argument, let's pretend it was - If a blue team candidate doesn't push a given restrictive position, do you believe blue team voters would... suddenly vote for red? Conversely, if a blue team candidate doesn't push a given restrictive position... do you believe there are zero independents who would consider them more palatable?

We have a fantastic data point on this - in Iowa's 2022 elections, in a state with a roughly three-way split between Republicans, Democrats, and Independents, Iowa codified a strict scrutiny clause for the right to bear arms in its state constitution with an unprecedented ~66% 'yay' rate. Similarly, the Republican candidate - Kim Reynolds - won with ~58% of the vote against a Democratic candidate pushing more restrictions. Clearly, Iowa's Democrats are in need of considering trying to win people over - by data. I realize it's mere anecdote, but the general responses when asked about voter apathy or active rejection of blue candidates are due to such restrictions not sufficiently balanced by bringing anything to the table.

Or you can go ahead and keep coping and whining about conservatism not being popular without an ounce of self awareness. Your choice. I suggest trying to be part of the solution instead of trying to stop the inevitable.

I find your without an ounce of self-awareness criticism rather laughable, all things considered. You seem to believe yourself part of the solution and inevitable - much like Agent Smith, funnily enough - for no reason other than your own apparent smug.

Congratulations - you may not have intended to do so, but you embody the detrimental effect of such a liberal attitude on constructive discourse.

Well... I'm not seeing a ton of these mass shootings committed by the ultra wealthy, where are you seeing that?

Who's gonna shoot you if mini-missles cost a grand? Defend yourself with something else.

Only rich people should be allowed to shoot up malls and schools. If you only use them in self defense, bullets are worth a grand each. This is an plutocracy, and such delights of mass murder should not belong to the common man.

No only responsible gun owners deserve the right. Responsibility means underwriting yourself or with an insurer the cost of the risks posed by your toys.