this post was submitted on 24 Sep 2023

479 points (97.1% liked)

News

36457 readers

2605 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 biased sources will be removed at the mods’ discretion. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted separately but not to the post body. Sources may be checked for reliability using Wikipedia, MBFC, AdFontes, GroundNews, etc.

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. Clickbait titles may be removed.

Posts which titles don’t match the source may be removed. If the site changed their headline, we may ask you to update the post title. Clickbait titles use hyperbolic language and do not accurately describe the article content. When necessary, post titles may be edited, clearly marked with [brackets], but may never be used to editorialize or comment on the content.

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, videos, blogs, press releases, or celebrity gossip will be allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis. Mods may use discretion to pre-approve videos or press releases from highly credible sources that provide unique, newsworthy content not available or possible in another format.

7. No duplicate posts.

If an article has already been posted, it will be removed. Different articles reporting on the same subject are permitted. 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 or news aggregators.

All posts must link to original article sources. You may include archival links in the post description. News aggregators such as Yahoo, Google, Hacker News, etc. should be avoided in favor of the original source link. Newswire services such as AP, Reuters, or AFP, are frequently republished and may be shared from other credible sources.

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 2 years ago

MODERATORS

JonsJava@lemmy.world

gedaliyah@lemmy.world

little_cow@lemmy.world

479

Federal judge again strikes down California law banning gun magazines of more than 10 rounds (apnews.com)

submitted 2 years ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

546 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

[–] PoliticalAgitator@lemm.ee -2 points 2 years 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 2 years 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?