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

News

31475 readers
2915 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. 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 2 years 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
[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (3 children)

This is like saying the Constitution doesn't guarantee a barrel on the rifle, or that it uses smokeless power or only muzzle loading muskets....go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment....you will argue against it.

[–] KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (2 children)

go ahead and apply that same thought of yours to computers/Internet and the 1st amendment…you will argue against it.

The Constitution is explicit in regards to the First Amendment, "Congress shall make no law..." This isn't even remotely the case with the Second Amendment. There's more truth to constitutionally allowing direct physical threats and defamation, which are considered not protected by the First Amendment, than there are magazine sizes, lmao.

I think what trips up a lot of people, especially Americans, is the idea of something not being black and white. Just because the First Amendment talks about speech and the Second Amendment talks about guns doesn't mean it's a black and white, when you have this unfettered right to speech and guns. Something being in a gray area makes Americans very confused.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 4 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Shall not be infringed... literally the same thing.

[–] KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (2 children)

It's the only Amendment that explicitly says the right be "well regulated." A "well regulated" right shall not be "infringed" is undeniably different than "Congress shall make no law" which has no limitation to its attached right.

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 1 points 2 years ago

Well regulated militia....aka one of good working order. It is not in the same breath of the right of the people to bear arms....does it say the right of the militia or people?

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 2 points 2 years ago (1 children)

The Second Amendment is even clearer than the First: "the right of the people, to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." Any law that even borders on restricting the right of the people to own and use weapons is clearly a violation of the Second Amendment.

[–] KillAllPoorPeople@lemmy.world -3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Except the whole first part about being "well regulated," which you conveniently left out.

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

You don't seem to understand what a preamble is...

[–] swiftcasty@kbin.social -5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Pornography is protected under the first amendment, and sharing it via the internet is allowed. Child pornography is illegal and should stay illegal. Similarly there are other forms of speech that are criminal and should stay criminal, such as death threats. I think you would agree that these are reasonable regulations on our free speech.

Here’s an example on the gun side: in the 2017 Las Vegas mass shooting, bump stocks were used, allowing one man to kill 60 people and injure an additional 867 (just to confirm this is not a typo: 927 people were killed or harmed). Bump stocks were banned in 2018. The bump stock ban seems justified to me, does it seem justified to you?

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 5 points 2 years ago (2 children)

No, as knee-jerk reactions to a single facet of an outlier event are absurd.

As an comparison, your highlight of child porn is due to the actual harm of actual abuse - the thing is banned because it cannot exist without traumatizing and abusing children. Your highlight of an outlier shooting is really the highlight of the potential harm of a future event - the thing might maybe be used for harm.

Most of us don't live our lives in terror of inanimate objects or overrepresented and oversensationalized events.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 4 points 2 years ago (2 children)

Point of fact: child pornography is obscene--and not covered by 1A--even if no real people are harmed. I'd have to dig up the law (I think it dates to the mid-90s), but it's pretty broad. Lolicon may be illegal by itself, even though drawings don't generally cause direct harm. At least one person has been convicted of obscenity for comics, albeit not lolicon. It is *likely that even AI-generated child pornography, even though it wouldn't involve real children, would end up being ruled obscene.

Personally, I would take your position; images and depictions of child pornography that don't involve actual minors should not be obscene and therefore illegal, regardless of how distasteful and repellent they are.

[–] BaldProphet@kbin.social 4 points 2 years ago

Real child pornography should only be illegal because of the harms it represents. The text of the First Amendment would clearly protect victimless obscenity.

[–] jeremy_sylvis@midwest.social 3 points 2 years ago (1 children)

Interesting - I was not aware of that. I'll have to dig up the law and related rulings - I suspect the judges' opinions on the matter would help clarify the reasoning for arriving at such a stance and would help me understand if, say, they might be due to mimicry of that actual harm and actual abuse, etc.

I appreciate that highlight.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 2 years ago

I truly don't know. In the case I linked to--and it's just the Wikipedia article--SCOTUS declined to hear the case. So it's good case law at the moment.

Maybe if someone could get an obscene comic banned that was drawing about Nazis, our current SCOTUS would overturn it in favor of 1A rights...

[–] WoahWoah@lemmy.world -4 points 2 years ago

Most of us don't live our lives in terror of inanimate objects or overrepresented and oversensationalized events.

If you say so.

[–] theyoyomaster@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

It is worth pointing out that in the Las Vegas shooting the investigation never concluded if he actually used the bump stocks. Some of the guns had them installed but with his amount of preparation and knowledge of firearms he could have just as easily modified them to be fully automatic. During the course of the investigation they specifically prohibited the ATF from inspecting any of the weapons for modifications and merely said that the use of the bump stocks was a possibility, not a fact. The bottom line is it isn't known one way or another if he actually used them, he might have but the firing rate was more consistent than most bump firing.