A federal judge for the second time overturned California's ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, ruling that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.

A federal judge for the second time overturned California’s ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines that can hold more than 10 bullets, ruling Friday that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.

  • ZhenyaPav@lemmy.zhenyapav.comOPEnglish
    71·
    1 year ago

    To be honest, we need a community for uplifting libertarian news… Maybe it’s just my negativity bias, but there’s just too much news about this world going to shit.

    • quindraco@lemm.eeEnglish
      31·
      1 year ago

      Not really. His conclusion is good, but his process is so deeply flawed that if allowed to set precedent our judicial system will manage to get even worse.

        • Kalcifer@lemm.eeEnglish
          2·
          1 year ago

          I would say that the following is the main point of issue:

          […] ruling Friday that it lacked a historical basis and is therefore unconstitutional.

          Deciding on laws based on tradition, and historical context has potential to be quite damaging – these decisions should be made based on principle.

          • FireTower@lemmy.worldEnglish
            2·
            1 year ago

            Well then I regret to inform you that he wasn’t setting any precedent with his ruling because he was just applying the existing text history and tradition test established by the Scotus in Bruen. The precedent already exists on a national scale.

            • Kalcifer@lemm.eeEnglish
              1·
              1 year ago

              […] he wasn’t setting any precedent with his ruling because he was just applying the existing text history and tradition test established by the Scotus in Bruen.

              Indeed. It is rather unfortunate.