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.

    • quindraco@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      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.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          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.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            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.ee
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              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.