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

• breadsmasher@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

  Californians need more than 10 rounds because of hog hunters in florida?

  source

  • Polarsailor@kbin.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨year⁩ ago

    I don't believe you're asking in good faith or would find any reason presented as valid, and I'm not going to play whack-a-mole or engage beyond this reply.

    Locality isn't really relevant in terms of federal constitutionality. Moreover, it's not wise to demand demonstration of a need to justify a right at the level of an individual. Why do you need to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures? One could argue that we'd be a lot safer if the cops could shake everyone down and catch the baddies early? Why do you need to be secure against cruel and unusual punishment? One could arguent that we'd be a lot safer if there was more gruesome public deterrence. Why do you need to be able to freely speak your mind in public? So on and so forth. Individual need is not the fulcrum.

    I get it though, you don't like this one right in particular, so you'll want to wiggle about how it's different or outdated or misapplied as to individuals. I'm going to assume your life is fairly stable and secure, based on your original question. Good for you. But don't assume everyone has your privilege, and try to appreciate that this is a large nation with a great many ways of life and circumstances that are outside your personal experience.

    I hope we all get to keep all of our rights, as they keep us, by virtue of their nature and our nature. As to need, I sure hope you never have to individually assert any of your rights because you have an acute need, but if you do, I hope you stil enjoy whichever right you need in that moment and haven't pissed it away.

    source