this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
204 points (97.7% liked)

News

23266 readers
3807 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. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. 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 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The rulings in Maryland and Oregon come amid a shifting legal landscape in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that has imposed new limits on gun regulation.

In the wake of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that significantly limits what the government can do to restrict guns, states led by Democrats have scrambled to circumvent or test the limits of the ruling. A few have approved new gun restrictions. Oregon even passed a ballot initiative to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines.

But this week, supporters of the new gun measures suffered a pair of setbacks, underscoring the rippling effect of the court’s decision.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., ruled that a 10-year-old Maryland law related to licensing requirements for handguns was unconstitutional.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Fades@lemmy.world 15 points 11 months ago (3 children)

As a gun owner myself, I support the licensing, the high capacity mags ban won't do a damn thing though. If you've ever seen a 10rd 556 mag it's small as hell and you can stuff lots in pockets and such. It won't stop a damn thing, especially with coward cops who just listen to the action and do nothing.

if that's what it takes then fine but why can't we come up with shit that actually makes sense instead of these 'whatever we can get' stuff. I realize republican trash makes that nigh impossible though. Fucking dumb as hell

[–] GiddyGap@lemm.ee 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Why do bans work in pretty much all other developed countries?

[–] SupraMario@lemmy.world 6 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because other developed countries are just that... developed...they have safety nets, and single payer healthcare...and don't lock up millions of people...they also don't have and have never had 500+ million firearms in civilian hands.

[–] CADmonkey@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago

The correct answer... and whenver its given, you'll never see an answer...

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world -4 points 11 months ago (3 children)

All we need to do is severely restrict ammo sales to individuals. Guns are useless without rounds.

As long as people have near unlimited access to ammo, they'll always find a different gun or magazine to use that gets around certain gun bans.

[–] AtHeartEngineer@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

The real gun nuts invest heavily in ammo manufacturing and reloading. And not all states will comply.

[–] HerbalGamer@sh.itjust.works 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Ah the old Chris Rock technique

[–] _dev_null@lemmy.zxcvn.xyz 2 points 11 months ago

"That's right five thousand dollar bullets..."

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"Poor people don't deserve the right to self defense, but if you're rich enough you should be able to shoot up whatever you can afford."

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That's how it already is? Rich people have always been able to afford more than the poor. How is that relevant to what I said?

If we restrict ammo sales to everyone then the rich won't be allowed to have more than the poor.

For self defense, nobody needs more than a single magazine of rounds. If you're using more than that, you're being careless and dangerous and you're a poor shot.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

By making things arbitrarily more expensive all you're doing is making poor people not able to afford them, it's classism.

For self defense, nobody needs more than a single magazine of rounds. If you're using more than that, you're being careless and dangerous and you're a poor shot.

Good idea, allot 1 mag to everyone so they don't have enough ammo to train with their firearm and learn how to shoot it better. I'm sure having people who've never even fired their gun walking around will make them safer lmao.

This is kinda why most people think people should have some semblance of an idea of what they're talking about before they attempt to tell others what to do. I don't know much about cars, but you don't hear me going around saying "we should ban seatbelts so everyone pays more attention and we have less wrecks."

[–] RGB3x3@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I'm not talking about making rounds more expensive. I'm talking about literally restricting the number of rounds a person is allowed to buy per year.

If you thought about it for 1 second, you'd realize that for training, you can allow as many rounds as someone wants as long as they're at an approved shooting range where rounds are closely monitored.

Nobody should be allowed to purchase a firearm without supervised training. Shooting at tin cans in your backyard isn't proper training.

This isn't complicated stuff.

[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago

Nobody should be allowed to purchase a firearm without supervised training.

Got it, knew we'd get back to no guns for poor people.