I'm glad SCOTUS kept its grubby little hands off this at least.
Now can we do abortion rights in the states who have allowed them?
this post was submitted on 14 Dec 2023
140 points (95.5% liked)
News
22890 readers
4252 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.
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
Pleasant surprise. The Justices must not have gotten any houses paid for, luxury vacations or loans forgiven by gun manufacturers.
I keep thinking we just need to be more explicit about it. Start Gofund me campaigns to bribe Thomas to vote a certain way. Raise money and show up with it in a sack labeled "bribe"
Something tells me they have a reason for not touching this one. Are they planning on ruling.on a different case and therefore leave this alone knowing it will be nullified later?
Oh I wonder what Pope Francis' logic was here.
IMO weapon regulations should follow two main categories,
Loading action and holding class, IE how the weapon prepares the next shot when fired, and if it's designed as a one handed or two handed weapon.
A pump action rifle needs different regulation than a semi-auto pistol, and frankly should require different licenses too, getting good at martial arts using a kitana does not qualify you to enter a duel using scimitars.
The libertarians are shaking at the thought.
Yeah, the one thing I'd need to look into more is say the difference between a shotgun and a single shot rifle, IDK if scattershot is a class unto itself or if "two handed manual action" is enough categorization for proper regulation
For those who find this a win, it's not, they never are. At best, these laws backfire. Read on.
You can't ban an AR-15. All you can do is ban a certain features. OK. Now you got stupid features like California imposes. A "fin" on the back of the grip, so it's not a "pistol" grip. A tubular stock instead of triangular.
CA law said (overturned) that you can either have a detachable magazine that only holds 10-rounds, or you could "pin" the mag in permanently. Saw a guy with a 3D printed speed-loader that would slam 30 rounds through the breach in one push. Easier than hand loading!
If I lived in IL? Been looking for an excuse to buy a Mini 14. Basically the same gun, doesn't look scary.
Point being, all this law accomplishes is a loss of political capital, loss of single-issue voters. Excellent way to get more Republican votes!
Well, there is one other thing. This nonsense drives AR-15 sales. This particular lib had no interest in an AR-15 until everyone started screaming BAN after Uvalde. Love mine! Thanks fellow libs!
Let me show you why you're wrong. Both of these laws have stood up to repeated constitutional challenges. They both defacto banned specific types and classes of weapons from being manufactured and sold to the general public. I'm really tired of people using this same stupid fucking argument.
You felt the need to go buy a gun as a form of protest. Congratulations on being a part of an even larger problem in this country, which is a lack of critical thinking skills. If you actually gave a shit about changing the world you wouldn't be reinforcing gun culture as a way to "own the libs" and then bragging about it on Lemmy.
Did you even read what I wrote, or just spaz out and react? Believe it or not, we're much on the same side.
Both of these laws have stood up to repeated constitutional challenges.
Uh, no, they didn't. I was talking about the '94 ban, which was eventually dropped, leading to the rise of AR-15 purchases. How did that work out for ya?
I admit ignorance as to the '86 law! But given my ignorance, why am I ignorant? Seems a thing guntubers, and such other content as I consume (mostly non-partisan), would be railing about? If it's such a "gotcha" law, why do I see no one talking about it? Be happy for an ELI5. Always happy to learn.
go buy a gun as a form of protest as a way to "own the libs"
Again, didn't actually read what I wrote? I AM a liberal. I bought an AR to get grandfathered. Liberals literally sold this liberal an AR. How did that work out for ya?
You are approaching me as a right-wing gun nut. And not in good faith. We're not solving anything talking like this.
Uh, no, they didn't.
Yes, they absolutely did. You should educate yourself. The Federal Assault Weapons Ban was not overturned. It expired due to an automatic sunset provision in 2004. It repeatedly withstood legal challenges in front of multiple different appellate courts, on varied grounds, and was unilaterally ruled to be constitutional.
So, like I said before, your argument is bullshit. You are obviously repeating regurgitated talking points you have heard without being even moderately aware of the history of this issue. We can argue about the structural differences in the legal landscape that exist today that may change the functional legality of the FAWB, but that has everything to do with the intentional manipulation of the court system rather than any substantive legal differences that would make the law unconstitutional today.
Same thing here in Australia. No semiautomatic rifles after Port Arthur, but everyone thinks we banned guns completely (we didn't, and there are more in the country now than ever in its history.)
We've still got semiautomatic handguns, our AR15's just became pump action, and our shotguns had little buttons or levers added as bolt releases in order to skirt the law, with new variations popping up every time a ban happens (check out the Templeton T2000 - fires just as quickly as a regular semi-auto 12 gauge and is totally legal to own in the easiest license class to obtain.) Hell, I own five guns myself, two of which are handguns (Glock 19 and Beretta 92X both in 9mm, 10rnd mags.)
What Australia DOESN'T have is a culture of gun fetishization. How any American thinks these laws will work in their state, let alone the entire country, is just insane to me. I also happen to think that a government disarming people is a really fucking bad idea, and even a growing number of young Aussies are starting to change their views in that area as well.
So good on ya. Hold onto that AR. I'll now accept everyone's inevitable downvotes.
You nailed it. I've said over and over again, America doesn't have a gun problem. American has a culture problem.
Same liberals saying prohibition doesn't work in other legal arenas, scream prohibition. Fuck me. When we were college kids in the 90s, we were always saying, "You can't legislate morality." And here we are.
We had AR-15s when I was a kid, in the 70s. AR-15s didn't become popular until after the ban was repealed. My fellow libs, how did that work out for you? Still want to do this dance?
Know what we didn't have? School shootings. That shit came after Columbine. If the pipe bomb those assholes brought would have functioned, maybe that would be the "cool" thing?
In some way, we have to make guns "uncool". Make them seen as a thing that only practiced and trained users are capable of owning responsibly. Not talking laws like that! We're already talking about backfiring laws. But socially speaking, a gun owner should be held to a higher responsibility. Hollywood ain't helping.
Sorry, but the 2A exists and prevents such laws, and the courts uphold it. But FFS, take away the ignorance and fetishization. I'm rambling, but I think you get me.
because all these gun laws are working so well up till this point...