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.

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    1 year ago

    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

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        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.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      1 year ago

      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.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        1 year ago

        “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
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          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
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            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
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              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
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                1 year 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.

    • BassaForte@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      1 year ago

      I also support licensing as a gun owner, but banning anything isn’t going to do a damn thing. There’s so much pointless semantics in these gun control proposals.

        • BassaForte@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Putting words in my mouth? I never said anything about abortion. But fwiw, I’m against banning abortion too. I hate how everyone assumes I’m a braindead conservative when I give the slightest hint that I’m pro-gun (even sensibly).

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 year ago

            Suggesting licensing and then saying you’re a gun owner makes me feel like you own a red rider or you’re completely ignorant of what licensing would be used to keep people from exercising their rights… mainly would be used against minorities as it has been in the past.

            • BassaForte@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              Cool so I guess we should just do nothing then, huh?

              The reasons I am for licensing is that I want people to be able to keep their guns and preserve the right to self defense, but you’re an idiot if you don’t think gun violence is a problem that needs attention. Licensing will (ideally) help to prevent gun misuse, bring stronger repercussions to those who are irresponsible with firearms, and overall keep things in check. I am aware that restrictions can be used to keep certain people from exercising their rights… and that is an issue, but surprise, conservatives have been doing that too (saw an article about it today, forgot which city / state it was, but basically they were preventing lefties from owning guns). We’re in deep shit with how many guns are in the US and bans are obviously not going to work. So if licensing isn’t the play, then what the fuck do you suggest, Mr. know-it-all?

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Licensing is not going to fix our gun violence. It’s not going to solve anything you just listed, which also has a very small death rate. 2/3rds of our gun deaths a year are suicides, that last 3rd makes up everything else. 85%+ of that last 3rd is gang and drug violence…and that last 15% includes, domestic, police, NDs, mass shootings and everything else. If we really want to solve our violence issue we need to fix our society. We can start with:

                • Single payer healthcare

                • Ending the War on Drugs

                • Ending Qualified immunity

                • Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.

                • Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren’t 30-40 kids for one teacher.

                • UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.

                • End for profit prisons

                • Enforce the laws already on the books

                • Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don’t turn to violence/gangs to survive.

                • Increase the minimum wage

                • Recreate our mental healthcare so kids don’t turn to the internet for support. And to help veterans not end up as a suicide number.

                • Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.

                • Banning Insider Trading for Congress

                • Term limits

                • Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system

                • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year ago

                  Oh sure, gun deaths aren’t a problem as long as they’re suicides or gang violence.

                  Do you realize how dumb that is? It’s all part of the same problem: access to and misuse of firearms.

                  Those lives matter and minimizing them as you’ve done is awful.