this post was submitted on 24 Nov 2023
226 points (97.1% liked)

News

23268 readers
2873 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
[–] Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com 4 points 11 months ago (6 children)

Why do you think law abiding citizens should be subjected to waiting periods to exercise their constitutional rights?

[–] PugJesus@kbin.social 9 points 11 months ago (2 children)

The constitutional right to acquire arms immediately and without precondition, I see. Just like the constitutional right to say anything, at any time, without any consequences.

[–] stevestevesteve@lemmy.world 2 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

This doesn't remove all background checks, so "immediately and without precondition" is facetious.

I agree with not selling weapons to known maniacs, but I also believe that if the govt knows someone's dangerous enough that they shouldn't own a gun for self defense, they already should have been removed from the general population and arrested/imprisoned etc, as they are still very dangerous to the general population without said firearm.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Why do you think law abiding citizens should be gassed, arrested and shot at for exercising their constitutional right to petition the government against grievances? Because Trump sure enjoyed doing those things and he says he's going to do it even more if he gets re-elected. And then there's the Republican love of cruel and unusual punishments. And, of course, there's Mike Johnson and other Republicans denying that there is or should be a separation between church and state.

Seems like maybe the people who are supposed to protect your constitutional right to own a gun don't really care about other constitutional rights.

[–] Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com 9 points 11 months ago (9 children)

Point out the part of my comment where I said that

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] stevestevesteve@lemmy.world 5 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What a lot of whataboutism. I'm against all of that, too, but I can also be against limits on my rights of self defense.

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

So do you vote for the people who promise to protect your gun rights at all cost or do you vote for the people who feel there needs to be sensible gun regulations?

[–] stevestevesteve@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I don't vote for the people you're talking about

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world -2 points 11 months ago (1 children)

What is the point of voting for anyone else? What do you achieve?

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

What's the point of voting for the two choices you hate when there are other choices?

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Now you see the crux of the issue it seems, on either side someone is attacking the right to something, there is no champion of all rights, everyone wants to control their neighbor.

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

Seems to me like one is championing ending all of those rights and the other isn't.

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

Well you'd be wrong, sorry dude.

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

Yes. Both clearly seek to limit different civil liberties, and supporters of each fight about why what they want to limit isn't actually a civil liberty.

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

Please show me the Democratic Party's equivalent to Project 2025.

Or did you not even read it?

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

Are you denying that the democrat party seeks to limit the right to bear arms? Because by being purposefully obtuse and attempting to deflect (which appears to be your typical MO), you seem to be saying that.

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

Yes, I know, one side seeks to regulate firearms like they were regulated for pretty much all of the 19th century and the other seeks to violate the Constitution in every way possible. No different.

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

I guess it's just a question of how much infringement on rights you support. You support "some." I do not.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

You still haven't given me the equivalent plan of Project 2025 that the Democrats have. Can't imagine why...

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

I never claimed they had one, I claimed they also are attempting to limit other rights, and this little deflection of yours is adorable but irrelevant, so yes I ignore it.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

"Limit" vs. "take away entirely." Interesting.

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

"Just get stabbed a few times VS get murdered." Interesting.

Lol yes clearly one is worse, but both are bad choices, you dingleberry.

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And now that you've decided to resort to insults, there is no reason to continue this conversation. I am not interested in uncivil conversation.

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

There wasn't a reason to continue when you resorted to deflection, which is all you're capable of it seems.

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Because it makes the world safer. Same reason you need a fence around a pool, even though the pursuit of happiness is protected by the constitution (for me, happiness is unbridled access to a pool).

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

That's the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Oh so you have no idea what you're talking about and have no business publically sharing opinions on this, or really any aspect of the Constitution. You simply don't have the requisite knowledge to be credible.

[–] idiomaddict@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)
[–] Annoyed_Crabby@monyet.cc 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (2 children)

Same way as law abiding citizens need to wait 21 years, goes through firearm training, and gone through background check to exercise their constitutional rights. If 30 days is such a long time to wait and considered unconstitutional, why not lower the age requirement to 12 years old? Why need firearm training? Why need background check?

[–] FlyingSquid@lemmy.world 4 points 11 months ago

That's what Republicans want. No gun control regulations at all. Anyone, according to them, should be able to buy a gun at any age at any time anywhere.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

This a stupid argument. The right isn't to just have guns.

It's to have guns whilst being a member of a militia that trains regularly and only for the purpose of protecting state security.

That's literally what the text says.

All that extra shit you are adding to the right is stuff made up by charlatans. And I guess it worked, because they sure fooled you.

[–] Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Have you read the constitution? It literally does not say it's only for the purpose of protecting the state

The problem with the world today is that we have illiterates like you voting.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

I'm an attorney so I think you're basically illiterate in comparison. Why don't you go read it again, you absolute donkey. Tell us all why a militia is even necessary in the eyes of the framers. The text on this could not be more clear.

Second Amendment True Purpose Revealed: True Secret the Framers Don't Want You to Know"the security of a free state"

[–] Fades@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

You can wait, bud. In OR it's already a ~2 week wait to pick one up from an FFL, it didn't affect me in the slightest. It's clear we need more in-depth preprocessing before granting weapon ownership. It's a deadly item, just like a car is. You gotta register and have a license and all this shit before you can hit the road. Whats the diff?

Also, you actually have to wait to exercise lots of constitutional rights. What you gonna advocate for voting whenever the fuck you want? It's our constitutional right after all!

The issue you should have with any of this is with licensing it likely puts a financial barrier to that same constitutional right.

[–] karakoram@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

The car argument is not good. Anyone can buy and operate a car immediately on private property without any interference from government in the US.

[–] JustZ@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago

Wrong.

Commerce clause.

The car has already been subjected to tens of thousands of pages of regulation before anyone drives it off the lot.