Friday’s appeals court ruling in the New Jersey case goes further than a July 2024 ruling from a federal judge, who said that the state’s ban on AR-15s specifically was unconstitutional but upheld the provision barring larger magazines.
The third US circuit court of appeals said on Friday in its opinion that the state’s ban on all semiautomatic rifles it deems to be “assault firearms” and its restriction on “large capacity ammunition magazines” were unconstitutional.
New Jersey’s attorney general, Jennifer Davenport, a Democrat whose office defended the law, told the Associated Press that the decision is “as unfortunate as it is legally incorrect”.
“Gotta maximize the body count of school children”
-These judges, probably
But once again I feel like all of those restrictions are going to just get tossed on 2a grounds. I guess I just fail to see people that are responsible owners fighting to keep it responsible. If the 2a crowd can’t figure this out then I’m in the ban them all camp.
Honestly, I respect that stance more than I respect the folks with a dozen half-assed definitions and assorted conditions on what people should or should not own.
I disagree with it, but I respect it.
I’m in the ban them all camp
The truth comes out. Isnt it easy to be honest with your intentions?
Sorry you couldn’t pick that up. But yea, if we can’t figure out a way to let you keep your gun while minimizing mass shootings then yea, we should ban them all.
That’s kind of weird don’t you think? Mass Shootings are already a rare thing, so how much minimization would you want before you are willing to “let” people have their constitutional rights. Would you apply this logic to other things that are not constitutionally protected? For example how many deaths are acceptable before you decide not to “let” people live in car dependent hell-scapes?
I think supposedly “responsible” gun owners wanting weapons they have no earthly need for, is weird.
Glad that the constitution still matters.
Now let’s add the worker’s bill of rights to the constitution so that the material conditions of society are improved and mass shootings are even less common, and suicides decrease.
Sure, except for Article 2 or amendments 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 10, 15, or 25
It’d be hilarious if a bunch of black people, lgbtq and immigrants started picking these up in droves and then they suddenly revisited this topic.
Gun bans started when thr Black Panthers armed up and patrolled their neighborhoods to protect people from cops.
Gun control has often been enacted for racist reasons. Yet one more reason to be excited the rights of the people were upheld today.
And gun control is often repealed when the dominant group in society wishes to increase violence against minorities.
Boy that’s a real convenient generalization there. Any time the people are allowed more rights it’s for racist reasons, therefore more rights should be restricted?
But also the state already has carte blanc to be racist, they have a monopoly on force and justice. They don’t need to give the citizens any rights if they just want to be racist.
No, you’re right. We should never examine why anything happens as long as it increases rights.
You’d be cool with my right to punch you in the face, wouldn’t you?
Glad people like you self-select against having dangerous objects in their possession.
You share values of banning minorities from owning firearms with racist haters? Telling on yourself here…
Not exactly as I’m a gun owning bi brown guy.
In many states, AR-15s are classified as assault weapons, a legal term used to describe guns that lawmakers determine are meant to be used offensively rather than defensively, based on characteristics such as magazine capacity and the size of the weapon.
This excerpt right here tells me all I need to know. The state holds the right to decide what can be used “offensively and defensively”. Defeats the entire purpose of the 2nd amendment and they were 100% correct to strike this down. They should be limiting modifications designed to kill large numbers of people like extended mags and switches. The AR-15 is a semiautomatic rifle and in my opinion doesn’t fit the bill.
Don’t like guns? Don’t own one.
Dont like drugs? Don’t take them.
Don’t like abortion? Don’t get one.
Dont like religion? Dont worship one.
Don’t like guns? Don’t own one.
How does my not owning a gun relate to my kid at school when their school is getting shot up by a third party with an AR15?
The reason they don’t want gun bans despite children being murdered in school is because they want parents afraid of a public education. They want education only for those that can afford a private school and all the security it can afford. It is the only logical conclusion as to why we are doing absolute nothing about this.
They don’t want to improve the material conditions that create mass shooters and gang violence. They don’t want to fund mental healthcare. They don’t want to do anything other than sit back, rake in billions, and watch the peasants kill each other over scraps, or go insane and blow away a school full of other working class children. It’s a disgrace.
I, for one, am stoked about the renewed opportunity to buy (or make) more effective weapons for fighting fascists with.
Civilian AR-15s aren’t assault rifles. AR doesn’t stand for assault rifle…
The AR15 is a watered-down M16. Bump-stocks really narrow the difference gap. There are even full guides on how to modify AR15s into full machine guns.
They’re already violating the law making these mods dude. I doubt they would stop at legal acquisition.
Bump stocks are absolute ass for any sort of accuracy, and should absolutely be banned. Perhaps the worst way to enable full auto on any gun.
They’re already violating the law making these mods dude.
Right. I’m sure the illegality of making these mods would be a turnoff to mass shooters. My point is that, to reduce the casualty count, the medium of illegality ought to be reduced. Where an AR15 can kill 60 and wound 400+ at a long distance, maybe a reasonable limitation on accessing machine guns such that the only accessible guns are single-shot long-rifles or pistols might have had that number reduced to 10 dead and 60 wounded.
Ar15 is NOT a machine gun.
It can be modified unto one. They’re based on the M16. If they’re not so good at mechanical reloading and firing, why are they the preferred weapon for mass shooters?
And those modifications are already illegal for any semi auto firearm.
It’s just a 5.56 (usually) semi auto rifle. There are others that aren’t AR-15s.
You haven’t heard about FRT’s huh
Higher rate of fire correlates with lower accuracy.
And those modifications are already illegal for any semi auto firearm.
The modification being illegal isn’t much of a deterent to mass murderers.
The only real effective way to limit their scope of killing is to limit their access to the underlying tool: the AR15. Someone’s scope of killing by modifying a 9mm handgun with extended grip =/= modifying an AR15 with extended grip. They differ in all sorts of capabilities: accuracy, capacity, recoil, etc.
What if we removed the motivation to kill people at all? Or is that just impossible?
In all of human history, the motivation to murder has always existed. Murder is even one of the first sins mentioned in the bible.
Ok, murder is innate. So what does that have to do with guns? Are guns totemic and somehow increase the desire to murder? Are gun murders “worse” than other kinds of murder?
Limiting the access to assault rifles would limit the capabilities of homicidal maniacs. Where now they can kill 60 and wound 400 or shoot up an entire chuch and kill 26 paritioners and wound 22 more, maybe they only kill 5 or 6 in 1 go with the ban. Its a macabre calculation, but a lot of people would still have their family sitting with them at Thanksgiving.
So, you’re good with Mini-14s?
Are handguns able to put out 1000 rounds that accurately hit bystanders from 32 floors up such that 60 people are killed and 413 are wounded? Is it really so much to ask that someone who wants to do this be required to manually reload every shot? Imagine how many fewer people could be killed because of the time it takes to manually reload every bullet.
Mini-14 isn’t a handgun. You failed to answer their question.
Yes, there are “handguns” which could achieve this speaking broadly in terms of ballistics. Point being a stock meant/intended to be shouldered is the only legal distinction between a pistol and a rifle in the US. I understand where you’re coming from but closing loopholes like I just described is a much more feasible path to addressing this problem as opposed to outright pushing to outlaw all semiautomatic firearms entirely. Regardless, my comment was meant to highlight that a ruger mini14 is essentially the same rifle as an AR15 however seemingly because of a wood furniture aesthetic and/or “ranch rifle” marketing campaigns most states (NJ) don’t consider it an “assault style weapon” and as such nothing was ever achieved to begin with regardless of this courts decision.
added context pertaining Mini-14: https://youtube.com/watch?v=w_ht2WkIuM0&pp=
Yes, there are “handguns” which could achieve this speaking broadly in terms of ballistics.
Well, there are Uzis
Point being a stock meant/intended to be shouldered is the only legal distinction between a pistol and a rifle in the US.
Maybe, but that extra length ensures a higher level of accuracy at a distance. Compare a stock rifle without a scope’s accuracy at a thousand yards to a stock handgun at a thousand yards. Both might be inaccurate at that range, but the scope of the inaccuracy would differ greatly. That “shouldering” the rifle adds stability.
I could buy the ‘ar-15 pistol’ conceit if they were actually pistols, firing pistol rounds from pistol length barrels. the whole 5.56 pistol because I just took the stock off and have a gas tube or arm brace is ridiculous stupidity gun goobs use to pick apart legislation. if it’s a 5.56 scaled receiver, it’s obviously not a pistol and I wish all this idiotic twisting and turning would stop.
the mini14 canard is bullshit too, I’ve only seen it in person in 7.62 and 5.56, which, again, only an utter moron would consider ‘pistol’ calibres.
meanwhile you really ignore the fact that these firearms are intrinsically not hunting / self defense tools but weapons, assault weapons, and easily become mass murder weapons.
feh.
This same argument is used to kill right to repair. Banning potential crime is always bad.
Banning the means of crime =/= banning the potential crime. In fact, once the Tommy Gun was outlawed, though it took a minute, eventually the Tommy Gun stopped being used. Not sure how banning the means of mass murder equates to repair. Also, the right to repair has been affirmed in many jurisdictions.
the primary argument that has been successful for John Deere against right to repair is that if they don’t block it, then farmers will just bypass emissions controls. Bypassing is already a crime, but unlikely to ever be prosecuted.
Similarly the fact an AR15 could be illegally modified is not a reason to ban it.
If everything that could be used to kill someone was made illegal, we wouldn’t have very many things.
Good thing nobody is asking for that.
KillingAttacking one person with a hammer vs shooting up a school with a rifle or handgun are not even in the same galaxy.We’d certainly have more kids reach adulthood, and I didn’t say EVERYTHING. I am merely saying ban AR15s and the like.
Ah so it’s just the things that you find scary that should be banned.
How about ban anything that only exists to kill people? Not that hard is it?
Ban the weapons of war that are preferred by mass shooters. Its like keeping heroine away from the general public to limit the creation of heroine addicts.
Damn
The legality of something doesn’t make it effective.
So
We should make Y illegal and that’ll be effective.
You’re gonna cry about having to register a firearm too, so why stop there. Just ban it, then compromise on registration at minimum.
I own a handgun, I’m not against them. I am against how easy it is to get them. I bought one at a metro stop for cash, no paperwork, 100% legal in my state.
No FFL transfer paperwork?
Nope, only from a retailer at the time. Private sales required nothing.
Its easier to modify an existing tool to become illegal than it is to completely make the illegal thing from scratch, at least on a large scale.
Civilian AR-15s aren’t assault rifles. AR doesn’t stand for assault rifle…
AR-15s are a very popular choice amongst mass shooters, when the goal is to maximize mass casualties.
So they’re only used as highly effective assault rifles.
For the sake of accuracy, AR-15s are Soft Fluffy Friendly rifles.
So they’re only used as highly effective assault rifles.
Mine is used to put holes in paper and trash. Same for every one my friends own.
The horror.
Who. Fucking. Cares.
So we’re picking and choosing what constitutional rights we care about?
Yes, absolutely.
For example, I care more about the thirteenth amendment (the slavery one)than the 27th (the one about Congress getting pay raises)
The right of the state to keep slaves as punishment? That’s a weird thing to care about.
You don’t need to sacrifice either. All rights are to be protected.
Importantly, by working to kill one you undermine the foundation they all stand on. For why can’t one right be ignored if you fight to ignore others?
Rational people: the US has a gun problem
This bloke: aR15 aRenT aSoLt RiFL
People ask what steps can help get gun control passed. We could start by understanding the language and meaning of words around guns and gun culture. Im all for gun control, but getting these things wrong is the same complaint we liberals complain about when they misquote global warming statistics, or life starts at conception.
The definitions matter. A shared reality matters. If we cant use the correct language, they wont even start to listen.
The definitions matter only when you want to nitpick. Reasonable goal is to limit access to guns. I don’t need to know the difference between single action and double action guns to do that. Mandatory psychological examination, background checks and strict requirements should be universal, not depend on type of guns.
Mandatory psychological examination, background checks and strict requirements should be universal
Should we have these as requirements to be able to vote?
Of course not. What that has to do with anything?
Why? If someone can be stripped of their rights, why not strip that same person of more rights?
You undermine them all when you fight for infringements on any.
Oh, you’re the “ConstiTutiOn Says I can HaZ Gunz” type of a person. You know what I think about it, I know what you think. We can stop here and move on.
It is really so much to ask for The Guardian to be accurate in their reporting?
Assault rifles are still banned in New Jersey, to my knowledge. The court case didn’t touch on them at all.
Ok, 2a people that enjoy this access to tools that can spray bullets, how can we stop the mass killings with firearms? Because I’m ok with letting you have your toys if you can solve that problem.
The vast majority of shootings aren’t related to schools, and could be solved by the following measures to make society less hostile, pushing less people to violence:
- UBI
- Free Healthcare
- Free College
- End war on drugs
These two would help cut-down on domestic abuse and kids finding guns:
- Red Flag Laws
- Safe lockup laws
Furthermore, most school shooters are dudes under 30 buying way more guns than they can afford via credit card knowing they won’t have to pay the debt. So don’t allow people under 30 to buy rifles with credit cards.
Assault rifle bans make no sense. Most states with bans consider a standard AR-15 build to be an assault rifle but not a mini-14.
They both shoot the same bullets, just as fast, with the same magazine capacities available. But one looks like an old hunting rifle, while the other looks modern and scary.
The things that make a gun considered an assault rifle have nothing to do with how powerful it is, and more to do with how easily you can clean and repair it, or how nice the ergonomics are.
Its literally a giant waste of political clout designed to piss off the right people.
Fantastic way to address the issues and the explanation of what makes a lot of the so called “common sense” gun legislation so problematic.
I believe netherlands or somewhere also do a thing where ammo is only available at ranges and places where you use guns, you can’t bring the ammo home with you.
Sure, there will always be some guys who break the rules but I’m sure that will prevent a lot of school shootings having ammo readily available.
But really, the very core issue is conditions for the children and the family are just terrible right now.
Ty for writing this up!
- Target gangs holistically. Change drug laws to limit their income potential. Target all levels for prosecution rather than primarily the top.
- Overhaul mental health laws. This is pretty hard to do. It needs to be easier to get someone committed against their will than it currently is, but it also needs to be possible to recover rights after being committed. The institutions that used to do this need to be recreated with better safeguards against abuse of patients.
- Increase exposure to guns at pretty much every age. This is more about accidental shootings. Handling guns in a safe environment reduces the curiosity if kids find one, shooting classes age junior high or high school age would also help reinforce this.
- Reduce gun free zones or require places that ban guns to accept security liability.
- Enforce existing laws, a significant number of shootings have warnings that were ignored by negligent or apathetic administrators or police. Both taking actions that are generally available and legal now, and ensuring accountability for failures would help.
Hard pass. You think access to guns trumps someone’s right to freedom? That’s crazy to me.
Access to guns is part of that right to freedom in the US. None of what I listed infringes on someone else’s freedom.
Sounds great, but all drugs should be legal and regulated
The fact that you never once said “attack poverty since its reduction directly and drastically drops crime rates and improves mental health conditions” is pretty telling. Always about reactive punishment with you weirdos, never about proactive targetting of the underlying issues, and certainly never in any of the ways that we’ve seen to be actually helpful and productive.
I used to have my license here in Canada, I think guns are really cool and a day on the range is lovely, but they aren’t at all worth the damage and lives lost. Most people who really want them use the same kinda logic as I did when I was a child to try to get my mom to buy me a Wii, thinking I was clever.
At least point 5 is on the money, even if 3 and 4 are insane.
That’s literally number 1 on their comment…
“Target all levels for prosecution” is not “address the root causes of poverty” you fucking twat. Jesus tap-dancing Christ you’re thick.
A gang selling drugs on every corner and intimidating anyone who doesn’t like it is a pretty good cause of poverty though.
The government has tried to eliminate poverty since the 60s there hasn’t been meaningful gains in my lifetime despite increasing efforts.
I’m sorry, did you just say that the US government has been putting real effort into eliminating poverty?
What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Absolutely mind-boggling, though you probably didn’t notice as there’s clearly not much of a mind to boggle in that nigh empty cavity betwixt your ears.
Which world government has actually attempted to end poverty but then failed spontaneously without undermining the goal?
In the US all success stories that actually address poverty are super small in scale, or cut as soon as some private well-connected business can redirect public funds to their private accounts. For example the constant “welfare reforms” that have been passed over the years and of course the limiting of social security and various food assistance. Healthcare in the form of medicare is constantly redirected for administration costs of private care providers that have record profits since covid.
Sure they’ve tried touching more and more people into poverty.
Much of that is utterly unhinged. No wonder they’re called gun nuts. Increase children’s exposure to guns? Reduce gun-free zones?
Many countries have proven the best course is to put heavy penal sentences on gun violence and negligence, to severely limit the people allowed to handle guns, the quantity of guns they can have, and to tightly restrict the places and times they can handle them.
Not to spread them around more.
Teaching and exposure is the only thing that makes sense for things you expect children to find that can be dangerous. It’s why Australian children are taught differently about spiders than other countries. Guns are going to be out there in the US.
Why expect children to find guns? That sounds more like a matter for removing the child from irresponsible parenting rather than education.
It happens, we already preach safe storage and include gun locks. Exposure can make guns something that isn’t as exciting, and safe handling lessons would save lives.
The concept is that guns are so common and safety is so relaxed that finding an unlocked and loaded gun is common for a child on the US.
Obviously that is why we need to train them to shoot the commies. /s
Much of that is utterly unhinged… Increase children’s exposure to guns?
What is your specific objection in teaching age-appropriate safe handling and use? It significantly reduces accidents.
Being against such basic gun safety training is a very, very confusing position.
Being against education is part of the ban all guns platform because it lets them keep guns scary. If people understood guns their bans would be harder to pass.
Like every civilized country does. Limit who can get lead dispensers (gun law knowledge test, practical exam, psych eval, etc.) and making owners responsible for securing them. Most shootings happen with stolen or otherwise illegal hole punchers (either child from parents or just stolen, e.g. from car). Where I live, you could get jail time for leaving a gun unsupervised in a car or not locked in your home. Or at least would never be allowed to own one again.
But the courts struck that down as well and there is basically no hope of fixing this shit, e.g. via constitutional amendment, cause too many people are busy pushing laws that only harass lawful owners like assault rifle bans (newsflash, a shotgun kills kids just as good as an AR) and many people on the 2A side are now in defense mode instinctively pushing back on any gun laws, even reasonable ones.
Just wish people on the 2A side would actually doing something with it, even if it was just showing up to protests in numbers à la Black Panthers. All it’s done, from this outside perspective, is allow a huge number of people to cosplay as rugged militia rebels but who, far more often than not, just end up sucking boot for their nearest tyrant.
Well, yes. Though do remember that the bootlickers are selection bias. They show up cause they are unlikely to face consequences. There probably are plenty of 2A people who hate the current situation but are not willing to risk the consequences of loosing their life/freedom over it yet. At least I really hope there are.
But they don’t pretend there’s a way to have access to the guns and stop mass killings. They simply don’t care about the mass killings.
I’d be fine with this if the people responsible for these guaranteed future outcomes were held to account. Until we have a justice system that reflects fair penalties on poor leadership, we’re fucked.
“Gotta maximize the body count of school children”-These jusges, probably
“Because bans on AR-15s magically stopped school shootings in the U.S.”
- Pro fascism Bootlickers, probably
Go on then. Go buy these automatic rifles and fight fascism.
Oh right, you wont. Youre a pathetic naysaying coward hiding in a basement complaining about ‘muh freedoms’ when children are mowed down.
So pathetic.
Why is the difference between “automatic” and “semi-automatic” such a difficult concept to grasp for you people?
I get that you like to lick boots but please get fucking educated. These are not automatic rifles…
“Because bans on AR-15s magically stopped school shootings in the U.S.”
Pro fascism Bootlickers, probably
Yep! The fact we live in a society that makes stuff like this relatable because of how prominent this situation is means trying to impliment reasonable gun-control makes people pro-fascism. Gun violence inflicted on children is clearly a sign of a healthy society. After all, the rest of the world’s statistics are comparable.
/s in case it wasn’t obvious
deleted by creator
Good. Hopefully Illinois will follow
And Washington and California.
They will. Such laws are being struck down all over the country.
It’s amazing how many people are OK with their state government wasting money and infringing people’s rights with blatantly unconstitutional laws like these that ban arms in common use.
Normally I would support reasonable gun bans, but currently the Illinois ban just leaves its citizens woefully under armed in the event they need to defend themselves from federal overreach.
We should be able to arm ourselves as well as our enemy does.
Hell yeah brother!!
Ah! So, there aren’t enough children being murdered in schools in Illinois? You must think that we need to have more dead children.
@Sunflier @Fishnoodle The goal remains to clear the country of anyone but the rich. YES, chump, miller, vought and the oligarchs don’t want to pay anything to keep us alive and that includes children.
This is the vought, scotus-6, kleptocracy. Kill us today and use the rest as slaves if the bullets haven’t worked well enough. Hell, pretend were Gaza.
deleted by creator
We need to suspend every right, it’s for the children!
Seriously though. The government infringing on civil rights is not OK and I’m damn happy the courts have upheld the rights of the people today.
I am merely making the point as to limiting killing capacity.
I hate this fucking country and the people in it.
Refuse to even consider not owning a fucking ar-15, and for what? So you can feel tough? Certainly nobody is using them to actually fight tyranny.
And you sure as shit don’t need AR-15s to hunt.
I guess the most important thing is that you feel big and tough when you hold it.
And you sure as shit don’t need AR-15s to hunt.
For deer, yep, an AR-15 chambered in the standard .223 is generally considered too weak. You need something more powerful to ensure a humane kill.
For mid-sized animals like wolf and wild hog, it’s the right size. Though, even for those, many would consider an AR-15 chambered in the standard .223 to be too weak still.
-
AR15 shoots 223 which is a small cartridge,egal to use in some states because it is underpowered.
-
True, AR15 is less likely to be used to fight tyranny. For that, the award goes to the AK47.
-
I like to shoot paper targets with mine. Oh no, the horror!
No need to own an AR-15 though.
You should own one if you are in a marginalized group or consider yourself an ally. The opressors have them, so should you.
You don’t need to share {insert opinion}. We should make sharing that opinion illegal.
Civil rights are important and you don’t get to chop them up piecemeal.
People act like they’re picking which DLC to download for a game. If the 2nd doesn’t matter, the same can be true for the rest.
