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.

  • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    9
    ·
    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.