this post was submitted on 02 Jun 2025
502 points (98.6% liked)

News

29867 readers
2988 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. 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 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

The Supreme Court on Monday turned away an appeal by a group of gun rights advocates seeking to overturn Maryland's ban on assault-style rifles and high-capacity magazines under the Second Amendment.

The decision, a major win for gun safety advocates, leaves in place a ruling by the Fourth Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals which ruled that the state may constitutionally prohibit sale and possession of the weapons.

The state legislation, enacted in 2013 after the Sandy Hook elementary school shooting, specifically targets the AR-15 -- the most popular rifle in America with 20-30 million in circulation. They are legal in 41 of the 50 states.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] Unboxious@ani.social 31 points 4 days ago (12 children)

So this just bans that "style" of rifle? Someone can just go buy some other semi-automatic rifle that doesn't look as imposing or whatever but will still kill a person just as dead? I don't really get what this accomplishes other than inconveniencing people who already own one of the guns this prohibits.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 14 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago)

Several northeast states passed kneejerk legislation of this type in the wake of Sandy Hook. Common sense gun legislation that provides a pathway to purchase for those without red flags without violating the privacy of owners would be nice, but neither Democrats or Republicans are capable of passing any such legislation. Republicans want no regulation at all while Democrats want to score points in a punitive culture war.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 6 points 3 days ago (2 children)

So this just bans that “style” of rifle? Someone can just go buy some other semi-automatic rifle that doesn’t look as imposing or whatever but will still kill a person just as dead?

According the language of the actual law the answer is either "no" or "not really, no". The law calls out a couple dozen aspects of firearms that precludes most of the "style" concerns. The biggest one is a limit on magazines only containing a maximum 10 rounds. While, yes, 10 rounds can still do lots of damage, it requires more frequent reloading, more chances for error, greater amount of encumbrance of the shooter. Assuming a shooter was using a gun that complied with this law, it would allow more opportunities to intervene or for people to get away.

[–] infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net 13 points 3 days ago (17 children)

You'd think that if someone was about to slaughter as many people as possible they wouldn't really be to worried about a 10-round mag law.

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 2 points 3 days ago (20 children)

By that logic, why should anything be illegal?

load more comments (20 replies)
load more comments (16 replies)
[–] barneypiccolo@lemm.ee 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

There have been several mass shootings which were stopped when the shooter stopped to reload, and a bystander was able to intervene at that moment. Limiting the capacity saves lives.

[–] partial_accumen@lemmy.world 1 points 3 days ago

I agree with you, which is why I think that element of the law is effective.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 3 days ago (8 children)

Pretty much!

Illegal:

collapsed inline media

Perfectly Legal:

collapsed inline media

"But, but, you can't shoot a lever action as fast as a semi-auto!"

https://youtu.be/n68PJM5bazM

https://youtube.com/shorts/CUb8iza_iuc

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago (3 children)

The AR platform is high modifiable, has a nearly infinite number of configurations, can be customized to meet just about any need, and is easily the most widely available sem-automatic rifle on the market. This makes the barrier for entry (to being a mass shooter) much higher.

[–] pishadoot@sh.itjust.works 22 points 4 days ago (9 children)

It really doesn't. AR-15s are everything you said, but just because you take this one specific model rifle it off the market doesn't mean there aren't thousands of lightweight semi automatic rifles that are cheap and just as capable to buy instead. They might not be the gun owner's version of LEGO, but they're just as available and just as lethal.

If someone wants to be a mass shooter they have unlimited options in the USA. AR-15s are just so common you see them more. Starting this decade about 1/4 of the firearms produced in the USA are AR-15s.

If 1/4 the cars sold in the USA were Corollas because they're cheap and easy to drive, would banning Corollas in Maryland reduce car wrecks? No, people would just drive Camrys or Civics or whatever and still drive like idiots.

[–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 3 days ago

I mostly agree with you (see my other comments in the thread). I was just explaining it from the perspective of the Maryland lawmakers. Although, you're not entirely correct. It appears that the law is a lot more broad than the title would lead you to believe

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 6 points 4 days ago (3 children)

If that's true, then it would be reflected in statistics about states with AR15 and magazine bans. I wonder if that's really true or if it's just a matter of being used in attacks because it's the most common (just like the most common vehicles are probably involved in more crashes - it doesn't mean they are unusually dangerous compared to other cars, just that there's more of them).

[–] chiliedogg@lemmy.world 12 points 3 days ago

ARs make up a significantly higher percentage of gun sales than they do in gun deaths or homicides.

[–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 9 points 4 days ago

It's just posturing, really. It's the kind of gun legislation that gets liberals excited, but probably won't actually change much in the long run

[–] hperrin@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago (1 children)

From the article in the original post:

Maryland has seen a decline in gun violence since the enactment of a series of laws aimed at curbing access to dangerous weapons.

[–] FartsWithAnAccent@fedia.io 2 points 3 days ago (7 children)
load more comments (7 replies)
[–] Unboxious@ani.social 2 points 4 days ago (6 children)

I still don't see what prevents someone from just buying a different model.

[–] MnemonicBump@lemmy.dbzer0.com 5 points 4 days ago

Nothing. I didn't say it was an effective strategy, just what appears to be THE strategy at play

load more comments (5 replies)
load more comments (8 replies)