195
Federal court strikes down New Jersey ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines
(www.theguardian.com)
this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
195 points (97.1% liked)
politics
30470 readers
2028 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! 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.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
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.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting
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=
Well, there are Uzis
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.
You could still technically be utilizing a 5.56/223 or 762/.30 pistol with a 16” + barrel upper to achieve parity in velocity. The pistol lower is what dictates if it’s a rifle or pistol platform. Albeit, the gas system length would have to match. I may be mistaken but I’d wager, a 8.5-11.5 “pistol upper” with a suppressor would provide similar velocity in adding 5-8 inches (absent any rifling).
Technical arguments aren't going to work, I don't think. It's similar to how an old style machine gun with no select fire and an open bolt is easy to make; the trigger just gets out of the way and the guns stops Not Firing. Then the world gets select fire which adds complexity, gets better mechanisms which add performance at the cost of complexity, so on and so forth.
I know I'm speaking to the choir here, but it's like with Glock and their latest gen models. They tried to address the wish.com switches that were readily available, and they changed the slide somehow so the old switches wouldn't work. New switches were out within days. Ignoring how additional complexity typically comes at a (small if they're doing it right) reliability cost, there isn't a level of complexity you can add to a standalone firearm that'll make it unusable using technology alone.
So, we use legal means and wind up with a damned patchwork of laws. Some stuff is legal in some states and illegal in others, some states are "stand your ground" and others are "duty to retreat," and it's all subject to interpretation. They've already changed the forms so that the sex field is specifically the one assigned at birth, and red flag laws can be turned against whoever isn't in power in a locality. Safe storage laws can't be enforced without home inspection and are a tax on the poor, depending on interpretation. If pennies matter to someone they won't be able to afford a safe with X amount of weight and possible structural improvements to support the weight if you're on a crawl space. Apartments won't be possible at all.
To the uninitiated the 3D printing stuff looks like magic when it's really not as hard as it seems. Likewise firearms aren't as complicated as some people seem to think. How legislation targeting either of the groups of people continually gets written and pushed people people who clearly don't know anything about it is a failure of the ballot box and can be fixed there.
The other thing that seems to get lost on folks pushing gun bans are that a lot of the developments for making them lighter and easier to use have opened doors for people who'd have a harder time using a heavier firearm with large recoil.
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.
As a thought experiment, if someone attacks me with lethal intent, and I grab what is by your definition an assault weapon and not a self defense tool, does that make my defense of self and family invalid? Do I now somehow become the aggressor in this scenario because I am weilding a weapon of war? Is it only ethical for me to defend myself with a pistol? Am I bound by eithics to ensure I don't have an advantage in effective range over my attacker?
The Remington Model 700 was introduced in the 1960's and adapted to become a sniper rifle by the US military in the late 1980's. Many of the modifications made to the design for military use are the same that competitive sport shooters would make to improve long range accuracy. It was a hunting tool first, but became a highly effective weapon of war used with the intent to kill. Would it be prudent to ban this firearm as well, or does the 700 get a pass based on the origin of it's design?
I ask, not because I cradle my rifle at night praying for a break in or because I'm not concerned about gun violence, but because campaigns to ban assault rifles so often focus on the origin of these designs rather than on the technical details and civilian uses of the firearm in question. This becomes important when, as is all but inevitable, that ban winds up in court. As gets mentioned so often the only fundamental difference between an AR-15 and any number of small caliber hunting rifles (which can often be found chambered in 5.56/.223 just like an AR-15) is that the AR-15 has a pistol grip. It's an uneven application of the legal process even before you consider 2A rights.
exactly my point: let's tease out semantics instead of addressing the problem of too many firearms in too many hands with too little grey matter to safely use and secure.
god forbid we prevent kids from blasting schools and nutbags from sending thousands of rounds into a fucking concert, nah, your primary concern is semantics.
watch out, someone over there called a magazine a clip, get on ye high horse semantics ranger, you're the pedants choice for correct answers.
useless as a rubber fucking crutch, but the pedant's choice and you should be proud.
I don't care what you call it. The semantics don't matter to me. We can do it in any terms you like.
But if you ban gun A because it's weapon of war, but allow gun B to be sold because it's a hunting tool, when both are semi-automaitc guns shooting the same bullet out of clips, then your ban accomplished nothing of substance and won't be around long.
But all that matters is people don't have that one specific kind of gun, right?
I'm not even arguing the usefulness of bans here, just that the people trying to enact them write them in a way that undermines their purpose and leads to a defeat in the courts. You want to ban assault rifles? Write better legislation.
quack quack quack quack. we had an assault weapons ban in the 90s and when they let it expire, the number of mass shootings skyrocketed and it became the number one choice for kid murder. you can piss and moan about how "an m16 is a classic american rifle" and mewl about magazines, and entirely ignore the actual history.
until we dx citizen's united, it's a rather pointless exercise as the NRA is willing to spend so much russian money in our elections.
nah. we just need a court that understands the full fucking text of the 2a instead of a portion.
Lol
At what point in this conversation have I ever pissed and moaned about the M-16 being a classic American rifle or complained about magazine capacity? At what point did I ever deny or disparage the effectiveness of the 90's Federal ban?
And you'll get that court about the time you get rid of Citizen's United. But why not at least encourage lawmakers to get rid of low hanging fruit that give them an easy excuse to strike new gun laws down and force the lobbyists to spend more of that money to defeat it?
Or you can blame people for pointing out obvious flaws in these policies and accuse those people of arguing for standpoints they've never held...
Take whatever approach you think is most effective.
I literally hunt with a 300aac ar-15. Who the hell are you to tell me it's not a hunting tool?
300aac in a 'pistol' config? because that's what's actually being discussed, go back to hooked on phonics if you need a refresher. if so - in response to your query - me. That'd be ME. you stupid yokel putz.
reconfiguring a rifle receiver as a pistol then pumping 300 blackout and still thinking it's a pistol is fucking dumb. it's stupid silly shit to skirt around regulations and you know it.
didn't think I needed to spell this shit out but here we are
Correct, in a pistol config. 10.5in barrel and a brace. And I skirt my local hunting regulations by temporarily rendering it into a bolt action using a Kali key. Semi-auto firearms of any kind (including what you would call "actual pistols") are not allowed for big game hunting in my state.
The deer I'm eating would like a word with you, because you're dead wrong.
nah, pretty sure the deer and I agree.
try not to get lead poisoning
The premise I was responding to was framed as single-shot handguns. I’m not defending anything just pointing out that the nuance matters because like you said gun goobs use it to pick apart legislation and nothing ever changes.
sorry if I misdirected my rage at the gunboobs to you :D
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.
~~Killing~~ Attacking 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.
Ban matches and gasoline.
What an idiotic attempt at an argument.
A way to advance EVs? Count me in
Ban cars. You'd have a much more livable society and it would simultaneously reduce homicides and suicides.
-The woodpecker sighed.
Cars are already weapons silly
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.
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.