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
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