this post was submitted on 19 Jul 2026
134 points (96.5% liked)

politics

30470 readers
2134 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. 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:

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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

• Register To Vote

• Citizenship Resource Center

• Congressional Awards Program

• Federal Government Agencies

• Library of Congress Legislative Resources

• The White House

• U.S. House of Representatives

• U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

• News

• World News

• Business News

• Political Discussion

• Ask Politics

• Military News

• Global Politics

• Moderate Politics

• Progressive Politics

• UK Politics

• Canadian Politics

• Australian Politics

• New Zealand Politics

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
outrageousmatter@lemmy.world
aidan@lemmy.world
jordanlund@lemmy.world
little_cow@lemmy.world
Theonetheycall1845@lemmy.world
JuBe@lemmy.world
Lasherz12@lemmy.world
134
Federal court strikes down New Jersey ban on assault rifles and large-capacity magazines (www.theguardian.com)
submitted 19 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) by Sunflier@lemmy.world to c/politics@lemmy.world
55 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 3 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] hoch@lemmy.world 1 points 24 minutes ago

I like to shoot paper targets with mine. Oh no, the horror!

[–] Sprocketfree@sh.itjust.works 5 points 10 hours ago (3 children)

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.

[–] magic_smoke@lemmy.blahaj.zone 6 points 5 hours ago* (last edited 5 hours ago)

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 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.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 2 points 7 hours ago

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.

[–] DreamlandLividity@lemmy.world 1 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago)

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.

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 46 points 18 hours ago

I, for one, am stoked about the renewed opportunity to buy (or make) more effective weapons for fighting fascists with.

[–] gukleszl4hs48ughgxhr5xgd@fedia.io 12 points 17 hours ago (3 children)

Civilian AR-15s aren't assault rifles. AR doesn't stand for assault rifle...

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone -3 points 3 hours ago

Who. Fucking. Cares.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 10 points 17 hours ago* (last edited 17 hours ago) (2 children)
[–] Ostrakon@lemmy.world 3 points 3 hours ago

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.

[–] Triumph@fedia.io 12 points 16 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 10 points 16 hours ago* (last edited 16 hours ago) (4 children)

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.

[–] green_goglin@thelemmy.club 3 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

So, you’re good with Mini-14s?

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 9 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] green_goglin@thelemmy.club 5 points 8 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (2 children)

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://m.youtube.com/watch?v=w_ht2WkIuM0&pp=ygUHbWluaSAxNA%3D%3D&ra=m

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 0 points 4 hours ago* (last edited 4 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] green_goglin@thelemmy.club 2 points 1 hour ago* (last edited 1 hour ago) (1 children)

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).

[–] historicaldocuments@lemmy.world 1 points 23 minutes ago

gas system

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.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -1 points 7 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] green_goglin@thelemmy.club 2 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] mojofrododojo@lemmy.world -1 points 7 hours ago* (last edited 7 hours ago)

sorry if I misdirected my rage at the gunboobs to you :D

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 10 points 14 hours ago (2 children)

This same argument is used to kill right to repair. Banning potential crime is always bad.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Triumph@fedia.io 8 points 16 hours ago (10 children)

If everything that could be used to kill someone was made illegal, we wouldn't have very many things.

[–] prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone 0 points 3 hours ago

Good thing nobody is asking for that.

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago* (last edited 1 hour ago)

~~Killing~~ Attacking one person with a hammer vs shooting up a school with a rifle or handgun are not even in the same galaxy.

load more comments (8 replies)
[–] BlackVenom@lemmy.world 3 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Damn

The legality of something doesn't make it effective.

So

We should make Y illegal and that'll be effective.

[–] thermal_shock@lemmy.world 1 points 9 hours ago

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.

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 3 points 15 hours ago* (last edited 15 hours ago)

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.

[–] stylusmobilus@aussie.zone 3 points 16 hours ago (2 children)

Rational people: the US has a gun problem

This bloke: aR15 aRenT aSoLt RiFL

[–] UPGRAYEDD@lemmy.world 5 points 8 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] ExLisper@lemmy.curiana.net 1 points 7 hours ago

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.

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 5 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

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.

[–] Fishnoodle@lemmy.world 6 points 17 hours ago (6 children)

Good. Hopefully Illinois will follow

[–] OwOarchist@pawb.social 6 points 14 hours ago

And Washington and California.

[–] unitedwithme@lemmy.today 4 points 14 hours ago

Hell yeah brother!!

[–] RamRabbit@lemmy.world 2 points 12 hours ago* (last edited 12 hours ago)

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.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 7 points 19 hours ago (2 children)

"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
[–] Wataba@sh.itjust.works -1 points 10 hours ago (1 children)

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.

[–] tidderuuf@lemmy.world 4 points 9 hours ago

I get that you like to lick boots but please get fucking educated. These are not automatic rifles...

[–] Sunflier@lemmy.world 3 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

“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

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Klox@lemmy.world 6 points 18 hours ago

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.

load more comments
view more: next ›