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.

  • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    3 days ago

    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.

    You’re missing the point of these laws entirely. No one is saying that passing a law like this is going to remove every possible avenue for someone to get the most destructive gun on the planet and do the most damage possible.

    What these laws are intended to do is make it less likely someone will have access to the most destructive gun on the planet. If someone plans multiple years ahead, they can go to the far ends of the Earth to get the most destructive gun possible. However, if they got pissed off at their boss that morning and decide to commit this kind of crime they’ll only have wants available to that morning. If they were a legal gun owner when the day started, that means they’ll only have 10 round magazines at most. Even if they drive to the local store nearby, they’d only be able to buy more 10 round magazines.

    Lets even say that higher capacity magazines are available in the next state over. That may mean hours of planning and travel just to get to the other state to get the high capacity magazines, then all the time it takes to get back home to commit their crime. That’s a lot of time for someone to consider what they’re doing, the impact it will have on others, and even their own lives.

    Will some still do it with all of that planning and bother needed? Yes. Will everyone? Doubtful.

      • Rekorse@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 days ago

        Why do you think if we can’t stop the most determined Luigi’s out there that regulation is impotent? We aren’t trying to stop the very edge cases, we are trying to stop crimes of passion, which most gun crime is.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        It takes 5 minutes to change a 10 round magazine into a high capacity one

        Any magazine that can be changed in 5 minutes to hold more than 10 rounds likely doesn’t count as a legal magazine even with only 10 round capacity at that time of sale.

        Here’s an example from the text California law with a piece on the 10 round magazine limits and exceptions:

        “With limited exceptions, California law prohibits any person from manufacturing, importing into the state, keeping for sale, offering or exposing for sale, giving, lending, buying, or receiving a large capacity magazine.1 (A “large capacity magazine” is defined as any ammunition feeding device with the capacity to accept more than ten rounds, with exceptions for any .22 caliber tube ammunition feeding device, any feeding device that has been permanently altered so that it cannot accommodate more than ten rounds, or any tubular magazine that is contained in a lever-action firearm).2” source

    • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      3 days ago

      That seems like an awfully fringe and roundabout improvement for a law that ruins the fun for everyone else. But I guess this is the flip side of the same leadership that’s engineered a society in which so many people decide to be mass murderers in the first place.

      • partial_accumen@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        That seems like an awfully fringe and roundabout improvement for a law that ruins the fun for everyone else.

        Ruining the fun? That seems to be an incredibly weak argument for gun proliferation. I can see an argument for strong 2nd Amendment proponents as the Constitution grants rights and freedoms, and restrictions on those granted in the Constitution could be a pathway to a bad place. However, I can also see an argument that the evolution of firearms has outpaced our society’s safe use of modern firearms and that the freedom of victims of gun violence are also having their even stronger Constitutional rights restricted and spirit of our nation with the Declaration’s “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”. In this conversation I’m not advocating a position either way, but I can see the valid arguments on both sides.

        In neither one of those is “ruining” the fun" even a fraction of a thought to consider. You do you though.

        Have a good night.

        • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Ruining the fun? That seems to be an incredibly weak argument for gun proliferation.

          Why, you have an issue with fun? You have an issue with a society where everyone can pursue their hobbies to the fullest extent, and find enjoyment in them? Do you not think it’s possible to provide responsible restrictions on firearms in a way that doesn’t prevent one from going out into the woods on a weekend with friends to merely enjoy nerding out on the intersection of machining and marksmanship? More importantly, do you not find it justified to argue for rights from the goal of having a good time? Fun isn’t covered in the constitution per se but I think this falls under the old “If I can’t dance, I don’t want to be a part of your revolution”.

          • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            2
            arrow-down
            7
            ·
            edit-2
            3 days ago

            Then do paintball.

            Guns, particularly handguns and AR-15s are specifically designed to kill humans. Do you really need someone to walk you through why that’s different than sewing or riding bikes?

            If you’re not even capable of understanding why your need to have instruments of death in order to have “fun” isn’t more important than other peoples’ lives and safety, then you have no place in modern society and should remove yourself and go live in the woods or something.

            • PyroNeurosis@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              arrow-down
              2
              ·
              3 days ago

              Guns… are specifically dedigned to kill people

              Damn, dude! Better not learn about HEMA or fencing. Shit may give you an aneurism.

            • infinitesunrise@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              4
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 days ago

              Have you ever driven a car?

              Shame on you if you have. Some of those have been designed and used to kill people.

              How dare you. Go live in the woods!

              • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                2 days ago

                If you honestly don’t know the difference between a car and a gun and what their purposes are, then I don’t know what to tell you.

                Honestly I believe you’re smart enough to understand, so either you’re being disingenuous, or you’re just refusing to allow yourself to go there because you’ve centered your entire personality around instruments of death.

                Cars are designed to kill people? Consumer vehicles? Lol right… Do better.

      • prole@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        7
        ·
        3 days ago

        for a law that ruins the fun for everyone else

        Yeah, firearms have been the top cause of death of children in the US for years, but wouldn’t want to ruin the fun for you.

        • nondescripthandle@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          3 days ago

          And before that it was cars, Detroit just had better lobbyists and didn’t use them to shelter Russian intelligence assets. Cars continue to get larger, faster, heavier, and with higher raised bumpers because fuck pedestrians.