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.
I’ve heard statements before the “assault weapons” bans are pretty weak in their description and can easily be skirted with mild modifications rendering a gun no longer meeting the definition. I got curious what Maryland’s law text said. I found it here: link
I’ll say that the law as written is very detailed with its criteria for what is banned including even minor items like have a threaded barrel such as one would need to mount a flash suppressor. They also go through many iterations of descriptions of magazine size, detachabilty, and thumb hole position.
Just curiosity in the spirit of my original question (guns that would be legal), but still likely run afoul of the spirit (but not the letter of this law), I found this one:
Franklin Armory F17
Its rare apparently, but “the Franklin Armory F17 is the only semi-auto 17 Winchester Super Mag available today.”
“assault weapons” are a nebulous concept. that law sounds like it was closely tailored to match the AR-15 and its clones, since that’s the closest definition anyone can agree on. but it’s not like thumb position, stock design etc. make the AR-15 more lethal than other rifles.
why don’t they just ban semi-auto rifles? for home defense you can use a handgun, for hunting you can use a bolt action rifle of a pump action shotgun. you eliminate the bump stock loophole and it becomes harder to mow down a crowd.
Hand guns are so, so much more common in crime, rifles are barely a blip on the map. Also, handguns have almost no use other than killing humans/sport. (You can argue that they can offer some sort of protection from wild animals when you’re hiking, by scaring them away with noise… I can’t really think of much else)
Semi automatic rifles cover the gamut of utility. They’re not JUST for killing people and/or sport. Every reason you could legitimately need a gun for, the broad category “semi auto rifle” covers, so banning them has a disproportionate impact to people who use them legally and as tools vs banning handguns.
If people seriously want to make a dent in gun crime/accidental deaths/suicide we need to look at handguns, but they’re not scary looking enough so there’s no clout. Instead we get stupid laws that try to ban scary looking black guns or limit magazine sizes. Pisses off gun owners that know it’s useless and doesn’t actually get at anything that can make a difference. It’s all theater.
Considering that the point of the Second Amendment was to enable a “well regulated militia” to maintain “the security of a free state,” military-relevant weapons ought to be the ones most protected by it.
The explicit goal was to enable the populace to defend itself militarily, and you’re not doing that with a handgun (at least not effectively compared to using an assault rifle).
Read the federalist papers if you want to understand the 2nd amendment better. You’re just as wrong as the people who like to say that the 2nd amendment was just to protect having a militia.
Just keep ignoring entire words (“well-regulated”)
In the 1700s, “well-regulated” was a synonym for “well-trained.”
Well trained and well equipped. One of the reasons the 2A exists is because Congress did such a godawful job keeping the continental army equipped during the revolutionary war. The US was originally to have no standing army but militias by and from the populace under the supervision and training of professional federal officers. With a structure like that, militia members need to be able to provide their own arms rather than rely on Congress, which was seen as untrustworthy and partial, particularly in possible disputes between states. However, the 2A was ratified at about the same time the US was realizing that a standing army of some kind was existentially necessary, following catastrophic defeats in conflicts with the natives. It was never meant to be used the way it is now being used.
It still is; that rule never got amended. The entire US Army runs on a loophole, getting “reauthorized” each year. (The Air Force and Space Force too, I guess, since historically speaking, those are technically spin-offs of the Army.)
The Navy and Marine Corps are properly Constitutional, though. Frankly, that’s the loophole they should’ve gone with instead: calling all ground troops “Marines,” and all aircraft “Naval aviation.”
So in order to get a gun Americans need to have training (like driver’s education)?
If we actually followed the Constitution a lot of things would be different.
(Also, I would very much advocate for that.)
No it wasn’t. But sure, anything can mean anything when you change what words mean.
handguns are much more common in homicides in general, but I think rifles are the weapon of choice in school shootings and other acts of domestic terrorism. they have more potential to kill a larger number of people in a shorter amount of time from a greater distance. in particular I’m thinking about the Las Vegas shooter who infamously used bump stocks to rain bullets on a crowd.
incidentally, we almost banned handguns decades ago. it’s my understanding that that attempt at a ban - saved by last minute edits - are responsible for outlawing short-barreled rifles (they were trying to prevent people from making their rifles into handguns.)
but do those purposes need semi-auto? can you not afford the extra second to charge the weapon between shots? the only situation I can envision is needing to protect yourself from criminals with semi-autos, which is a legitimate concern.
I’m trying to think of other use-cases. Do you mean something like mass culling of wild hogs? That’s the only thing I can think of that isn’t killing people or sport.
the only use I can think of is bear defense for someone with bad aim
I think you missed the point of my post. The law is the opposite of what you said. Its NOT the nebulous concept. In the language of the law (which I linked) they have all kinds of criteria that apply to lots of guns that aren’t and don’t look like the AR-15 platform.
Honestly, that legislation is what makes more sense to me if thats what they’re going for. I’d modify your language slight to be “single action”, instead of non “semi automatic”.
I’d dispute that. Single action is a specific type of system.
What is your definition of your proposed “ban semi-auto rifles”? In other words, what is a rifle that is not semi-automatic?
Semi-automatic is a specific type of action where after firing, the bolt removes the spent case and chambers the next round without further manual input from the operator as would be required in lever actions, bolt actions, etc.
Well, semi-automatic also interrupts the action so it only gives one shot per trigger pull, versus burst mechanisms or fully automatic.
So as for what is not a semi-automatic? Any gun requiring manual operation to clear the spent case and chamber a new round or can fire more than one round per trigger pull.
The solution is turning this on its head and having a law saying which weapons are allowed.
Granted it’s hard with how the archaic constitution of the US is written and how creatively the conservative judges read it, but decisions like this give room for states to try more tiered access to weapons.
Oh man, I would love to be the gun company lobbying for that law.
For home defense you use a shotgun with buckshot. Less aim required, safer for others behind drywall, and can hold 1 - 10 rounds depending on the type. Easy load for 1 shots. Also better for defense claim on trials.
Dangerous myths:
You have to aim a shotgun.
Shotguns remain deadly through a significant amount of drywall.
Nice to see a test of sheetrock. I’d still argue that a 9mm would penetrate much more though.
Oddly enough… It’s pretty similar.