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.
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