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
Civilian AR-15s aren’t assault rifles. AR doesn’t stand for assault rifle…
The AR15 is a watered-down M16. Bump-stocks really narrow the difference gap. There are even full guides on how to modify AR15s into full machine guns.
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.
Right. I’m sure the illegality of making these mods would be a turnoff to mass shooters. My point is that, to reduce the casualty count, the medium of illegality ought to be reduced. Where an AR15 can kill 60 and wound 400+ at a long distance, maybe a reasonable limitation on accessing machine guns such that the only accessible guns are single-shot long-rifles or pistols might have had that number reduced to 10 dead and 60 wounded.
Ar15 is NOT a machine gun.
It can be modified unto one. They’re based on the M16. If they’re not so good at mechanical reloading and firing, why are they the preferred weapon for mass shooters?
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.
You haven’t heard about FRT’s huh
Higher rate of fire correlates with lower accuracy.
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.
What if we removed the motivation to kill people at all? Or is that just impossible?
In all of human history, the motivation to murder has always existed. Murder is even one of the first sins mentioned in the bible.
Ok, murder is innate. So what does that have to do with guns? Are guns totemic and somehow increase the desire to murder? Are gun murders “worse” than other kinds of murder?
Limiting the access to assault rifles would limit the capabilities of homicidal maniacs. Where now they can kill 60 and wound 400 or shoot up an entire chuch and kill 26 paritioners and wound 22 more, maybe they only kill 5 or 6 in 1 go with the ban. Its a macabre calculation, but a lot of people would still have their family sitting with them at Thanksgiving.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Nashville_school_shooting
This same argument is used to kill right to repair. Banning potential crime is always bad.
Banning the means of crime =/= banning the potential crime. In fact, once the Tommy Gun was outlawed, though it took a minute, eventually the Tommy Gun stopped being used. Not sure how banning the means of mass murder equates to repair. Also, the right to repair has been affirmed in many jurisdictions.
the primary argument that has been successful for John Deere against right to repair is that if they don’t block it, then farmers will just bypass emissions controls. Bypassing is already a crime, but unlikely to ever be prosecuted.
Similarly the fact an AR15 could be illegally modified is not a reason to ban it.
So, you’re good with Mini-14s?
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.
Mini-14 isn’t a handgun. You failed to answer their question.
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://youtube.com/watch?v=w_ht2WkIuM0&pp=
Well, there are Uzis
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.
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).
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.
I literally hunt with a 300aac ar-15. Who the hell are you to tell me it’s not a hunting tool?
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.
If everything that could be used to kill someone was made illegal, we wouldn’t have very many things.
Good thing nobody is asking for that.
KillingAttacking one person with a hammer vs shooting up a school with a rifle or handgun are not even in the same galaxy.We’d certainly have more kids reach adulthood, and I didn’t say EVERYTHING. I am merely saying ban AR15s and the like.
Ah so it’s just the things that you find scary that should be banned.
How about ban anything that only exists to kill people? Not that hard is it?
Ban the weapons of war that are preferred by mass shooters. Its like keeping heroine away from the general public to limit the creation of heroine addicts.
I’m so sick and fucking tired of you gun grabbing liberals who are high on hopium acting like a weapon ban isn’t going to be disproportionately enforced on minorities and anyone left of center. The fascists aren’t going to give up their weapons, say it again, the fascists are not going to give up their weapons. So sure, keep the fascists armed, keep the fucking cops armed, and keep the fucking secret police armed- those same people that are already killing anyone they disagree with. Great plan.
All drugs should be legal.
Ban matches and gasoline.
Damn
The legality of something doesn’t make it effective.
So
We should make Y illegal and that’ll be effective.
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.
No FFL transfer paperwork?
Nope, only from a retailer at the time. Private sales required nothing.
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.
AR-15s are a very popular choice amongst mass shooters, when the goal is to maximize mass casualties.
So they’re only used as highly effective assault rifles.
For the sake of accuracy, AR-15s are Soft Fluffy Friendly rifles.
Mine is used to put holes in paper and trash. Same for every one my friends own.
The horror.
Who. Fucking. Cares.
So we’re picking and choosing what constitutional rights we care about?
Yes, absolutely.
For example, I care more about the thirteenth amendment (the slavery one)than the 27th (the one about Congress getting pay raises)
The right of the state to keep slaves as punishment? That’s a weird thing to care about.
WAIT, ARE YOU TELLING ME THAT THE AMENDMENT STILL ALLOWS FOR SLAVERY FOR PUNISHMENT?!!
NO WAY. I WILL NO LONGER CARE ABOUT IT ABOLISHING CHATTEL SLAVERY. I THANK YOU.
If you think that’s a reason to not care about the thirteenth amendment, then you’re honestly fucking stupid.
Yeah dude, we should have just let slavery continue until we could get it perfect. Who cares about actual slaves who have been doing this shit for generations, the amendment wasn’t perfect so they’ll just need to wait.
I’m an ardent defender of the 8th and 4th, so I’m fucking exhausted
You don’t need to sacrifice either. All rights are to be protected.
Importantly, by working to kill one you undermine the foundation they all stand on. For why can’t one right be ignored if you fight to ignore others?
Where did I say anything about sacrificing amendments?
Jesus Christ, I thought Lemmy was better than reddit but it’s like nobody even fucking bothers to actually read what people say.
Some are more important than others. Not sure why this is a controversial thought, or how it means I want to “sacrifice” any of them.
Rational people: the US has a gun problem
This bloke: aR15 aRenT aSoLt RiFL
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.
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.
Should we have these as requirements to be able to vote?
Of course not. What that has to do with anything?
Why? If someone can be stripped of their rights, why not strip that same person of more rights?
You undermine them all when you fight for infringements on any.
Oh, you’re the “ConstiTutiOn Says I can HaZ Gunz” type of a person. You know what I think about it, I know what you think. We can stop here and move on.
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.