The rulings in Maryland and Oregon come amid a shifting legal landscape in the wake of a Supreme Court decision that has imposed new limits on gun regulation.

In the wake of a landmark U.S. Supreme Court decision last year that significantly limits what the government can do to restrict guns, states led by Democrats have scrambled to circumvent or test the limits of the ruling. A few have approved new gun restrictions. Oregon even passed a ballot initiative to ban high-capacity ammunition magazines.

But this week, supporters of the new gun measures suffered a pair of setbacks, underscoring the rippling effect of the court’s decision.

On Tuesday, a three-judge panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Richmond, Va., ruled that a 10-year-old Maryland law related to licensing requirements for handguns was unconstitutional.

  • PugJesus@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    59
    arrow-down
    11
    ·
    10 months ago

    Under the Maryland law, an applicant for a handgun license must meet four requirements. They must be at least 21 years old, a resident of the state, complete a gun safety course and undergo a background check to ensure they are not barred under federal or state law from owning a firearm.

    An applicant must then fill out an application, pay a processing fee, and wait up to 30 days for a state official to issue a license.

    The appeals court ruled that requiring applicants to wait up to 30 days for a handgun permit violated the constitutional rights of citizens, and “the law’s waiting period could well be the critical time in which the applicant expects to face danger.”

    I fucking hate these cretins in our judiciary.

    • Whoresradish@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      I am more offended by them saying you have to be 21 years old. If you are old enough to be drafted for the military then you should be old enough to have a firearm. Same with the right to vote.

      • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        10 months ago

        You should have to be older to be drafted (or get rid of the draft entirely, which is my opinion).

        Having the right to vote I don’t think should confer you automatic rights to own a firearm. Voting is a much more powerful right in the first place.

        Now, if you pay taxes on wages at all, you should be given the right to vote, such as working 16 year olds.

    • interceder270@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      “Sorry bro, you’re going to have to wait for the first amendment to kick in.”

      “Yeah, we’re gonna have to quarter soldiers here. Sorry, you don’t get 3rd amendment protections for another month.”

    • HessiaNerd@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      10 months ago

      Depleted Uranium ammo was not a thing until the 40’s. Not long enough to have a historical basis for banning civilians from owning them.

    • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Me too. They just gloss over three fourths of the amendment.

      Well regulated.

      Milita.

      To protect the security of the state.

      These words mean nothing to conservatives, they read them right out of the Constitution and then claim they are adhering to strictly to the text.

    • Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      20
      arrow-down
      18
      ·
      10 months ago

      Why do you think law abiding citizens should be subjected to waiting periods to exercise their constitutional rights?

      • idiomaddict@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        16
        arrow-down
        9
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because it makes the world safer. Same reason you need a fence around a pool, even though the pursuit of happiness is protected by the constitution (for me, happiness is unbridled access to a pool).

      • PugJesus@kbin.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        13
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        10 months ago

        The constitutional right to acquire arms immediately and without precondition, I see. Just like the constitutional right to say anything, at any time, without any consequences.

        • stevestevesteve@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          11
          arrow-down
          8
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          This doesn’t remove all background checks, so “immediately and without precondition” is facetious.

          I agree with not selling weapons to known maniacs, but I also believe that if the govt knows someone’s dangerous enough that they shouldn’t own a gun for self defense, they already should have been removed from the general population and arrested/imprisoned etc, as they are still very dangerous to the general population without said firearm.

      • Fades@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        You can wait, bud. In OR it’s already a ~2 week wait to pick one up from an FFL, it didn’t affect me in the slightest. It’s clear we need more in-depth preprocessing before granting weapon ownership. It’s a deadly item, just like a car is. You gotta register and have a license and all this shit before you can hit the road. Whats the diff?

        Also, you actually have to wait to exercise lots of constitutional rights. What you gonna advocate for voting whenever the fuck you want? It’s our constitutional right after all!

        The issue you should have with any of this is with licensing it likely puts a financial barrier to that same constitutional right.

        • karakoram@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          10 months ago

          The car argument is not good. Anyone can buy and operate a car immediately on private property without any interference from government in the US.

      • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        This a stupid argument. The right isn’t to just have guns.

        It’s to have guns whilst being a member of a militia that trains regularly and only for the purpose of protecting state security.

        That’s literally what the text says.

        All that extra shit you are adding to the right is stuff made up by charlatans. And I guess it worked, because they sure fooled you.

        • Reddit_Is_Trash@reddthat.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Have you read the constitution? It literally does not say it’s only for the purpose of protecting the state

          The problem with the world today is that we have illiterates like you voting.

          • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            I’m an attorney so I think you’re basically illiterate in comparison. Why don’t you go read it again, you absolute donkey. Tell us all why a militia is even necessary in the eyes of the framers. The text on this could not be more clear.

            Second Amendment True Purpose Revealed: True Secret the Framers Don't Want You to Know

            “the security of a free state”

      • Annoyed_🦀 @monyet.cc
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        arrow-down
        6
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        Same way as law abiding citizens need to wait 21 years, goes through firearm training, and gone through background check to exercise their constitutional rights. If 30 days is such a long time to wait and considered unconstitutional, why not lower the age requirement to 12 years old? Why need firearm training? Why need background check?

    • guacupado@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      and “the law’s waiting period could well be the critical time in which the applicant expects to face danger.”

      Sometimes that danger is them getting caught by police before they’re able to execute.

  • 👍Maximum Derek👍@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    Oregon’s law was terrible and needed to be overturned ASAP. It basically gave sherriffs, the most ulta-conservative people in the state, the power to decide who did and didn’t get guns. The conspiracy minded part of me thinks measure 114 was put on the ballot to set gun control efforts back by 6 to 8 years, and it succeeded.

    • jordanlund@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      10 months ago

      It was written and proposed by an ultra religious movement too… You can be tax free or take positions in governing. Pick one.

    • AlexWIWA@lemmy.ml
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      “May issue, determined by police” will only ever prevent minorities from owning guns. Uncle Jim, that shares conspiracies on Facebook and beats his wife, will never be blocked by a sheriff.

  • Fades@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    21
    arrow-down
    6
    ·
    10 months ago

    As a gun owner myself, I support the licensing, the high capacity mags ban won’t do a damn thing though. If you’ve ever seen a 10rd 556 mag it’s small as hell and you can stuff lots in pockets and such. It won’t stop a damn thing, especially with coward cops who just listen to the action and do nothing.

    if that’s what it takes then fine but why can’t we come up with shit that actually makes sense instead of these ‘whatever we can get’ stuff. I realize republican trash makes that nigh impossible though. Fucking dumb as hell

      • SupraMario@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Because other developed countries are just that… developed…they have safety nets, and single payer healthcare…and don’t lock up millions of people…they also don’t have and have never had 500+ million firearms in civilian hands.

    • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      10
      ·
      10 months ago

      All we need to do is severely restrict ammo sales to individuals. Guns are useless without rounds.

      As long as people have near unlimited access to ammo, they’ll always find a different gun or magazine to use that gets around certain gun bans.

      • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        “Poor people don’t deserve the right to self defense, but if you’re rich enough you should be able to shoot up whatever you can afford.”

        • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          That’s how it already is? Rich people have always been able to afford more than the poor. How is that relevant to what I said?

          If we restrict ammo sales to everyone then the rich won’t be allowed to have more than the poor.

          For self defense, nobody needs more than a single magazine of rounds. If you’re using more than that, you’re being careless and dangerous and you’re a poor shot.

          • ArcaneSlime@lemmy.dbzer0.com
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            By making things arbitrarily more expensive all you’re doing is making poor people not able to afford them, it’s classism.

            For self defense, nobody needs more than a single magazine of rounds. If you’re using more than that, you’re being careless and dangerous and you’re a poor shot.

            Good idea, allot 1 mag to everyone so they don’t have enough ammo to train with their firearm and learn how to shoot it better. I’m sure having people who’ve never even fired their gun walking around will make them safer lmao.

            This is kinda why most people think people should have some semblance of an idea of what they’re talking about before they attempt to tell others what to do. I don’t know much about cars, but you don’t hear me going around saying “we should ban seatbelts so everyone pays more attention and we have less wrecks.”

    • BassaForte@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      arrow-down
      15
      ·
      10 months ago

      I also support licensing as a gun owner, but banning anything isn’t going to do a damn thing. There’s so much pointless semantics in these gun control proposals.

        • BassaForte@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          10 months ago

          Putting words in my mouth? I never said anything about abortion. But fwiw, I’m against banning abortion too. I hate how everyone assumes I’m a braindead conservative when I give the slightest hint that I’m pro-gun (even sensibly).

          • SupraMario@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            10 months ago

            Suggesting licensing and then saying you’re a gun owner makes me feel like you own a red rider or you’re completely ignorant of what licensing would be used to keep people from exercising their rights… mainly would be used against minorities as it has been in the past.

            • BassaForte@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              10 months ago

              Cool so I guess we should just do nothing then, huh?

              The reasons I am for licensing is that I want people to be able to keep their guns and preserve the right to self defense, but you’re an idiot if you don’t think gun violence is a problem that needs attention. Licensing will (ideally) help to prevent gun misuse, bring stronger repercussions to those who are irresponsible with firearms, and overall keep things in check. I am aware that restrictions can be used to keep certain people from exercising their rights… and that is an issue, but surprise, conservatives have been doing that too (saw an article about it today, forgot which city / state it was, but basically they were preventing lefties from owning guns). We’re in deep shit with how many guns are in the US and bans are obviously not going to work. So if licensing isn’t the play, then what the fuck do you suggest, Mr. know-it-all?

              • SupraMario@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                edit-2
                10 months ago

                Licensing is not going to fix our gun violence. It’s not going to solve anything you just listed, which also has a very small death rate. 2/3rds of our gun deaths a year are suicides, that last 3rd makes up everything else. 85%+ of that last 3rd is gang and drug violence…and that last 15% includes, domestic, police, NDs, mass shootings and everything else. If we really want to solve our violence issue we need to fix our society. We can start with:

                • Single payer healthcare

                • Ending the War on Drugs

                • Ending Qualified immunity

                • Properly funding our schools and not just rich white suburb schools.

                • Build more schools and hire more teachers for proper pay so the class room sizes aren’t 30-40 kids for one teacher.

                • UBI (at least start talking about it) once AI takes over most of the blue collar jobs.

                • End for profit prisons

                • Enforce the laws already on the books

                • Make sure there are safety nets for poor families so the kids don’t turn to violence/gangs to survive.

                • Increase the minimum wage

                • Recreate our mental healthcare so kids don’t turn to the internet for support. And to help veterans not end up as a suicide number.

                • Actively make a law to solidify Pro-choice rights. More unwanted children do not help our situation.

                • Banning Insider Trading for Congress

                • Term limits

                • Ranked Choice Voting so we can move away from a 2 party system

                • RGB3x3@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  10 months ago

                  Oh sure, gun deaths aren’t a problem as long as they’re suicides or gang violence.

                  Do you realize how dumb that is? It’s all part of the same problem: access to and misuse of firearms.

                  Those lives matter and minimizing them as you’ve done is awful.

  • Pratai@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    Can have pesky laws interfering with a conservative’s right to murder people that disagree with them, can we?

  • SeaJ@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    4
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    10 months ago

    The Oregon one makes sense since it is very clearly codified in their Constitution.

  • bastian_5@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    10 months ago

    For a moment I misread the title as something about Counter Strike somehow having something to do with gun control measures and got very confused…

    • gmtom@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      10 months ago

      So does most of the world, yet we don’t have weekly mass shootings.

    • hansl@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      10 months ago

      Are you saying the judges are mentally unfit? I don’t disagree, just want to clarify.

  • Blackout@kbin.social
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    7
    arrow-down
    17
    ·
    10 months ago

    Sorry kiddos, the judge says you got to die. Can’t take bubba’s guns away, that would be unconstitutional.