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.
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.
Critical time where the applicant expects to face danger
I needs my guns the minute I needs them. Vending machines full of guns should be on every street corner so I have access to the firepower and ammunition I need at all times.
-Andrew Ryan, founder of Rapture
Marcus Intensifies
“We put the fun in no refund”
“Be the bee”
No refunds!
Usually if you need a gun that fast something bad is going down because you’re angry.
Or it’s because you’re a minority trying not to be killed by white supremacists…or a 5’ 120lb woman with a stalker…but noooo by all means it’s just because someone is angry.
Citizens wouldn’t be facing so much danger if we didn’t have guns everywhere…
I guess abusive partners and family members don’t exist outside of America.
Most murders occur by firearm and it’s not even close. We’re in an arms race with each other to defend ourselves against all the guns that are causing our deaths. It’s a dangerous spiral.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/195325/murder-victims-in-the-us-by-weapon-used/
And guns are part of the tools that abusers use in abusing:
For example, the 8-fold increase in intimate partner femicide risk associated with abusers’ access to firearms attenuated to a 5-fold increase when characteristics of the abuse were considered, including previous threats with a weapon on the part of the abuser. This suggests that abusers who possess guns tend to inflict the most severe abuse.
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/10.2105/AJPH.93.7.1089#_i8
A small percentage (5%) of both case and control women lived apart from the abuser and owned a gun, however, and there was no clear evidence of protective effects.
A victim’s access to firearms has little effect on their protection, but abuser’s access consistently makes abuse worse for the victims.
It’s fine to assume that victims need access to firearms for protection because on the surface it sounds sensible, but the data shows that firearm access is actually making abuse situations worse for the victims.
None of that has to do with me wanting a gun because an ex is crazy. Your privilege is real.
You sitting here mouthing off stats as if there isn’t still an individual looking for protection. ONLy 5% live apart but fuck them and let’s ignore the fact that many successfully defend themselves. Fuck those bitches.
Lol @ trying to invoke privilege when most people killed by DV are shot. Having access to guns doesn’t save anyone. Fuck you for trying to manipulate people this way.
Again you are turning individuals into stats. A gun very much can and does save individuals.
Do the stats not matter? We shouldn’t legislate based on anecdotes
Illegal Chinese fentanyl occasionally is used by people who are in pain, therefore it should be legally available without restrictions. That’s your argument?
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.
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.
This is basically how gun laws have worked in Canada for ages. Treating access to guns the same way you do cars just makes sense. Of course the ease of being able to smuggle weapons bought from the unregulated US sources has meant that gun crime here is still a major problem compared to countries who share borders with others with similar gun control laws. The majority of gun crime in Canada happens with illegally sourced weapons 85% of which has been sourced to guns purchased in the US. Mexico experiences a similar issue.
Gun pollution spreads over our borders and the US is simply big enough and self obsessed enough to not care. Every democratic nation has it’s own version of the US Constitution and unlike when the US Constitution was written, democracies now make up the majority of government systems on the world stage. There are now a lot of democratic societies who have been stable and just fine without massive amounts of citizen gun ownership. In a very real way American gun law structured as it is interferes with our country’s ability to address guns on our own democratic and constitutional grounds.
Democracy and freedoms of the kind the US bills itself on is now considered pretty basic worldwide. Anyone operating on an originalist veiw really needs to unbury their head from the sand and realize how much the world has changed since it was written.
21 to buy a handgun. Rifles you only have to be 18. Quite a few states are like that.
“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.”
“Sorry bro, you’re going to have to wait for the first amendment to kick in.”
Go protest without waiting for a permit in any sufficiently busy city.
Lol for real… These people downvoting you are fucking morons, as usual.
Or maybe they’re grown-ups and know that the first amendment is about more than protecting ineffective performative street demonstrations.
Nope, they are morons.
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.
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.
Why do you think law abiding citizens should be subjected to waiting periods to exercise their constitutional rights?
Why do you think law abiding citizens should be gassed, arrested and shot at for exercising their constitutional right to petition the government against grievances? Because Trump sure enjoyed doing those things and he says he’s going to do it even more if he gets re-elected. And then there’s the Republican love of cruel and unusual punishments. And, of course, there’s Mike Johnson and other Republicans denying that there is or should be a separation between church and state.
Seems like maybe the people who are supposed to protect your constitutional right to own a gun don’t really care about other constitutional rights.
Point out the part of my comment where I said that
Are you going to be voting for the people who claim to be preserving gun rights or are you going to vote for the people who want sensible gun regulations?
Define “sensible”
No, I’m not playing that game because it has nothing to do with my point.
Of distracting from the original issue with bad faith arguments?
Dang I didn’t expect to see you avoiding the point, refusing to answer basic questions, and shitting on people for not voting blue no matter who on two separate posts today xD I hope being an ignorant liberal is very fun, and that you learn some time soon that “if you’re not with us you’re with the terrorists” isn’t how the world works
deleted by creator
What a lot of whataboutism. I’m against all of that, too, but I can also be against limits on my rights of self defense.
So do you vote for the people who promise to protect your gun rights at all cost or do you vote for the people who feel there needs to be sensible gun regulations?
I don’t vote for the people you’re talking about
What is the point of voting for anyone else? What do you achieve?
What’s the point of voting for the two choices you hate when there are other choices?
Now you see the crux of the issue it seems, on either side someone is attacking the right to something, there is no champion of all rights, everyone wants to control their neighbor.
Seems to me like one is championing ending all of those rights and the other isn’t.
Well you’d be wrong, sorry dude.
Would I though?
Yes. Both clearly seek to limit different civil liberties, and supporters of each fight about why what they want to limit isn’t actually a civil liberty.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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).
That’s the Declaration of Independence, not the Constitution.
deleted by creator
Oh so you have no idea what you’re talking about and have no business publically sharing opinions on this, or really any aspect of the Constitution. You simply don’t have the requisite knowledge to be credible.
Don’t worry, I vote ;)
It shows.
😘
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?
That’s what Republicans want. No gun control regulations at all. Anyone, according to them, should be able to buy a gun at any age at any time anywhere.
Removed by mod
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.
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.
Wrong.
Commerce clause.
The car has already been subjected to tens of thousands of pages of regulation before anyone drives it off the lot.
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.
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.
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”
I think SCOTUS might reverse that. I don’t think there was any recent case concerning waiting periods.
It’s not the waiting period that’s the problem, it’s the permit to attempt to buy.
There’s already a background check when you buy, these states were requiring a second background check before you buy. Pointless paperwork.
SCOTUS has held that permitting is fine with Bruen, though, as long as it doesn’t involve subjective “suitability” criteria, which is my point.
Which is ridiculous because nobody was allowed to carry guns at common law unless they had a valid purpose.
Maryland also required fingerprints, which is a huge hassle and will likely cause the law to stay invalidated. It costs money, and requires you to go to a jail or sheriffs office, which is only open from 9-4 with lunch blocked from 11:30-1:30.
Can’t you also go to a fire department? That’s where I got mine when I got my pyro license
It probably depends on the state and county.
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.
They had gun control in the “Wild West.” Many towns didn’t allow guns within the borders. But even that era that Republicans love so much had too much regulation for them.
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.
It was written and proposed by an ultra religious movement too… You can be tax free or take positions in governing. Pick one.
I sure wish that were ever upheld.
they don’t want us libs to arm ourselves
“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.
deleted by creator
The only violent nazis intent on killing people I’ve seen lately are the ones chanting “From the river to the sea…”
deleted by creator
Obvious troll is obvious.
deleted by creator
You mean Hamas? By using human shields and by conducting military operations, launching rockets, and storing weapons near or in schools, hospitals, mosques, and other civilian infrastructure, they are the ones who are responsible for those deaths.
deleted by creator
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
Why do bans work in pretty much all other developed countries?
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.
The correct answer… and whenver its given, you’ll never see an answer…
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.
The real gun nuts invest heavily in ammo manufacturing and reloading. And not all states will comply.
deleted by creator
“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.”
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.
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.”
I’m not talking about making rounds more expensive. I’m talking about literally restricting the number of rounds a person is allowed to buy per year.
If you thought about it for 1 second, you’d realize that for training, you can allow as many rounds as someone wants as long as they’re at an approved shooting range where rounds are closely monitored.
Nobody should be allowed to purchase a firearm without supervised training. Shooting at tin cans in your backyard isn’t proper training.
This isn’t complicated stuff.
Nobody should be allowed to purchase a firearm without supervised training.
Got it, knew we’d get back to no guns for poor people.
Ah the old Chris Rock technique
“That’s right five thousand dollar bullets…”
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.
But let’s ban abortion because that will fix everything.
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).
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.
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?
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
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.
-
deleted by creator
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…
Same bud, I was wondering are they gonna remove guns from CS?
The Oregon one makes sense since it is very clearly codified in their Constitution.
We do not have a gun crisis. We have a mental health crisis.
So does most of the world, yet we don’t have weekly mass shootings.
Are you saying the judges are mentally unfit? I don’t disagree, just want to clarify.
Gun nuts are just that…nuts.
Sorry kiddos, the judge says you got to die. Can’t take bubba’s guns away, that would be unconstitutional.
