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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 4 points 2 years ago (6 children)

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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (2 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 2 years 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.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    Point out the part of my comment where I said that

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [+] -6 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] -5 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    No, I'm not playing that game because it has nothing to do with my point.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago*

    Is it true or is it not true that if you don't vote for either Biden or Trump, you are not going to be voting for someone who has any chance of winning?

    Because so far, the only answer I've gotten is 'Republicans deserve to win to teach Democrats a lesson.'

    If you agree with that too, why not just vote for Trump?

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    I don't vote for the people you're talking about

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Seems to me like one is championing ending all of those rights and the other isn't.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Well you'd be wrong, sorry dude.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Please show me the Democratic Party's equivalent to Project 2025.

    Or did you not even read it?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Are you denying that the democrat party seeks to limit the right to bear arms? Because by being purposefully obtuse and attempting to deflect (which appears to be your typical MO), you seem to be saying that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    Yes, I know, one side seeks to regulate firearms like they were regulated for pretty much all of the 19th century and the other seeks to violate the Constitution in every way possible. No different.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I guess it's just a question of how much infringement on rights you support. You support "some." I do not.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    You still haven't given me the equivalent plan of Project 2025 that the Democrats have. Can't imagine why...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    I never claimed they had one, I claimed they also are attempting to limit other rights, and this little deflection of yours is adorable but irrelevant, so yes I ignore it.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Limit" vs. "take away entirely." Interesting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    "Just get stabbed a few times VS get murdered." Interesting.

    Lol yes clearly one is worse, but both are bad choices, you dingleberry.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    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).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (2 children)

    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?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • load more comments (1 reply)
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago (1 child)

    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.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years 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"

  • source
  • parent