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.

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.

  • @farcaster
    34•1 year ago

    Citizens wouldn’t be facing so much danger if we didn’t have guns everywhere…

    • @LemmyIsFantastic
      -1•1 year ago

      I guess abusive partners and family members don’t exist outside of America.

      • @RGB3x3English
        13•1 year ago

        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.

        • @LemmyIsFantastic
          -8•1 year ago

          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.

          • @rambaroo
            6•1 year ago

            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.

            • @LemmyIsFantastic
              -2•1 year ago

              Again you are turning individuals into stats. A gun very much can and does save individuals.

              • @uberkalden
                1•1 year ago

                Do the stats not matter? We shouldn’t legislate based on anecdotes

              • 【J】【u】【s】【t】【Z】
                1•1 year ago

                Illegal Chinese fentanyl occasionally is used by people who are in pain, therefore it should be legally available without restrictions. That’s your argument?

                • @LemmyIsFantastic
                  1•1 year ago

                  I, funny enough, don’t have a single issue with your whataboutism and the removal of prohibited drugs. If an individual needs access to medicine they should be able to legally purchase it.