this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
404 points (96.3% liked)

News

23440 readers
2918 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Colorado’s Democratic-controlled House on Sunday passed a bill that would ban the sale and transfer of semiautomatic firearms, a major step for the legislation after roughly the same bill was swiftly killed by Democrats last year. 

The bill, which passed on a 35-27 vote, is now on its way to the Democratic-led state Senate. If it passes there, it could bring Colorado in line with 10 other states — including California, New York and Illinois — that have prohibitions on semiautomatic guns. 

But even in a state plagued by some of the nation’s worst mass shootings, such legislation faces headwinds.

Colorado’s political history is purple, shifting blue only recently. The bill’s chances of success in the state Senate are lower than they were in the House, where Democrats have a 46-19 majority and a bigger far-left flank. Gov. Jared Polis, also a Democrat, has indicated his wariness over such a ban.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 40 points 7 months ago (25 children)

Supreme Court shoots it down in 3-2-1...

The Heller ruling in 2008 already decided this.

Washington D.C. had effectively banned pistols, the court ruled then:

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/554/570/

"As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights,[Footnote 27] banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one’s home and family,” 478 F. 3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster."

So, no, you can't ban an entire class of weapon.

[–] Neato@ttrpg.network 13 points 7 months ago (4 children)

So, no, you can’t ban an entire class of weapon.

You absolutely can. Full-auto weapons are banned for general purchase in pretty much every state. Things like explosive-based guns are also banned. Flame-throwers, etc.

Heller is a clear violation of state's rights to pass more-restrictive laws than the federal level. We've had tons of gun laws that restrict purchases and types of firearms for decades anyways on the state and local level.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 22 points 7 months ago (2 children)

General purchase, yes, but you can still buy one if you fill out the appropriate ATF paperwork and pay the HUGE transfer fees.

https://www.therange702.com/blog/can-you-legally-own-a-machine-gun/

"To legally own a machine gun, you first have to apply for approval from the federal government. After purchasing the gun, you must fill out an ATF Form 4 application and wait for approval before taking possession of the firearm. The FBI conducts a thorough background check using fingerprints and a photograph required with your application, which could take 9 to 12 months to process. The gun will need to stay in possession of the previous owner until the process is complete.

In addition, you will need to pay a $200 “NFA tax stamp” for each weapon transaction. If approved, you will receive your paperwork in the mail, including a permit with the listed lawful possessor of the firearm. Only then can you take the machine gun home and possess it legally."

This Colorado ruling doesn't allow for that.

[–] capem@startrek.website 3 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (1 children)

To be fair, even if it did, I could still see it being unconstitutional to the supreme court.

We don't want to admit it, but we kind of weasled our way to ban automatic weapons which is why there is only a "practical" ban instead of an absolute one.

i.e. You can legally own full-auto weapons if you spend the money to do so.

I think it would be very interesting if some right-wingers tried to do something like this but frame it as though you can "only buy handguns/semiautomatics made before a certain date, gotta pay all these fees, etc."

That could force the supreme court to look at whether the original "ban" on automatics is actually constitutional.

[–] jordanlund@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

Oh, yeah, and with THIS court? That is absolutely a road Democrats should not even CONSIDER wanting to go down.

The ban was enacted as part of the Gun Control Act of 1968:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_Control_Act_of_1968

Can you imagine if they just tossed that out?

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (21 replies)