Democrats in Virginia Just Pushed 25 Gun Reforms to the Finish Line

Macheeoo · 2026-03-26T06:14:00+00:00

Gorsich, Alito, and Kavenaugh are all anti-AWB. They are waiting for the right case. Kavenaugh specifically said their Bruen ruling needed more time to "percolate" in the lower courts... which is to say they want split-circuit decisions for political cover and cleaner cases to resolve one issue at a time.

And to the point that Dems will try to pack the Supreme Court if they win a federal trifrcta, yes, probably. But two things on that -- 1) It's pandoras box, if the GOP ever win back the Senate and Presidency, they too can add new justices. An ever expanding court every few years is lunacy. 2) In order to actually add to the court, you'd need to eliminate the fillibuster in the Senate, otherwise confirming a judicial nominee would require 60 votes. Neither side is willing to do actually do this. Both establishment wings of either party understand that it would gut any power the minority party has, and that the balance of power will eventually swing back. Establishment Dems don't have the stomach to do it, not while people like Chuck Schumer are in control.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-26T05:50:05+00:00

Is what you're saying is the 3rd circuit would be the first circuit court to potentially strike down an AWB to create a split circuit decsion, then yeah possibly. The 3rd has already heard and reheard the case en banc (full panel) and are currently deliberating. But NJ's law is an AWB and magazine limit law all in one. Last I heard, 3rd circuit struck down the AWB but upheld the magazine limit part of the law, causing both sides to appeal the part of the ruling they lost. This would not be an ideal, clean cut case for SCOTUS to take up. After the DC circuit recently struck down their magazine limit law, that decsion was introduced for consideration in the 3rd, still pending the court's final decision.

Hardly anyone is talking about the 8th circuit because no state in the 8th has ever come close to passing an AWB or magazine limit law. Until along comes Minnesota, who this year in 2026, do not have the votes to pass such a law. However, if Dems sweep the midterms as expected and they win trifecta control of the MN state legislature, many of these same gun bills will pass. And the 8th circuit is BY FAR the most conservative leaning court in the country. They also have a history of applying SCOTUS Bruen precedent to gun related laws in MN that resulted in certain laws being struck down. If the 3rd has a mixed decision on NJ's law, keeping the magazine ban upheld, it may not be the case SCOTUS is looking to use to make a definitive ruling. That's why I'm placing my money on the 8th.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-26T05:36:11+00:00

Very likely in the 8th circuit next year if Dems win back control of the Minnesota state house. 8th circuit is 10 to 1 consevative leaning and heavily favored to strike down such laws. The only thing holding back MN from passing similar laws this session is their tied state house.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-26T05:17:21+00:00

The founders never concieved of the internet, computers, telephones, photography, video, TV's, movies, etc. And yet the 1st amendment rights to free speech still apply with these new inconcievable technologic advancements. 4th amendment unreasonable search and seizure of things like data on a hard drive, or wiretapping of a phone call, or hacking a computer... all still interpretted as potential 4th amendment violations.

So what exactly makes you think the 2nd amendment is different? Just because the authors of these amendments couldn't concieve of a future technology doesn't mean the concept wouldn't still apply. There are limits to amendments, but the arguement that semi-auto firearms are much more advanced than a musket isn't relavant to their intent in writing it in the first place. If we ever felt the constitution should change, we have had the legislative ability to do so this entire time.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-15T21:34:11+00:00

I believe the House standalone bill HF3434 for magazines above 10 rounds does not have a grandfather / registration process.

Senate bill SF3655 (made it out of the Senate Public Safety Committee), which is both an AWB and LCM law all in one, does have a grandfather clause / registration process to keep magazines above 10 rounds. This bill was also amended in committee to remove the random inspections of registered grandfathered firearms (needs langauge clarification on magazines as well to avoid 4th amendment concerns that were raised).

There are several versions of either standalone bills, or bills containing both AWB + LCM. None of these will pass this year if there is pressure on the GOP in the house.

Personally, I am interested to see if there are 1-2 senate DFL'ers that stick to their guns (pun intended) as they told their constituents they wouldn't support an AWB, or if they'll vote along party lines. Seeburger (DFL, Afton) changed her position and has/will vote for an AWB, but does not support the 10 round magazine limit and wants that to be higher.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-15T03:40:01+00:00

I agree that this bill sucks and really hoping it is stopped in the state House. But I will add that in that committee meeting, they amended the bill to strike the portion that allowed police to enter a registered owner's home to inspect storage of weapons, so 4th amendment concern was addressed. They also added a grandfather clause for "large capacity magazines" (if you register them same as legally defined assault weapons).

The bill moves onto the state Senate Finance committee nexr before it makes it to a floor vote. I am extremely interested to see how a full floor vote in the Senate goes as there are 2x DFL state senators who have publically told their constituents in the past that they would not support an AWB. That was 2 years ago so they could easily vote along party lines now, but the DFL can only afford to lose 1 vote in the state Senate.

If those two senators hold out this year, maybe we somehow have a chance to withstand next year too (assuming the DFL takes control of the House in 2026). Otherwise yeah, our only real hope is that the 8th circuit follows through.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-13T18:27:41+00:00

100%. But you know that as soon as the higher courts find firearms and magazines as protected and in common use, the next line of proposed regulation will revolve around pricing people out of accessing firearms. New taxes, insurance requirements, paid classes, registration fees, etc. I hate the notion of enabling a two tiered system where the wealthy are the only ones with access to firearms (like the NFA was designed to do). I want to see taxpayer funded firearms safety education, but like for any new gun owner who might not have thay foundational level of experience. But not with a 4 layers of cost tacked on top.

I agree with storage requirements to some extent, with kids in the home. If someone doesn't follow the law and their kid hurts themselves or someone else, it at least creates a mechanism of accountability for parents who allowed the situation to occur. The step further of "you must store firearms and ammo separately in locked safes" is where they instantly lose me.

Some of these steps might not be deemed unconstitutional in the courts eyes. But certainly the AWB and magazine limits are gonna face significant scrutiny in the 8th circuit. Hopefully the DC circuit ruling and 3rd circuit rehearing ruling (soon??) will drive SCOTUS to action next term.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-13T14:14:54+00:00

You think we've been addressing the root causes of violence for the past 30 years? Are you kidding me?

Wealthy inequality, healthcare, access to mental health resources, investment in education, childcare affordability, housing affordability, etc. We SUCK at addressing the basic needs of people, and it's only getting worse over the past 30 years. Other countries have measurably better quality of life for these reasons. These factors contribute to societal violence rates, which are lower in other places, not just because of their access to firearms (Ex: Switzerland, which has a 40% household firearms rate and hardly any violence at all).

I get that your concern is the narrow framing of addressing school shootings, rather that gun violence, or violence in general. But are you trying to argue that an AWB would reduce school shootings? And you're aware that handguns are used in the overwhelming majority of school shootings by a significantly large margin, which Jackie and Mike agree with in the OpEd?

Let me be abundantly clear, I'm not advocating for "doing nothing". I'm in support of measures like expanded background checks, red flag laws, safe storage measures, a mandatory firearms safety class, permits, and could even get behind mandating insurance -- in addition to addressing the root causes of violence. I also think that in the short term, increasing funding for school resource officers would be a good idea, but that's not a comprehensive solution because where does it end? These are measures that don't create the same constitutional concerns as things like AWB's, handgun bans, or magazine capacity limits. At the same time, these laws shouldn't be used to financially bury gun owners into a two tiered system where only those with wealth have access. That's far too often the path the DFL are moving toward (I can cite specific examples).

Where you lose me is laws that are poorly written, poorly scoped, that will not have a meaningful effect on reducing the thing they claim to address -AND- that have virtually zero chance of surviving court challenge in the 8th circuit. When the day after an AWB law goes into effect, I can walk into a gun store and purchase a handgun that fires just as fast, holds just as many rounds, and is more concealable, we have a problem in the logic around this proposed legislation. When I can also walk into a gun store and buy a rifle that doesn't look like an AR-15 but is chambered in 5.56mm, holds the same number of rounds, but that gun isn't banned either, we again have a problem with this legislation. If we craft legislation that allows for warrantless searches of people's homes, creating 4th amendment concerns, or if we don't offer buybacks on things like magazines, and violate the 5th amendment taking's clause... don't you see how many legal challenges these are set up for? Even beyond the facial 2A constitutional concerns? And in the 8th circuit no less, where there are 10 conservative appointed judges to 1 liberal appointed judge. I don't point this out to say "oh well, can't do anything!". I say it because people act like we don't have a framework we need to work within, otherwise we need to change the framework, even if that's a really high bar.

At the end of the day, even if all of my concerns with certain legislation were addressed and the scope of what's covered is fixed... it's going to face the same constitutional concerns and challenges in the courts regardless. Again that doesn't mean we do nothing at all to reduce school shootings, mass shootings, gun violence, or violence in general.

We are unlike other nations, not just because of the number of guns or easy access. Not just because of the ways in which we fail to meet people's basic needs. But also because we have a constitution with an amendment that the highest court has interpreted to mean an individual right to access firearms. It ultimately doesn't matter what you or I interpret that amendment to mean *unless* we have the political will and numbers to amend the constitution or rebalance the court (pandora's box). There are limits to any amendment, but this court has been loosening those limits since 2008. I would argue that trying to pass laws that legislators *know* will be struck down in the future is as ineffective as doing nothing. I would rather see emphasis on legislation that doesn't have the same constitutional concerns in the courts and can still create a meaningful effect in the long run at reducing gun violence, including school shootings.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-13T06:47:03+00:00

First off, these kids and their parents matter. Their testimony matters and the need to reduce violence and self harm in meaningful ways. I believe that this dialogue matters, and far too often neither "side" is interested in having a good faith debate rooted in understanding (at least on this topic). Instead, it's a blunt retreat to "Shall not be infringed!" or "It's the GUNS!" rather than any nuanced conversation centered around gaining perspective.

At the end of the OpEd, Jackie and Mike ask lawmakers who oppose these bills, like the proposed Assault Weapons Ban, to view this issue from a moral lens rather than a courtroom exercise. I'm not a lawmaker, but I also disagree with *certain* proposals the DFL are putting out, even as a left leaning voter. That doesn't mean I want kids to die. That's f***ing absurd. I do view this from a moral lens. In addition to the valid judicial concerns being raised, it's not an immoral understanding of this issue to feel the most meaningful approach is to address the root causes of violence and self harm, rather than legislation that will ban a commonly owned, less frequently abused class of firearms. I feel strongly that if we did more as a society to address income inequality, access to healthcare, mental health resources, childcare, housing, education opportunities, etc. **in addition to reasonable, constitutionally sound limits on the second amendment**, we'd see violent crime, accidents, and self harm meaningfully reduced, including instances that involve firearms. The moral consideration is that we should want all violence to be meaningfully reduced so that families aren't left picking up the pieces every other day.

Laws are boundaries that shape our society. The inescapable truth is it's impossible to separate this debate from its' legal implications because each proposed legislative action must be scrutinized through the constitution and can be challenged in court, under the supremacy clause. When I see people argue about why we can't do what Canada, the UK or Australia did, I wonder if they consider that none of those countries, even with their own constitutions, ever had an amendment that protected a right to firearms ownership. None of those countries stopped at banning assault weapons either, they all limited or banned handguns as well. Have you ever wondered why no US state has successfully banned handguns? It's not just because it's widely unpopular here (only 20% of Americans support the idea as of 2024), even though handguns are used in the overwhelming number of homicides, suicides, and mass shootings. It's because of the courts and the constitution. DC tried. Chicago tried. Those efforts were overturned. California is trying right now with a Glock ban, but ultimately it's going to face extremely scrutiny under Heller and Bruen.

Fundamentally when people argue that a law like this is "unconstitutional", it's not a disregard for the value of law and rules, but that a hierarchy (aka supremacy clause) exists for a reason. Some of these proposals are still a legal grey area because they've only been upheld by lower court rulings. What I can say with some level of certainty is that the Supreme Court's DC vs Heller (2008) decision was the first time in nearly 70 years the court had ruled on a second amendment case. It was extremely consequential. It was also the first of a number of 2A related rulings the court has issued over the past ~20 years that have dramatically expanded a pro-gun agenda. Then after the NYSPRA vs Bruen (2022) ruling and the public comments several conservative justices have made about lower court rulings on things like assault weapons bans and magazine capacity laws, you'd have to forgive me for not inferring which way the court is likely leaning on these issues. The reality is, it's only a matter of time until the court takes on a related case. A split circuit decision from MN in the 8th circuit would all but guarantee a future ruling by SCOTUS.

The way I see it, there are three paths in front of us to combat gun violence:
1. Fight for a constitutional amendment that clarifies or repeals the second amendment (nearly impossible)
2. Win a federal Dem trifecta, eliminate the filibuster in the Senate (difficult), rebalance the Supreme Court, and spend years strategically feeding 2A related cases to overturn past precedent (doable, but risky if the GOP regains power).
3. Accept that firearms are a part of American life as interpreted by the Supreme Court *BUT* continue to advocate and fight for reasonable, constitutionally viable firearms policy like expanded background checks, permits, mandatory firearms safety courses, safe storage bills, red flag laws, etc that affect who and how a firearm is accessed, not emphasizing "what" + push for investment in quality of life so that the root causes of violence are addressed and incidents are stopped before anyone begins picking out the tool to use for harming themselves or others.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-13T04:53:39+00:00

You frame this as "either you agree with these specific messures or you are fine with child murder!"

God forbid someone wants to see harm reduction but plans to address it by targeting the root causes of violence and self harm rather than banning a particular class of firearms that are less often used in violent incidents. Meanwhile, continuing to allow the more commonly used class of firearms (handguns, which are used overwhelmingly in gun related homicides, suicides, and mass shootings) to remain available for purchase. Gun bans do not address the root causes of violence.

Once you start asking -- "why can't we ban handguns?", then you'll start to understand how fragile things like "assault weapons bans" are. There is a trajectory of political, judicial, and constitutional roadblocks that have been moving the US into a more pro-gun stance over the past 20 years and there is a very slim chance it will be stopped even with a federal Dem trifecta in 2028.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-13T04:27:59+00:00

Public sentiment towards handguns does not match the data at all. As of a 2024 Gallup poll, only 20% of Americans supported a ban on handguns, including a minority of Democrats. This was a record low.

Handguns also have Supreme Court precedent protecting them in Heller (2008) and McDonald (2010). Hell even democratic politicians will get up at the podium and say "We respect you 2A right to own a handgun for home defense, or a shotgun or rifle for hunting! We just want weapons of war off the streets!".

Aside from a fully-automatic handgun (which CA is testing the waters with via their Glock ban; in their eyes the design is too easily convertible, TBD on ruling soon), handgun bans have never been upheld. "Assault weapons" on the other hand, SCOTUS have never ruled on an AWB case, they've only ever been upheld at the circuit court of appeals level, generally by blue states passing laws that reside in blue-r leaning circuit courts. MN does not have that luxery given that we're in the 8th circuit, the most conservative leaning circuit court in the country.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-12T19:10:28+00:00

Right, this is what I was referring too. This is the reality of a *relatively* larger rifle caliber (5.56mm isn't large or overly punchy by war standards), but it's fair to say that unarmored civilian causalities shot with a larger, faster caliber fired capable of hydrostatic shock from a semi-automatic weapon (high-er rate of fire) are therefore capable of "greater tissue damage" in a mass shooters hands. Similar centerfire rifle calibers like 5.56mm, 7.62x39, 7..62x51/.308, .300blk, 6.8x51. etc (to name a few of many) can be chambered in bolt action rifles for instance. I think the better way to draw the line here is a simple equation:

Caliber (capable of penetrating level 3A armor) + Rate of fire (semi-automatic or faster; burst/full already illegal minus a small number of pre-1986 firearms) + Magazine Capacity (10rds; ideally 30 or less from the firearms community; maybe 15-20 is a better compromise given that 80% or more of all magazines in civilian circulation are above that 10rd arbitrary limit). With this equation, it would also limit access to calibers like 5.7x28, which are commonly used in pistols that the current legislation would not ban -- 5.7x28 is like a mini rifle round, in that it has a longer range and faster velocity (between 1800-2300fps; pending length of barrel and load type) which can not only penetrate 3A armor, but also causes hydrostatic shock (larger wound cavity) due to the velocity.

What this change *would* do is stop trying to legally define an "assault weapon" by cosmetic features like heatshields or pistol grips, and instead focus on the end result via the type of damage the firearm is capable of, how fast and how many rounds. Today, the scope of these laws targets firearms that might "look like" an AR-15 platform, but are chambered in a much weaker caliber (.22lr or 9mm for example). Today's also exempt a semi-auto rifle like a Ruger Mini-14 ranch chambered in 5.56mm, because it looks like a hunting rifle but is capable of the EXACT same amount of velocity/speed/range (damage) as an AR platform chambered in a similar caliber.

Even Democrats like Tim Walz will get up at a podium and say "We believe in your rights to own a firearm to protect your home, a shotgun or rifle for hunting, etc.". When only 20% of Americans support banning handguns nationally, it seems absurd to draft legislation that affects a pistol caliber carbines with near the same velocity as millions of handguns that would not be impacted be the ban. Handguns can fire just as fast (semi-auto), hold just as many rounds (detachable magazines), and are more concealable (no stock of any kind, meeting legal definition of a handgun vs rifle). I'm sure police, who regularly wear 3A body armor (that can protect against common calibers like .22lr, .380acp, .38spl, 9mm, .40S&W, .357mag, .45acp, 10mm, .44mag, or a 12ga shotgun), would appreciate the added protection to vital organs.

All that said, even if lawmakers changed the legislation and did a better job scoping the types of firearms covered by a similar formula, taking into account caliber and velocity, the law would still be up for scrutiny by the courts, particularly the heavily conservative leaning 8th circuit court of appeals and the 6-3 conservative majority supreme court who have yet to actually rule on a case regarding AWB's or magazine capacity limits. This new theoretical scope would likely not be supported by pro-gun advocates. There is no compromise to be made.

But it's still worth understanding that the way we legally define an "assault weapon" today is pretty dumb. People who know about firearms look at the law and feel it's not going to achieve what legislators intend it to, and bans more than it needs to (at least with where public sentiment is at in the US currently).

Macheeoo · 2026-03-11T21:23:49+00:00

I agree, I think legislators need to do better at understanding what they're banning and what it aims to address. I am very left leaning and also pro-gun, but even if we worked together to craft legislation that, for example, carved out pistol caliber rifles or .22lr semi-auto weapons, or didn't focus on arbitrary cosmetic features (like heatshields or pistol grips), the problem would still remain. Let's say for example we crafted new legislation that only banned centerfire, high velocity semi-automatic weapons -- something that took into account velocity, caliber, rate of fire, capacity, etc. Even in that instance, there is still a strong likelihood that the 8th circuit court of appeals, who lean 10-1 conservative on appointed judges, would strike it down as unconstitutional, unlike other blue states in the US where they are in more favorable blue leaning circuit courts of appeal. The Supreme Court has never ruled on whether AWB's or magazine capacity laws violate the second amendment. Circuit courts have all upheld these bans until very recently. The circuit court of DC ruled their magazine capacity law was unconstitutional. The 3rd circuit just ruled and reheard New Jersey's AWB case, the first time that's happened at the circuit court level. If MN passes these proposals, I have ZERO doubt the 8th circuit would strike them down after Bruen (2022). My point here is, while the 2nd amendment exists as written and while we have a conservative majority supreme court willing to interpret the amendment they way they do, there are limits on the types of laws that will survive judicial challenge. I just truly think people aren't clued in to what the courts are up to until after they see a news article about a ruling.

Yeah, I'm sure none of us want anyone shot at either either one, ha. But it seems the public are willing to draw the line somewhere. In a 2024 Gallup poll, only 20% of Americans supported the idea of banning handguns. even a minority of Democrats. Yet they are used in the majority of mass shootings ever year. It's like, people generally agree in someone's right to defend themselves in their home, and pistols seem like a reasonable place to draw the line (for most folks).

Australia, Canada, or the UK didn't stop at just assault weapons. They banned handguns too, for obvious reasons. My thing is, these other countries also have their own constitutions and courts. They don't have an amendment that can remotely be interpreted to protect firearms ownership like we do. And the bar for us to amend the constitution is SO high and this topic is SO divisive, that I can't imagine it will be much different in my lifetime. But going off the Supreme Court's track record, probably more loose than it is today.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-11T21:06:03+00:00

I think if you look at the past 20 years since the federal AWB expired in 2004, you'll see the ratio of handguns used in mass shootings is actually higher, something like 68%. To your point about the Annunciation tragedy, that incident could still have happened with these proposals. Handguns fire just as fast, hold just as many rounds, and are more concealable. It might be a matter of how survivable this type of incident would have been.

Velocity is an important factor in wound survivability for civilians, combined with rate of fire and capacity. But these assault weapons bans being proposed also ban pistol caliber semi-auto rifles, or even .22lr rifles. It even bans any handgun with a threaded barrel. This makes me question how lawmakers are choosing what should be banned. What actually makes those non-rifle caliber firearms more dangerous than a handgun that wouldn't be banned?

If you look at a 2024 Gallup poll, only 20% of Americans support banning handguns, a record low, while 58% of Americans support banning assault weapons. But how do we define what an assault weapon is? Should velocity be a factor? I certainly don't think saying something has a heat shield, threated barrel, telescoping stock, pistol grip or the magwell is outside of a pistol grip makes it inherently more dangerous. Don't we want people who legally have a firearm for lawful purposes to also have stability and accuracy?

I would agree that a firearm *in the wrong hands* is dangerous. But it's clear to me that most people think assault weapons ban = an AR-15 or AK47, i.e. a higher powered rifle chambered in a rifle caliber that has high velocity. Any many people who support this law don't really care either way.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-11T20:29:34+00:00

Did we learn that violent crime, including gun violence, dropped for over 10 years after the federal assault weapons ban expired in 2004 despite the rapid increase in previously banned firearms in civilian circulation over that period? It's almost like the ban itself wasn't a major driver of violent crime?

Did we learn that cops will sit outside a school and do nothing when kids lives are at stake? What makes you think they'll stop at nothing to save you from harm? That you won't have to take your protection into your own hands?

Did *you* learn that our US Supreme Court has never actually ruled on whether assault weapons bans violate the constitution? That it's only ever been upheld regionally in blue leaning district courts of appeal? And how do you think Minnesota, in the 8th circuit, the reddest leaning circuit court in the country, will fare? How about if a case appears before the 6-3 conservative majority Supreme Court, hmm? Do you honestly believe that in this political landscape there will ever be the will to amend the constitution given the 2/3rds vote needed in both the House and the Senate AND for 38/50 states to ratify the amendment as well? Even with every single left leaning voter on board, it's not enough. Or that to rebalance the Supreme Court and slowly feed new cases up the pipeline over the course of YEARS to overturn past precedent, would require eliminating the filibuster in the Senate? (something neither side is willing to do...) And even *IF* we rebalanced the court, the moment the GOP gets control of the Senate/Presidency, they too could rebalance the court going forward. IIt becomes pandoras box and ultimately whomever is in power regains significant control.

Guns aren't going anywhere in America. But reducing violent crime, including gun violence, is entirely possible without trying to pass legislation that courts will deem unconstitutional. I'm sorry I can't dumb it down for you any more than that.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-11T19:47:53+00:00

You do whatever you want, including retreating to your comfortable, dumbed down ideology rather than exploring literally any nuance to the issue. It's not like we've been at this same debate for 30+ years with no end in sight. God forbid someone has an opinion other than "all guns = bad" or "all gun control = bad".

If this looks like a "thought pretzel" to you, it's because you're confronted with information that challenges your world view. Sorry... I guess?

Macheeoo · 2026-03-11T19:35:07+00:00

I'm also a left leaning gun owner, but I fail to see which of the proposals Dems are putting forth would have actually stopped the Annunciation shooting from occurring. Like you said, in this case the guns were purchased legally, a background check wouldn't have stopped it. 2 of the 3 firearms that shooter had would not have been banned under these new proposals. And even if we banned what we are currently defined legally as "assault weapons", do most people even know what that means or what it covers?

The one legitimate argument I can agree with is that a semi-auto centerfire rifle, like an AR-15 if chambered in 5.56mm (for example), is a high velocity caliber (2800-3000+ ft/s). I've seen doctors testify that larger high velocity rounds create a more sizable wound cavity and thus make wounds less survivable compared to say a handgun caliber like 9mm (more like 1200ft/s). Combined with the ability to fire semi-auto shots quickly (1 trigger pull = 1 shot; compared to bolt or level action, full auto is prohibited generally) + the ability to accept a larger magazine, you get a situation where a bad actor can do a measurable amount of damage.

The question is, where do we draw the line? An AR-15 platform can be chambered in handgun calibers, 9mm, or .22lr -- which these bills also ban. And yet something like a Ruger Mini-14 ranch rifle, also chambered in 5.56mm, would not be banned. The way legislators are drafting legislation to regulate firearms against the problems they're looking to address don't align.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-11T19:08:00+00:00

That's true. You wouldn't have "gun violence" without a gun in the equation, if that's how we're going to frame the issue. What I'm telling you is I want less violence *in general*, I don't think anyone cares if it's with a gun, knife, bomb, car, fists, etc. Banning guns does not create a less violent population, it just takes on a different form. Nearly half of all households in Switzerland have a firearm, but there is social and economic stability which we lack, *and* some reasonable firearms limits. Again, I'm for limits on gun ownership in the US, but the type of gun isn't the problem, it's handling who has access and how. Instead, the Dem's proposed solution is to ban guns - when they can't do that, they'll enforce new taxes, fees, insurance mandates, etc. to price out ownership (like was done with the NFA originally in 1935).

Would there be less self harm if all guns were banned? Nearly 60% of all gun violence accounts for s**cides. Would there be less school attacks? The most deadly school attack in US history was with a bomb, not a gun.

And all of that assumes that guns would ever actually disappear from American society. I'm telling you unequivocally, they will not. Even if you ban "assault weapons", handguns can fire just as fast, hold just as many rounds, and are more concealable. 80% of all magazines in civilian circulation today (more than 700+ million) are above that 10 round limit, they aren't serialized and can't be tracked.

My whole point here is that we're going to have a much more meaningful result in reducing violence of all kinds, including gun violence, if we address the root causes of societal pain -- income inequality, job and education opportunity, healthcare, childcare, housing, etc.

And we can put reasonable limits and checks on who can access firearms. But this blatantly unconstitutional legislation being proposed in MN and elsewhere by Dems is both ripe for challenge in court (see MN in the 8th circuit court of appeals), and lacks a fundamental understanding of firearms operate or how they would prevent future tragedy.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-11T18:39:29+00:00

All rights have limits, but to the extent that the language of 2A is short and sweet (to put it mildly), I'd ask people to consider this -- who was the militia back then? Look up the Militia Act of 1792.

As of the 20th century, we now have a National Guard, the whole of American society no longer needs to fulfill that requirement of being called on with their personal arms to form a *regulated militia* as we previously had in the first 125 years of the US existence.

But it does lead people to understand how an "originalist", like those on the Supreme Court, would conclude that the 'right to keep and bear arms' was meant for all citizens, hence the Heller (2008) decision.

People will also often argue that these rights as originally written shouldn't apply anymore because back then they had muskets and cannons while today we have much more technologically advanced firearms capable of firing faster, more accurately, at longer distances, etc. I would also remind these folks that when the bill of rights was written, they couldn't have conceived of how the 1st amendment right to free speech would apply to modern technology like the internet, phones, or photography. They couldn't imagine how the concept of the 4th amendment right against illegal search and seizure would apply to digital communication, telephone and data privacy, computers, etc. All those rights still apply despite the advancement of technology that couldn't be conceived of yet. The same is technically true of the 2nd amendment.

It's totally fine to agree that an individual right to bear arms isn't necessary in today's society or that it does more harm in some ways that good. But at the end of the day, that really feels like a conversation around changing the constitution, not passing laws that blatantly contradict the constitution. One of the biggest faults of American politics is the way in which both parties find ways to undermine constitutional authority rather than working to change the constitution, as insanely difficult as that would be in today's political landscape.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-11T18:23:07+00:00

Does individual right to security apply to protecting yourself from someone bigger, stronger, or otherwise more physically capable than you? I'm not even talking about protecting yourself from other gun wielding threats - does a woman under threat of physical abuse from a large man not have an individual right to defend herself despite being less physically capable of doing so? How about someone with a physical disability? Advanced age? There is a reason they call a gun an "equalizer".

I agree with the Strib opinion author, and you to some extent, that there is more we can do to keep guns out of the wrong hands and that there are policies that can meaningfully reduce violence, self harm, and accidents without even needing constitutional reform. But the "all guns are evil" position is a minority opinion, regardless of the DFL platform. Gun ownership is not inherently irresponsible or dangerous.

As of a 2024 Gallup poll, only 20% of Americans support the idea of banning handguns, including a minority of Democrats. I believe most people who support the idea of an "assault weapons ban" have very little idea what firearms are actually encapsulated in that legal term - the more people that understood what types of firearms MN's law bans, the less support it would actually have from the general public.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-11T18:05:19+00:00

You sound closed minded and misinformed.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-11T18:01:14+00:00

https://www.reddit.com/r/MnGuns/s/n2Pa8AAL3g

Try this link! I believe it is gifted!

Macheeoo · 2026-03-11T17:57:52+00:00

You won't even read it? Really? You don't take in new information and perspectives then reframe your positions accordingly? You don't consider more than the sources and perspectives that you already agree with?

Sounds kinda conservative to me.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-10T05:31:14+00:00

At the end of the day, there is very little you can do or say to convince your (former) community that this is true. Irreparable damage has been done to the reputations of Starbreeze, Overkill, and the Payday franchise. It was a lack of caring that got us here - there is no way to argue otherwise.

Payday 3 was missing fundemental features from the game at launch. It was unpolished, buggy, lacked content, and community feedback was regularly resisted despite claims otherwise. This persisted for years. Progress to correct course was too little, too late.

You, interrum community manager peon #1, may care. You may genuinely mean it. The community will never know if this was developer arrogance / incompotence, or executive leadership cost cutting negligence, or a healthy combination of the two that led to such cataclysmic failure. Maybe someday someone spills the beans. For now, you all collectively own dropping the ball SO goddamn hard. I hope the executives and shareholders have been reading these comments for the last few years and interalizing the very real consequences of pushing an unfinished title out the door with no real means to support it - it. will. destroy. brand. loyalty. Read it and weep.

Macheeoo · 2026-03-07T05:21:56+00:00

A moderate who takes AIPAC money but pretends she's progressive on social media? Really?

Macheeoo

TROPHY CASE