Sensible Gun Safety

The odds are excellent that you will leave this forum hating someone.
Peter Brown
Posts: 12878
Joined: Fri Mar 15, 2019 11:19 am

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Peter Brown »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:03 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:43 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:34 am Meanwhile, the Robed Politicians issue this, before heading back to their gated communities:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_7j80.pdf
Cradle wants to tell us to "care" about gun deaths in Buffalo, and elsewhere, the everyday gun deaths, not just the mass murder events.
OK, this just made it harder for police.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html
I expect my son, who teaches in a north country middle school, will see some open-carriers during parent-teacher conferences next year.


The people hurt most by this decision are criminals. Now they’ll think twice.

The people helped most are law abiding citizens.
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25748
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:03 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:43 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:34 am Meanwhile, the Robed Politicians issue this, before heading back to their gated communities:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_7j80.pdf
Cradle wants to tell us to "care" about gun deaths in Buffalo, and elsewhere, the everyday gun deaths, not just the mass murder events.
OK, this just made it harder for police.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html
I expect my son, who teaches in a north country middle school, will see some open-carriers during parent-teacher conferences next year.
good lord...
User avatar
MDlaxfan76
Posts: 25748
Joined: Wed Aug 01, 2018 5:40 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by MDlaxfan76 »

Peter Brown wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:33 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 3:03 pm
MDlaxfan76 wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 2:43 pm
Seacoaster(1) wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 11:34 am Meanwhile, the Robed Politicians issue this, before heading back to their gated communities:

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/2 ... 3_7j80.pdf
Cradle wants to tell us to "care" about gun deaths in Buffalo, and elsewhere, the everyday gun deaths, not just the mass murder events.
OK, this just made it harder for police.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/ ... index.html
I expect my son, who teaches in a north country middle school, will see some open-carriers during parent-teacher conferences next year.


The people hurt most by this decision are criminals. Now they’ll think twice.

The people helped most are law abiding citizens.
The people most hurt are those who are killed in accidents, suicides, and stupid acts of impulsive aggression.
Criminals will be able to carry and use their weapons just fine.

How many armed, indeed heavily armed, law enforcement people failed to deal with the Uvalde shooter as he murdered more and more children?
Was there an armed guard at Parkland?

Guns, even in the hands of law enforcement and trained guards, don't deter those determined to use their weapons.
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 4097
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

Some commentary:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... g-misfire/

"'When I make a mistake, it’s a beaut.' — New York Mayor Fiorello La Guardia

The Supreme Court had a La Guardia moment on Thursday. Its mistake was foreshadowed in 2017, when Justice Clarence Thomas, joined in a dissent by Neil M. Gorsuch, wrote this about the constitutional right “to keep and bear arms” (emphasis added): It is “extremely improbable that the Framers understood the Second Amendment to protect little more than carrying a gun from the bedroom to the kitchen.”

Thomas was right about the framers. However, he and the five justices who joined his opinion (Roberts, Alito, Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Barrett) were wrong on Thursday in arguing that this improbability was essentially dispositive. The case involved a challenge to New York’s 109-year-old law that required individuals seeking a license to carry firearms outside the home to demonstrate a “proper cause” for doing so.

The Second Amendment is the only one in the Bill of Rights with a preamble: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” The amendment was 217 years old before the court held that it protected the gun rights of individuals, irrespective of membership in a militia.

The 2008 case affirmed the right of individuals to “keep” an operative firearm in the home for self-defense. What, however, about the right to “bear” firearms outside the home? The 2008 court insisted that this right is, like other constitutional rights, “not unlimited,” and is compatible with “longstanding regulatory measures,” such as forbidding firearms in sensitive places.

In November’s oral argument, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. not unreasonably expressed uneasiness about “the idea that you need a license to exercise” a fundamental right. Justice Elena Kagan, who on Thursday sided with New York, in November also was conflicted: It was “completely intuitive” that there should be different gun regimes in New York and Wyoming, but it is difficult to match this “with our notion of constitutional rights.”

Thomas, in his 63-page opinion, was characteristically meticulous and exhaustive in marshaling evidence of an enduring American tradition of permitting public carry of firearms by people with “ordinary” self-defense needs. And he found no “American tradition” that could justify New York’s “proper-cause requirement.”

But in an amicus brief supporting New York, former federal appellate judge (on the 4th Circuit) J. Michael Luttig demonstrated that, regarding the public carrying of loaded guns, there is an American tradition even older than the nation of striking a “delicate balance between the Second Amendment’s twin concerns for self-defense and public safety.”

The court’s ruling, however, does not treat those as “twin,” meaning equal, concerns
.

Indeed, it treats the second, public safety, as irrelevant to the framers: This concern was unnecessary to consider because the first concern, self-defense, was sufficient justification for the amendment. On Thursday, the court effectively removed from public debate the essentially legislative choice of balancing the competing values of self-defense and public safety.

Luttig noted that “democratic judgments and decisions” embodied in founding-era restrictions on public carrying of concealed weapons anticipated something the court acknowledged in its 2008 ruling: “The majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues.”

In 1897, the Supreme Court had said it was “well-recognized” that the right to “bear” arms “is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons.” Today, most states, including almost all that filed briefs supporting New York, have multiple restrictions forbidding concealed carry at schools, government buildings, bars, amusement parks, churches, athletic events, polling places, etc. On Thursday, the court perhaps did not invalidate most such restrictions, but it condemned itself to years of judicial hairsplitting in search of a principle about balancing judgments.

Finally, Luttig wrote: “Many [Jan. 6, 2021] riot defendants” have said they knew the District of Columbia’s restrictions on concealed carry “and accordingly left their guns at home.” This “may well have prevented a massacre that day.”

America the beautiful is today America the irritable, where road rage, unruly airline passengers and political violence — a protective fence surrounds the court — reveal a nation of short fuses and long-simmering resentments. Intelligent people disagree about how, or even whether, the facts of contemporary civic culture should influence how the Constitution, including the first 10 amendments, should be construed. But as a founder (John Adams) insisted, facts are stubborn things."
DMac
Posts: 8756
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:02 am

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by DMac »

a fan wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:26 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:40 pm
CU88 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 11:56 am Retired Marine's gun control video goes viral. Hear his solution on gun violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dGaLRsgofQ

I did not know that the Marines control guns on base; for people trained to use these weapons.
One additional point to this Marine's comments that he didn't make, perhaps because Marine posts are different from Army posts:

At least at Army posts, in addition to the restriction on certain ranks to having personally owned weapons stored where they reside the Army only issues military weapons at the time of deployment, and the first thing done upon return after deployment is the return of the weapon to a secure location. Soldiers don't have M4s available to them at their convenience.
Old Salt taught me about this after the (I think..there are so many) Ft. Hood shooting. As a civilian, I always assumed that all the soldiers on a base were armed. And seeing as how so much stuff is there to take.....planes, bombs, weapons, etc......I still don't understand why everyone isn't armed.

But they're not. Pretty crazy that even the US military thinks it's more dangerous than not to have armed soldiers on a (?) military base. Weird.
I got a kick out of this but was in the clink and couldn't respond.
Actually, I was the one who clued you in on this and undoubtedly went on one of my "it's amazing to me what many/most people think goes on in the military and on bases" rants. I remember being pretty blown away by that one (absolutely no disrespect intended here).
a fan
Posts: 17713
Joined: Mon Aug 06, 2018 9:05 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by a fan »

DMac wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 3:49 pm
a fan wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 1:26 pm
SCLaxAttack wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 12:40 pm
CU88 wrote: Thu Jun 09, 2022 11:56 am Retired Marine's gun control video goes viral. Hear his solution on gun violence.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7dGaLRsgofQ

I did not know that the Marines control guns on base; for people trained to use these weapons.
One additional point to this Marine's comments that he didn't make, perhaps because Marine posts are different from Army posts:

At least at Army posts, in addition to the restriction on certain ranks to having personally owned weapons stored where they reside the Army only issues military weapons at the time of deployment, and the first thing done upon return after deployment is the return of the weapon to a secure location. Soldiers don't have M4s available to them at their convenience.
Old Salt taught me about this after the (I think..there are so many) Ft. Hood shooting. As a civilian, I always assumed that all the soldiers on a base were armed. And seeing as how so much stuff is there to take.....planes, bombs, weapons, etc......I still don't understand why everyone isn't armed.

But they're not. Pretty crazy that even the US military thinks it's more dangerous than not to have armed soldiers on a (?) military base. Weird.
I got a kick out of this but was in the clink and couldn't respond.
Actually, I was the one who clued you in on this and undoubtedly went on one of my "it's amazing to me what many/most people think goes on in the military and on bases" rants. I remember being pretty blown away by that one (absolutely no disrespect intended here).
None taken! And I'm sorry I misremembered who told me that.

Dude....from this civilian's standpoint? It's fully on bananas that soldiers on active duty on a base......with all that weaponry sitting there......aren't all armed. It makes NO sense to me that they aren't. :lol:
DMac
Posts: 8756
Joined: Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:02 am

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by DMac »

You might be shocked by the number of those Air Force people on Buckley AFB who have received virtually (and I might be being generous with virtually) no weapons training. At most the vast majority spent one day at the firing range while in basic training and I'm not certain they even do that in the Air Force. Those air controllers, radar techs, and cooks on base don't need to be carrying no guns. ;)
LandM
Posts: 661
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2019 7:51 am

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by LandM »

DMac,
I do not do gummies - I literally came out here as my wife went to see Steely Dan in Syr - I thought that dude was dead - so I got a hall pass and did if you remember her a LadyLaker and came back for one more try - she said it was like porn - I am going with her. NOT literally, the concept - just the concept fella's.

We in the AF - - great gig, fly some planes, awesome food, best quarters ever, we also get to sleep in. We have a few who remain quiet - it took waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay to long for Chapman and his family to receive what was rightly deserved and earned - do not be a billboard.

SEALs are way over-rated - I am messing with you, Boss is home and now I need to be a responsible person. AND in NY our clinics for those from TX are open - sad - IMHO we still debate this.
CU88
Posts: 4431
Joined: Tue Jul 31, 2018 4:59 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by CU88 »

I am thinking that this jerk has to be an r!

Sarah Huckabee Sanders after her gubernatorial primary win: "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/sta ... 9483640832
jhu72
Posts: 13876
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by jhu72 »

CU88 wrote: Mon Jun 27, 2022 2:31 pm I am thinking that this jerk has to be an r!

Sarah Huckabee Sanders after her gubernatorial primary win: "We will make sure that when a kid is in the womb, they're as safe as they are in a classroom."

https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/sta ... 9483640832
:lol: :lol:
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
User avatar
youthathletics
Posts: 14435
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 7:36 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by youthathletics »

A fraudulent intent, however carefully concealed at the outset, will generally, in the end, betray itself.
~Livy
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32140
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

youthathletics wrote: Wed Jun 29, 2022 9:58 pm Nice job California, :roll: idiots.

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CfaTZZQA ... MyMTA2M2Y=
Data breach.

https://selfkey.org/data-breaches-in-2019/

“California” idiots. :?:
“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
Seacoaster(1)
Posts: 4097
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2022 6:49 am

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Seacoaster(1) »

Very interesting opinion piece concerning the gun rights/control debate in the courts:

https://www.nytimes.com/2022/07/01/opin ... court.html

"Justice Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion last Thursday expanding gun rights chisels into constitutional law a questionable and judge-empowering form of historical reasoning intelligible only to a very small number of legal elites. The result will most likely be a Second Amendment jurisprudence increasingly out of step with public opinion, and court decisions ever more inscrutable to the hundreds of millions of people whose lives they affect.

In its first major Second Amendment decision in more than a decade, the Supreme Court struck down by a vote of 6 to 3 a century-old New York law requiring a person to show “proper cause” before carrying a concealed handgun in public. The ruling effectively negates similar laws in states where nearly a quarter of Americans live, and limits the power of lawmakers to regulate concealed handguns in public places.

But the larger problem with the decision is the reasoning that underpins it, which will have far-reaching consequences for Second Amendment doctrine. The majority rejected the Second Amendment analysis adopted throughout the federal appellate courts — which evaluated both history and contemporary evidence — and instead endorsed a purely historical approach that diminishes if not eliminates the relevance of the real-life costs and benefits of gun regulation.

From now on, the constitutionality of firearm regulations, like prohibitions on guns on airplanes or in the hands of domestic abusers, will depend solely on whether they are, in some ill-defined sense, “analogous” to a historical regulation, not whether they are effective in preventing serious harms.


Properly applied, such a test could still leave many modern gun laws in effect, because regulation of deadly weapons is part of America’s common law tradition going all the way back to medieval England. Historians have written volumes on the topic, and the Duke Center for Firearms Law, of which we are co-directors, maintains an online repository containing more than 1,600 illustrative regulations.

But drawing relevant analogies between some of these historical laws and contemporary ones will be perilous work. Is a modern AR-15-style rifle relevantly similar to a colonial musket? In what ways? Is a gun prohibition on the subway or in Times Square relevantly similar to medieval laws prohibiting weapons at fairs and markets? How?

The answers will certainly depend on the level of generality at which courts conduct the inquiry — an interpretive choice that often enlarges rather than reduces judicial power. Most of Justice Thomas’s opinion is spent dismissing or distinguishing one historical law after another as irrelevant to the constitutionality of modern “proper cause” requirements. By contrast, when she was a judge on the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, Justice Amy Coney Barrett broadly observed that “founding-era legislatures categorically disarmed groups whom they judged to be a threat to the public safety.”

That principle should presumably uphold laws like those that disarm domestic abusers or that permit the temporary sequestration of guns from people who may harm themselves or others, even though those laws didn’t exist in 1791. Whether judges will read the historical record narrowly or broadly is anybody’s guess.

But what is certain is that the fate of gun laws will depend more than ever on the whims of federal judges. The majority in the case last week, New York Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, said that alternative forms of licensing for concealed carry, such as “shall issue” laws that provide more objective criteria for licenses, are still constitutional. (Those laws require the authorities to issue a concealed carry permit to anyone who meets certain mostly objective criteria, as opposed to the New York law, which required permit applicants to show “proper cause.”)

A concurring opinion by Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, emphasized that “properly interpreted, the Second Amendment allows a variety of gun regulations,” and quoted a previous Supreme Court opinion saying that a host of regulations remain “presumptively lawful,” including prohibitions on guns in the hands of felons and in schools and rules against “dangerous and unusual” weapons.

But even if that is how things turn out, the reputation of the court, whose only power is reason, will almost certainly suffer, because Bruen’s new approach utterly fails to provide a transparent way to connect those historical laws to circumstances today. Whether a regulation survives this historical test will depend almost entirely on whether an individual judge thinks a regulation written to deal with a modern problem “looks like” a historical one. It is an “I know it when I see it” approach to historical analogy.

It does not have to be this way, and in most areas of constitutional law, it isn’t. Typically, courts apply some kind of scrutiny to examine whether limits on the constitutionally protected activity advance a legitimate government interest — like the prevention of gun violence — without unnecessarily burdening the protected right. Until last Thursday, the Second Amendment operated this way as well.

Now, the Second Amendment — far from being a “second-class right,” as many gun rights supporters complain — appears to enjoy more insulation from modern regulatory demands than almost any other constitutional provision.


Indeed, the court’s own application of its historical test threatens to create a one-way ratchet in favor of ever more expansive gun rights. For example, modern guns are vastly more powerful than colonial-era muskets, yet Justice Thomas indicated that these contemporary weapons presumptively fall within a category of constitutionally protected “arms.” At the same time, present-day regulations responding to the increased danger posed by modern firearms could fall because they aren’t “analogous” enough to historical regulations.

Hours after the justices announced their decision in Bruen, the Senate approved the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act, the first federal gun legislation passed in roughly 30 years. Under Bruen’s purely historical test, whether the act actually makes communities safer seems constitutionally irrelevant. The new law was the product of a difficult but transparent debate about how best to achieve public safety while respecting constitutional rights. It is precisely this kind of open and accessible conversation about guns that the court should strive to enable, instead of the opaque and judge-empowering one it has decided to impose."

Joseph Blocher and Darrell A.H. Miller are professors at Duke Law School, co-directors of the Duke Center for Firearms Law and authors of “The Positive Second Amendment: Rights, Regulation, and the Future of Heller.” They filed an amicus brief in Bruen in favor of neither side; it made the case for the test used by the federal appellate courts but rejected by the Supreme Court.
Typical Lax Dad
Posts: 32140
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2018 12:10 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Typical Lax Dad »

“You lucky I ain’t read wretched yet!”
PizzaSnake
Posts: 4688
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by PizzaSnake »

Typical Lax Dad wrote: Mon Jul 04, 2022 4:01 pm https://www.axios.com/2022/07/04/highla ... y-4-parade

More nonsense.
The “united” states? Of what?

“Life, liberty, and”?

If we exist in a simulation it needs a reset.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
jhu72
Posts: 13876
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:52 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by jhu72 »

Yet another legal gun used by the 4th of July killer.
Image STAND AGAINST FASCISM
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13840
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by cradleandshoot »

jhu72 wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:27 am Yet another legal gun used by the 4th of July killer.
You must great sources. I just listened to the news on my car radio 10 minutes ago. The only thing the police have said is that they recovered a high power rifle. No mention of legal or illegal. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation to include red flag measures. Maybe they need to get stricterer? This joker from what we know appears to be as unstable as they come. At least he was 22. Why is it these Looney tunes never obey the law?
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
User avatar
cradleandshoot
Posts: 13840
Joined: Fri Oct 05, 2018 4:42 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by cradleandshoot »

An interesting side note to the SCOTUS 2nd amendment ruling. NYS governor Jokeul came up with a whole new plethora of regulations for people applying for or renewing concealed carry permits. The most interesting is the applicant has to turn over all social media communication for 3 years. So the state of NY wants to know what you say, when you said it and what the content of your thoughts are. So much for freedom of speech. Who is going to be reading all this social media information? So if you criticize the governor or the POTUS on social media media no concealed permit for you. This is gov Jokeul flipping the bird to the SCOTUS. This has lawsuit city written all over it. The merry go round can keep going around and around and around.
I use to be a people person until people ruined that for me.
PizzaSnake
Posts: 4688
Joined: Tue Mar 05, 2019 8:36 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by PizzaSnake »

Wouldn’t anonymity be privacy?

No dice.
"There is nothing more difficult and more dangerous to carry through than initiating changes. One makes enemies of those who prospered under the old order, and only lukewarm support from those who would prosper under the new."
User avatar
Kismet
Posts: 4439
Joined: Sat Nov 02, 2019 6:42 pm

Re: Sensible Gun Safety

Post by Kismet »

cradleandshoot wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:44 am
jhu72 wrote: Tue Jul 05, 2022 9:27 am Yet another legal gun used by the 4th of July killer.
You must great sources. I just listened to the news on my car radio 10 minutes ago. The only thing the police have said is that they recovered a high power rifle. No mention of legal or illegal. Chicago has the strictest gun laws in the nation to include red flag measures. Maybe they need to get stricterer? This joker from what we know appears to be as unstable as they come. At least he was 22. Why is it these Looney tunes never obey the law?
Listen again. Rifle was purchased legally by the shooter (of course). As a military veteran who is likely aware of military weaponry, please tell me why such weapons are available for retail sale to individuals and treated like any other firearm? Don't tell me about the 2nd Amendement either where the FIRST PHRASE mentions WELL REGULATED MILITIA and not firearms for everybody.

As for the governor of NY - good on her for including the social media check in the new law - Apparently the IL shooter had an extensive online presence on any number of websites including youtube and Spotify exalting mass shootings and gun violence including one video where he literally committed mass murder.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/ch ... -rcna36628

The communities that Crimo was in online are far more accelerationist than what's talked about in traditional political media, and that's gotta change. They're effectively terror cells with much larger goals."

And likely that all of the nutjobs in these places on the internet can easily acquire weapons that can kill a LOT of people inn a very short period of time.

Pay attention to NBC's Ben Collins who follows this cultural part of technology and the convergences of it and mass shooters.
Post Reply

Return to “POLITICS”