Sensible Gun Safety

[Seacoaster(1)]

A couple of pretty good articles on Rahimi and its meaning for the future (some presaged here by Waffle):

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/21/so ... -opinions/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... ckout=true

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/us-v-ra ... -amendment

Comments to the last article/substack are also pretty interesting.

[cradleandshoot]

Barrett, concurring, seems to be messaging to Thomas that the simplistic Bruen analysis he advocates in his dissent is not satisfactory to her:

"Despite its unqualified text, the Second Amendment is not absolute. It codified a pre-existing right, and preexisting limits on that right are part and parcel of it. District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 595, 627 (2008). Those limits define the scope of “the right to bear arms” as it was originally understood; to identify them, courts must examine our “historical tradition of firearm regulation.” New York State Rifle & Pistol Assn., Inc. v. Bruen, 597 U. S. 1, 17, 19 (2022). That evidence marks where the right stops and the State’s authority to regulate begins. A regulation is constitutional only if the government affirmatively proves that it is “consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical understanding.” Id., at 26. Because the Court has taken an originalist approach to the Second Amendment, it is worth pausing to identify the basic premises of originalism. The theory is built on two core principles: that the meaning of constitutional text is fixed at the time of its ratification and that the “discoverable historical meaning . . . has legal significance and is authoritative in most circumstances.” K. Whittington, Originalism: A Critical Introduction, 82 Ford. L. Rev. 375, 378 (2013) (Whittington). Ratification is a democratic act that renders constitutional text part of our fundamental law, see Arts. V, VII, and that text “remains law until law-fully altered,” S. Sachs, Originalism: Standard and Procedure, 135 Harv. L. Rev. 777, 782 (2022). So for an originalist, the history that matters most is the history surrounding the ratification of the text; that backdrop illuminates the meaning of the enacted law. History (or tradition) that long postdates ratification does not serve that function. To be sure, postenactment history can be an important tool. For example, it can “reinforce our understanding of the Constitution’s original meaning”; “liquidate ambiguous constitutional provisions”; provide persuasive evidence of the original meaning; and, if stare decisis applies, control the outcome. See Vidal v. Elster, 602 U. S. ___, ___–___ (2024) (BARRETT, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 13–14). But generally speaking, the use of postenactment history requires some justification other than originalism simpliciter.

In Bruen, the Court took history beyond the founding era, considering gun regulations that spanned the 19th century. 597 U. S., at 50–70. I expressed reservations about the scope of that inquiry but concluded that the timing question did not matter to Bruen’s holding. Id., at 81–83 (concurring opinion). It bears emphasis, however, that my questions were about the time period relevant to discerning the Second Amendment’s original meaning—for instance, what is the post-1791 cutoff for discerning how the Second Amendment was originally understood? Id., at 82 (“How long after ratification may subsequent practice illuminate original public meaning?”). My doubts were not about whether “tradition,” standing alone, is dispositive. Id., at 83 (“[T]oday’s decision should not be understood to endorse freewheeling reliance on historical practice from the mid-to-late 19th century to establish the original meaning of the Bill of Rights”). As I have explained elsewhere, evidence of “tradition” unmoored from original meaning is not binding law. Vidal, 602 U. S., at ___–___ (BARRETT, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 13–15). And scattered cases or regulations pulled from history may have little bearing on the meaning of the text. Samia v. United States, 599 U. S. 635, 656–657 (2023) (BARRETT, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).

“Original history”—i.e., the generally dispositive kind— plays two roles in the Second Amendment context. It elucidates how contemporaries understood the text—for example, the meaning of the phrase “bear Arms.” See Heller, 554 U. S., at 582–592. It also plays the more complicated role of determining the scope of the pre-existing right that the people enshrined in our fundamental law.* In Rahimi’s case, the Court uses history in this latter way. Call this “original contours” history: It looks at historical gun regulations to identify the contours of the right.

Courts have struggled with this use of history in the wake of Bruen. One difficulty is a level of generality problem: Must the government produce a founding-era relative of the challenged regulation—if not a twin, a cousin? Or do founding-era gun regulations yield concrete principles that mark the borders of the right?

Many courts, including the Fifth Circuit, have understood Bruen to require the former, narrower approach. But Bruen emphasized that “analogical reasoning” is not a “regulatory straightjacket.” 597 U. S., at 30. To be consistent with historical limits, a challenged regulation need not be an updated model of a historical counterpart. Besides, imposing a test that demands overly specific analogues has serious problems. To name two: It forces 21st-century regulations to follow late-18th-century policy choices, giving us “a law trapped in amber.” Ante, at 7. And it assumes that founding-era legislatures maximally exercised their power to regulate, thereby adopting a “use it or lose it” view of legislative authority. Such assumptions are flawed, and originalism does not require them.

“Analogical reasoning” under Bruen demands a wider lens: Historical regulations reveal a principle, not a mold. See, e.g., 597 U. S., at 28–29 (explaining that the Amendment does not apply only to the catalogue of arms that existed in the 18th century, but rather to all weapons satisfying the “general definition” of “bearable arms” (emphasis added)); id., at 30–31 (discussing the “‘sensitive places’” principle that limits the right to public carry); cf. Vidal, 602 U. S., at ___–___ (BARRETT, J., concurring in part) (slip op., at 7–9); Whittington 386 (“The insight to be gleaned is not the authoritative status of the expected application, but the apparent rule at play given that such an application is expected to follow from it”).

To be sure, a court must be careful not to read a principle at such a high level of generality that it waters down the right. Pulling principle from precedent, whether case law or history, is a standard feature of legal reasoning, and reasonable minds sometimes disagree about how broad or narrow the controlling principle should be. Here, though, the Court settles on just the right level of generality: “Since the founding, our Nation’s firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms.” Ante, at 5; see also Kanter v. Barr, 919 F. 3d 437, 451, 464– 465 (CA7 2019) (Barrett, J., dissenting) (“History is consistent with common sense: it demonstrates that legislatures have the power to prohibit dangerous people from possessing guns”). Section 922(g)(8)(C)(i) fits well within that principle; therefore, Rahimi’s facial challenge fails. Harder level-of-generality problems can await another day."

Back up the legal bus counselor. I thought Barrett was one of the bad justices? Your not implying here that she used judicial prudence are you? I'm guessing the even the blind squirrel finds an acorn now and again rule comes into play.

I posted Barrett's concurring opinion because it's interesting -- not because I agree with her on most things -- and a big issue with her, one on which she has invested a lot of time and thinking.

Again, here she says: “Analogical reasoning” under Bruen demands a wider lens: Historical regulations reveal a principle, not a mold." She seems to me to be pulling the reins on the new regime's buggy (or Thomas's plush motorhome). If you read the concurrences of Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, and Barrett, and compare them with Thomas's dissent, it is pretty interesting. Seems to me that a lot of the gun regulation/gun rights issues are still to be hashed out.

Your probably correct. The issue I understand about bump stocks is they are an accessory and have nothing to do how the weapon was manufactured. A guy was just arrested where I live who was making this plastic adapter that allows full auto on many types of hand guns. He did so on a 3 D printer and sold hundreds of them before what he was doing was discovered. A brief blurb on last nights news says the ATF is still trying to figure out what to charge him with. The question I have is how many other people are using 3D printing technology in this same manner? It does create a problem that needs to be addressed. I sure as heck don't want a bunch of chuckle heads with hand guns that can fire full auto.

I think that Barrett and others are putting down some paving stones for those sorts of (inevitable) cases. For example, she may be signaling that she is open to evaluating red flag laws in a way that doesn't merely ask, "Well, were these sorts of laws or some clear analogue around and understood in 1772?" Which is functionally Thomas's "analysis" in Bruen. Three-D printing and other homegrown technologies may be in the offing for review too.

Roberts's opinion for the Court notes this too: "For its part, the Fifth Circuit made two errors. First, like [Thomas], it read Bruen to require a “historical twin” rather than a “historical analogue.” I just think the Court is having an intellectual wrestling match in slow motion on these Second Amendment issues, and that is pretty interesting to me.

I have no problem with Red Flag laws when due process is used. IMO the issue comes into play as to how the individual who has their weapon taken away can get it returned. That issue is not cut and dry. It becomes problematic if Red Flag laws can be used to permanently take your weapon away then more clarity to the process should be made available. It changes the process to guilty until proven innocent. The rationale is valid but becomes dicey when the logic used is we are taking your weapon away because of what you might do. I do believe your correct that the courts will be sorting out this issue for years to come.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

A couple of pretty good articles on Rahimi and its meaning for the future (some presaged here by Waffle):

https://reason.com/volokh/2024/06/21/so ... -opinions/

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/artic ... ckout=true

https://davidlat.substack.com/p/us-v-ra ... -amendment

Comments to the last article/substack are also pretty interesting.

I have always felt Mark Smith provides a nuanced understanding of things legally and in practical application in his videos. If you have 17 minutes, and fwiw, and ymmv.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqoPl-BT2Ik

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

I have no problem with Red Flag laws when due process is used. IMO the issue comes into play as to how the individual who has their weapon taken away can get it returned. That issue is not cut and dry. It becomes problematic if Red Flag laws can be used to permanently take your weapon away then more clarity to the process should be made available. It changes the process to guilty until proven innocent. The rationale is valid but becomes dicey when the logic used is we are taking your weapon away because of what you might do. I do believe your correct that the courts will be sorting out this issue for years to come.

Two good starting points for getting more folks on board would be:

1) eliminate ex parte entirely.
2) establish severe penalties for punitive and frivolous misuse, thus holding LE, DA's, Judges, and Karen/Ken types to a high standard of real and severe consequences (legal and monetary) for throwing bogus red flags.

I see no reason why anyone, regardless of political persuasion or gun ownership, would have any problem with those two things. Both sides insisting and agreeing to those conditions would show a good faith interest in addressing the problem/issue at hand. Just my .02. I won't hold my breath.

Enjoy your weekend.

[cradleandshoot]

I have no problem with Red Flag laws when due process is used. IMO the issue comes into play as to how the individual who has their weapon taken away can get it returned. That issue is not cut and dry. It becomes problematic if Red Flag laws can be used to permanently take your weapon away then more clarity to the process should be made available. It changes the process to guilty until proven innocent. The rationale is valid but becomes dicey when the logic used is we are taking your weapon away because of what you might do. I do believe your correct that the courts will be sorting out this issue for years to come.

Two good starting points for getting more folks on board would be:

1) eliminate ex parte entirely.
2) establish severe penalties for punitive and frivolous misuse, thus holding LE, DA's, Judges, and Karen/Ken types to a high standard of real and severe consequences (legal and monetary) for throwing bogus red flags.

I see no reason why anyone, regardless of political persuasion or gun ownership, would have any problem with those two things. Both sides insisting and agreeing to those conditions would show a good faith interest in addressing the problem/issue at hand. Just my .02. I won't hold my breath.

Enjoy your weekend.

Red flag laws can be a very helpful tool. As you point out they can be misused by vindictive people seeking to get even with someone they are having issues with. The due process is where any judge denying a citizen their 2nd amendment right had better have solid evidence. The reality is every case is different.

[njbill]

You know how I feel about the Heller decision.

Frankly, it seems to me that if circumstances warrant invoking a red flag law, more often than not the gun should be taken away from the individual immediately on an ex parte basis. I certainly agree the person should have a right to go before a judge as soon as possible to have his or her case adjudicated. But I see no reason why it is unreasonable to take somebody’s gun away from them for a couple of days. What’s the big deal?

On the other hand, if you don’t take the gun away from them immediately, they may wrongfully use it to kill or injure somebody in the very situation that caused the complainant to invoke the red flag law. Or they could secrete the gun or flee with it. As that eminent philosopher Homer Simpson said in connection with waiting periods, “but I’m angry now.” Exactly why guns should be taken away immediately in a red flag situation.

I can also envision that some people would use red flag laws vindictively. There are already laws, causes of action, and procedures in place to deal with misuse of the legal process. In that regard, it is highly unlikely a successful claim would be able to be brought against law enforcement, district attorneys, or judges. On the other hand, if, say, an ex-girlfriend or boyfriend is vindictively and wrongfully using a red flag law, then they should be held accountable.

[cradleandshoot]

You know how I feel about the Heller decision.

Frankly, it seems to me that if circumstances warrant invoking a red flag law, more often than not the gun should be taken away from the individual immediately on an ex parte basis. I certainly agree the person should have a right to go before a judge as soon as possible to have his or her case adjudicated. But I see no reason why it is unreasonable to take somebody’s gun away from them for a couple of days. What’s the big deal?

On the other hand, if you don’t take the gun away from them immediately, they may wrongfully use it to kill or injure somebody in the very situation that caused the complainant to invoke the red flag law. Or they could secrete the gun or flee with it. As that eminent philosopher Homer Simpson said in connection with waiting periods, “but I’m angry now.” Exactly why guns should be taken away immediately in a red flag situation.

I can also envision that some people would use red flag laws vindictively. There are already laws, causes of action, and procedures in place to deal with misuse of the legal process. In that regard, it is highly unlikely a successful claim would be able to be brought against law enforcement, district attorneys, or judges. On the other hand, if, say, an ex-girlfriend or boyfriend is vindictively and wrongfully using a red flag law, then they should be held accountable.

I'm stunned counselor, we are pretty much in agreement. When used properly and in good cause it makes sense to take a weapon away from someone who is mentally unstable and a threat to friends and family. Then the legal conundrum comes into play. The unstable person has committed no crime. For Good or bad for right or wrong some one is being penalized for a crime they might commit. That is the kind of legal discussion that lawyers love to haggle over.

[DMac]

What’s the big deal?

Zactly. You can still be part of the militia, just an unarmed soldier.
Whole lot more members of our military who aren't armed than are,
still a lot you can do when the big stand off comes.

[njbill]

I'm stunned counselor, we are pretty much in agreement.

You better not tell your buddies, and I better not tell mine.

[cradleandshoot]

I'm stunned counselor, we are pretty much in agreement.

You better not tell your buddies, and I better not tell mine.

They wouldn't believe it anyways.

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://apple.news/ArYrCrm2SQDO-UrKmmf-SRA

[PizzaSnake]

You know how I feel about the Heller decision.

Frankly, it seems to me that if circumstances warrant invoking a red flag law, more often than not the gun should be taken away from the individual immediately on an ex parte basis. I certainly agree the person should have a right to go before a judge as soon as possible to have his or her case adjudicated. But I see no reason why it is unreasonable to take somebody’s gun away from them for a couple of days. What’s the big deal?

On the other hand, if you don’t take the gun away from them immediately, they may wrongfully use it to kill or injure somebody in the very situation that caused the complainant to invoke the red flag law. Or they could secrete the gun or flee with it. As that eminent philosopher Homer Simpson said in connection with waiting periods, “but I’m angry now.” Exactly why guns should be taken away immediately in a red flag situation.

I can also envision that some people would use red flag laws vindictively. There are already laws, causes of action, and procedures in place to deal with misuse of the legal process. In that regard, it is highly unlikely a successful claim would be able to be brought against law enforcement, district attorneys, or judges. On the other hand, if, say, an ex-girlfriend or boyfriend is vindictively and wrongfully using a red flag law, then they should be held accountable.

I'm stunned counselor, we are pretty much in agreement. When used properly and in good cause it makes sense to take a weapon away from someone who is mentally unstable and a threat to friends and family. Then the legal conundrum comes into play. The unstable person has committed no crime. For Good or bad for right or wrong some one is being penalized for a crime they might commit. That is the kind of legal discussion that lawyers love to haggle over.

Too bad they generally don’t make movies about ideas anymore.

[Typical Lax Dad]

You know how I feel about the Heller decision.

Frankly, it seems to me that if circumstances warrant invoking a red flag law, more often than not the gun should be taken away from the individual immediately on an ex parte basis. I certainly agree the person should have a right to go before a judge as soon as possible to have his or her case adjudicated. But I see no reason why it is unreasonable to take somebody’s gun away from them for a couple of days. What’s the big deal?

On the other hand, if you don’t take the gun away from them immediately, they may wrongfully use it to kill or injure somebody in the very situation that caused the complainant to invoke the red flag law. Or they could secrete the gun or flee with it. As that eminent philosopher Homer Simpson said in connection with waiting periods, “but I’m angry now.” Exactly why guns should be taken away immediately in a red flag situation.

I can also envision that some people would use red flag laws vindictively. There are already laws, causes of action, and procedures in place to deal with misuse of the legal process. In that regard, it is highly unlikely a successful claim would be able to be brought against law enforcement, district attorneys, or judges. On the other hand, if, say, an ex-girlfriend or boyfriend is vindictively and wrongfully using a red flag law, then they should be held accountable.

I'm stunned counselor, we are pretty much in agreement. When used properly and in good cause it makes sense to take a weapon away from someone who is mentally unstable and a threat to friends and family. Then the legal conundrum comes into play. The unstable person has committed no crime. For Good or bad for right or wrong some one is being penalized for a crime they might commit. That is the kind of legal discussion that lawyers love to haggle over.

Too bad they generally don’t make movies about ideas anymore.

Pre Cogs

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

https://apple.news/ArYrCrm2SQDO-UrKmmf-SRA

Ah, the Surgeon General weighs in. I was waiting for his "I don't feel like staying in my lane" warning to be posted here. Where to begin?

A 2022 study by John Hopkins School of Medicine found medical malpractice deaths in the United States to be as high as 250k/year (9.5% of all deaths). Other studies put that number at closer to 400k. Legal prescription drugs cause ~150k deaths per year. These horrific numbers dwarf "gun violence" numbers (even including the suicide padded numbers). Perhaps the Surgeon General should issue a warning for his own house, the US Medical Industrial Complex, and get that dumpster fire doused. In related news,

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 40 homicides were committed. Of these, approximately were 27 committed via the criminal use of a firearm. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 14,000 murders, with approximately 10,000 murders utilizing firearms. Individual weapon totals (approximate): 6,500 by handgun. 1,500 by knives/bladed instruments. 600 by body (hands, fists, feet). 400 by hammer/blunt instruments. 364 by all rifles. 200 by shotgun. The FBI data lists the balance as “not known”.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 1,500 reported cases of Aggravated Assault were filed. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 550,000 filed cases, with FBI estimating the actual figure is much higher, as approximately 40% of cases go unreported.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,700 home invasions with victim (owner/renter/guest) present inside home. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 627,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,100 women were r*ped or sexually assaulted. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 400,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 110 men and boys were r*ped or sexually assaulted. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 40,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 20,000 calls were placed to domestic violence hotlines. Close to 7,000,000 annually.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,000 children went missing. And approximately 300 children ages 4-15 became sexually trafficked. ANNUAL FIGURES: 365,000 missing & 109,000 sexually trafficked.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 37* people were killed in drunk driving criminal violence incidents (aka “vehicular crashes”). Of these deaths caused by the criminal actions of the drunk drivers, approximately 14 were innocent vehicular homicide victims: pedestrians, motorists, passengers. ANNUAL FIGURES: 13,505* drunk driving deaths. 5,130 innocent victims. *Interesting aside: CDC defines children killed in drunk driving crimes as being aged 0-14 years old. Oddly, the same CDC expands the definition of children for the purposes of their “children killed by guns” statistic to include 15-19 year olds. Anyone else find that…odd? But I digress. In related news, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) didn’t blame a single “Assault Vehicle” for the criminal behavior of the driver who killed innocents.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 190 died of illegal Fentanyl overdoses (out of the 273 total overdose deaths today) supplied by criminal drug activity. ANNUAL FIGURES: 100,000 overdose deaths, 85% from illegal drugs, and 70% of that total from illegal Fentanyl. Estimates are that 90% of illegal Fentanyl in USA is manufactured in China, and crosses into USA via Southern border.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 385 died of alcohol poisoning and alcohol related factors. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately140,000 deaths due to alcohol poisoning and alcohol related factors.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 1,250 died of smoking related causes. Of these deaths, approximately 112 (including at least one infant 18 months or younger) were non-smoker victims of second hand smoke, including . ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 41,000 deaths due to second hand smoke, including 400 infants. One in five deaths in the US each year are caused by smoking. Note: Commercial tobacco products have been curated to contain chemicals which aid in the delivery of Nicotine, one of the most addictive substances on earth. These deadly to humans chemicals include Benzene, Toluene, Butane, Cadmium, Ammonia, and Hydrogen Cyanide. If a new company founded today released a new consumer product line (cigarettes, cigars, chew) that were constructed with the materials of the average cigarette/tobacco product on the market today, there would be a public outcry. The Surgeon General would be leading the charge. In the meantime, this dangerous public health scourge which costs taxpayers a quarter of a trillion dollars in health care costs and generates 12 billion dollars per year in Federal tax revenue has a few warnings on packaging. Mission accomplished!

TODAY IN THE USA: Obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and poor nutrition continued to ravage 40% of the nation’s population. Health costs and economic costs? Incalculable.

Note: Conflating suicide as “gun violence” is a disingenuous and purposely misleading policy based evidence making fib. America has lower suicide rates than heavily gun restricted nations including France, Switzerland, Hungary, Japan, Belgium, South Korea, Austria, Poland, India, Finland, among others. Should these nations and America count “rope violence” and “plastic bag violence” for hanging/suffocation/asphyxiation deaths? “Pill violence” and “Poison violence” suicides? “Gravity violence” suicides for bridge and building jumpers? “Knife and razor blade violence” suicides? Back in America, per the CDC, women use suffocation and pills/poison in 66% of suicides. For men, 43% of suicides are via suffocation and poison. Suicide is not a crime in America. When politicians and lobbying groups single out suicide by gun and lump it into the “Gun Violence” tally they are being patently disingenuous. Please note, anyone thinking I am being callous regarding the epidemic of suicide in this country, please save your breath. It is a sad and devastating public health crisis, and I doubt anyone here has not been affected directly or indirectly via family, friends, co-workers, classmates. Intervention, educational and physical mitigation strategies exist which focus on the potential gun utilization segment of those wishing to commit suicide, which is of course important as guns are very good at making a suicide attempt lethal. Access/storage strategies/equipment, and programs facilitating the temporarily turning in of guns at qualified locations for safe keeping are both encouraging and proven effective.

Too bad we don’t have our DA's, judges, and criminal courts focusing their energies upon intervention and punishment for the actual criminal perpetrators of violence, utilizing ANY means or instrument, and the public will become safer.

Hopefully the surgeon general can get back to processed sugars, high fructose corn syrup, and bad carbs. Those things are killing machines.

Just my .02

[NattyBohChamps04]

Can we have more than one public health crisis at a time?

[Typical Lax Dad]

https://apple.news/ArYrCrm2SQDO-UrKmmf-SRA

Ah, the Surgeon General weighs in. I was waiting for his "I don't feel like staying in my lane" warning to be posted here. Where to begin?

A 2022 study by John Hopkins School of Medicine found medical malpractice deaths in the United States to be as high as 250k/year (9.5% of all deaths). Other studies put that number at closer to 400k. Legal prescription drugs cause ~150k deaths per year. These horrific numbers dwarf "gun violence" numbers (even including the suicide padded numbers). Perhaps the Surgeon General should issue a warning for his own house, the US Medical Industrial Complex, and get that dumpster fire doused. In related news,

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 40 homicides were committed. Of these, approximately were 27 committed via the criminal use of a firearm. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 14,000 murders, with approximately 10,000 murders utilizing firearms. Individual weapon totals (approximate): 6,500 by handgun. 1,500 by knives/bladed instruments. 600 by body (hands, fists, feet). 400 by hammer/blunt instruments. 364 by all rifles. 200 by shotgun. The FBI data lists the balance as “not known”.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 1,500 reported cases of Aggravated Assault were filed. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 550,000 filed cases, with FBI estimating the actual figure is much higher, as approximately 40% of cases go unreported.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,700 home invasions with victim (owner/renter/guest) present inside home. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 627,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,100 women were r*ped or sexually assaulted. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 400,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 110 men and boys were r*ped or sexually assaulted. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 40,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 20,000 calls were placed to domestic violence hotlines. Close to 7,000,000 annually.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,000 children went missing. And approximately 300 children ages 4-15 became sexually trafficked. ANNUAL FIGURES: 365,000 missing & 109,000 sexually trafficked.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 37* people were killed in drunk driving criminal violence incidents (aka “vehicular crashes”). Of these deaths caused by the criminal actions of the drunk drivers, approximately 14 were innocent vehicular homicide victims: pedestrians, motorists, passengers. ANNUAL FIGURES: 13,505* drunk driving deaths. 5,130 innocent victims. *Interesting aside: CDC defines children killed in drunk driving crimes as being aged 0-14 years old. Oddly, the same CDC expands the definition of children for the purposes of their “children killed by guns” statistic to include 15-19 year olds. Anyone else find that…odd? But I digress. In related news, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) didn’t blame a single “Assault Vehicle” for the criminal behavior of the driver who killed innocents.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 190 died of illegal Fentanyl overdoses (out of the 273 total overdose deaths today) supplied by criminal drug activity. ANNUAL FIGURES: 100,000 overdose deaths, 85% from illegal drugs, and 70% of that total from illegal Fentanyl. Estimates are that 90% of illegal Fentanyl in USA is manufactured in China, and crosses into USA via Southern border.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 385 died of alcohol poisoning and alcohol related factors. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately140,000 deaths due to alcohol poisoning and alcohol related factors.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 1,250 died of smoking related causes. Of these deaths, approximately 112 (including at least one infant 18 months or younger) were non-smoker victims of second hand smoke, including . ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 41,000 deaths due to second hand smoke, including 400 infants. One in five deaths in the US each year are caused by smoking. Note: Commercial tobacco products have been curated to contain chemicals which aid in the delivery of Nicotine, one of the most addictive substances on earth. These deadly to humans chemicals include Benzene, Toluene, Butane, Cadmium, Ammonia, and Hydrogen Cyanide. If a new company founded today released a new consumer product line (cigarettes, cigars, chew) that were constructed with the materials of the average cigarette/tobacco product on the market today, there would be a public outcry. The Surgeon General would be leading the charge. In the meantime, this dangerous public health scourge which costs taxpayers a quarter of a trillion dollars in health care costs and generates 12 billion dollars per year in Federal tax revenue has a few warnings on packaging. Mission accomplished!

TODAY IN THE USA: Obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and poor nutrition continued to ravage 40% of the nation’s population. Health costs and economic costs? Incalculable.

Note: Conflating suicide as “gun violence” is a disingenuous and purposely misleading policy based evidence making fib. America has lower suicide rates than heavily gun restricted nations including France, Switzerland, Hungary, Japan, Belgium, South Korea, Austria, Poland, India, Finland, among others. Should these nations and America count “rope violence” and “plastic bag violence” for hanging/suffocation/asphyxiation deaths? “Pill violence” and “Poison violence” suicides? “Gravity violence” suicides for bridge and building jumpers? “Knife and razor blade violence” suicides? Back in America, per the CDC, women use suffocation and pills/poison in 66% of suicides. For men, 43% of suicides are via suffocation and poison. Suicide is not a crime in America. When politicians and lobbying groups single out suicide by gun and lump it into the “Gun Violence” tally they are being patently disingenuous. Please note, anyone thinking I am being callous regarding the epidemic of suicide in this country, please save your breath. It is a sad and devastating public health crisis, and I doubt anyone here has not been affected directly or indirectly via family, friends, co-workers, classmates. Intervention, educational and physical mitigation strategies exist which focus on the potential gun utilization segment of those wishing to commit suicide, which is of course important as guns are very good at making a suicide attempt lethal. Access/storage strategies/equipment, and programs facilitating the temporarily turning in of guns at qualified locations for safe keeping are both encouraging and proven effective.

Too bad we don’t have our DA's, judges, and criminal courts focusing their energies upon intervention and punishment for the actual criminal perpetrators of violence, utilizing ANY means or instrument, and the public will become safer.

Hopefully the surgeon general can get back to processed sugars, high fructose corn syrup, and bad carbs. Those things are killing machines.

Just my .02

Those are problems too. Would you happen to know how those statistics compare to other first world nations?

[Typical Lax Dad]

Too bad that we are soft on crime here. Judges and lawyers are too liberal:

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

Can we have more than one public health crisis at a time?

Sure. Let's consciously uncouple suicide from "gun violence" as a show of good faith to start.

Then suicide by ALL means can be addressed by methods which have been encouraging regarding all methods of suicide, and individual strategies for specific methods of suicide can be incorporated. In doing so, we can let law abiding gun owners continue their non-criminal law abiding gun owning thing.

We can also consciously uncouple criminal violence and the perpetrators of criminal violence from the public medical health division of the federal government, and the Surgeon General can state that other agencies of law prevention and enforcement are better suited to address that scourge on the granular, community based approach that has shown promise. And those who can't seem to be law abiding and non-violent, regardless of their choice of tool, can be held accountable for their actions. You know, so innocent people can be safe. This approach does not require additional laws which only affect those who don't break laws. Simple, really.

[WaffleTwineFaceoff]

https://apple.news/ArYrCrm2SQDO-UrKmmf-SRA

Ah, the Surgeon General weighs in. I was waiting for his "I don't feel like staying in my lane" warning to be posted here. Where to begin?

A 2022 study by John Hopkins School of Medicine found medical malpractice deaths in the United States to be as high as 250k/year (9.5% of all deaths). Other studies put that number at closer to 400k. Legal prescription drugs cause ~150k deaths per year. These horrific numbers dwarf "gun violence" numbers (even including the suicide padded numbers). Perhaps the Surgeon General should issue a warning for his own house, the US Medical Industrial Complex, and get that dumpster fire doused. In related news,

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 40 homicides were committed. Of these, approximately were 27 committed via the criminal use of a firearm. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 14,000 murders, with approximately 10,000 murders utilizing firearms. Individual weapon totals (approximate): 6,500 by handgun. 1,500 by knives/bladed instruments. 600 by body (hands, fists, feet). 400 by hammer/blunt instruments. 364 by all rifles. 200 by shotgun. The FBI data lists the balance as “not known”.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 1,500 reported cases of Aggravated Assault were filed. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 550,000 filed cases, with FBI estimating the actual figure is much higher, as approximately 40% of cases go unreported.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,700 home invasions with victim (owner/renter/guest) present inside home. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 627,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,100 women were r*ped or sexually assaulted. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 400,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 110 men and boys were r*ped or sexually assaulted. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 40,000.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 20,000 calls were placed to domestic violence hotlines. Close to 7,000,000 annually.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 1,000 children went missing. And approximately 300 children ages 4-15 became sexually trafficked. ANNUAL FIGURES: 365,000 missing & 109,000 sexually trafficked.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 37* people were killed in drunk driving criminal violence incidents (aka “vehicular crashes”). Of these deaths caused by the criminal actions of the drunk drivers, approximately 14 were innocent vehicular homicide victims: pedestrians, motorists, passengers. ANNUAL FIGURES: 13,505* drunk driving deaths. 5,130 innocent victims. *Interesting aside: CDC defines children killed in drunk driving crimes as being aged 0-14 years old. Oddly, the same CDC expands the definition of children for the purposes of their “children killed by guns” statistic to include 15-19 year olds. Anyone else find that…odd? But I digress. In related news, Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD) didn’t blame a single “Assault Vehicle” for the criminal behavior of the driver who killed innocents.

TODAY IN THE USA:
Approximately 190 died of illegal Fentanyl overdoses (out of the 273 total overdose deaths today) supplied by criminal drug activity. ANNUAL FIGURES: 100,000 overdose deaths, 85% from illegal drugs, and 70% of that total from illegal Fentanyl. Estimates are that 90% of illegal Fentanyl in USA is manufactured in China, and crosses into USA via Southern border.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 385 died of alcohol poisoning and alcohol related factors. ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately140,000 deaths due to alcohol poisoning and alcohol related factors.

TODAY IN THE USA: Approximately 1,250 died of smoking related causes. Of these deaths, approximately 112 (including at least one infant 18 months or younger) were non-smoker victims of second hand smoke, including . ANNUAL FIGURES: Approximately 41,000 deaths due to second hand smoke, including 400 infants. One in five deaths in the US each year are caused by smoking. Note: Commercial tobacco products have been curated to contain chemicals which aid in the delivery of Nicotine, one of the most addictive substances on earth. These deadly to humans chemicals include Benzene, Toluene, Butane, Cadmium, Ammonia, and Hydrogen Cyanide. If a new company founded today released a new consumer product line (cigarettes, cigars, chew) that were constructed with the materials of the average cigarette/tobacco product on the market today, there would be a public outcry. The Surgeon General would be leading the charge. In the meantime, this dangerous public health scourge which costs taxpayers a quarter of a trillion dollars in health care costs and generates 12 billion dollars per year in Federal tax revenue has a few warnings on packaging. Mission accomplished!

TODAY IN THE USA: Obesity, sedentary lifestyle, and poor nutrition continued to ravage 40% of the nation’s population. Health costs and economic costs? Incalculable.

Note: Conflating suicide as “gun violence” is a disingenuous and purposely misleading policy based evidence making fib. America has lower suicide rates than heavily gun restricted nations including France, Switzerland, Hungary, Japan, Belgium, South Korea, Austria, Poland, India, Finland, among others. Should these nations and America count “rope violence” and “plastic bag violence” for hanging/suffocation/asphyxiation deaths? “Pill violence” and “Poison violence” suicides? “Gravity violence” suicides for bridge and building jumpers? “Knife and razor blade violence” suicides? Back in America, per the CDC, women use suffocation and pills/poison in 66% of suicides. For men, 43% of suicides are via suffocation and poison. Suicide is not a crime in America. When politicians and lobbying groups single out suicide by gun and lump it into the “Gun Violence” tally they are being patently disingenuous. Please note, anyone thinking I am being callous regarding the epidemic of suicide in this country, please save your breath. It is a sad and devastating public health crisis, and I doubt anyone here has not been affected directly or indirectly via family, friends, co-workers, classmates. Intervention, educational and physical mitigation strategies exist which focus on the potential gun utilization segment of those wishing to commit suicide, which is of course important as guns are very good at making a suicide attempt lethal. Access/storage strategies/equipment, and programs facilitating the temporarily turning in of guns at qualified locations for safe keeping are both encouraging and proven effective.

Too bad we don’t have our DA's, judges, and criminal courts focusing their energies upon intervention and punishment for the actual criminal perpetrators of violence, utilizing ANY means or instrument, and the public will become safer.

Hopefully the surgeon general can get back to processed sugars, high fructose corn syrup, and bad carbs. Those things are killing machines.

Just my .02

Those are problems too. Would you happen to know how those statistics compare to other first world nations?

No. I try to keep my focus on our country, as it is easy to get caught in the weeds on "compared to peer nations stuff". I only brought it up above relating to suicide as it seemed apt in terms of how rope violence, gravity violence etc. seem to be ignored.

[jhu72]

This isn't about militias (or mass public shooters). The case was about the overreach of the ATF in making a defacto law. That's the job of congress.

The vast majority of rifle owners know bump stocks are a bit of a clown accessory. They decrease accuracy. The thing they don't do is make a semiautomatic rifle into a machine gun.

It is notable that the three dissenting judges in their opinion went on record 1) calling semiautomatic rifles in common use, and 2) not utilizing the term "assault rifle". If you are an anti-gun politician, lobbyist, or person (to each their own, based on your own research, beliefs, and understanding of the contentious issues at hand), you will not be pleased with the ammunition their dissent admissions and wording will likely provide upcoming cases regarding 2A issues which are coming before the Supreme Court.

We await the Rahimi case, which anyone who wants to get geeky about can get a good background on the YouTube video channel of Mark Smith of Four Boxes Diner, which is problematic due to the venal, irresponsible scumbag that is Rahimi being the crash test dummy for the ruling in question.

Finally, if interested in a good book, David Yamane's "Gun Curious - A Liberal Professor's Surprising Journey Inside America's Gun Culture" is out and provides a balanced, reasoned, and "anti partisan politics" take on many of the most contentious issues of America's ongoing gun debates. A breezy and illuminating read from an intelligent sociology professor coming to the issues from "outside the box". Imho.

Be well.

You’re the second person to suggest the Yamane book. I’ll check it out. Thanks.

From Alito's concurrence:

"There is a simple remedy for the disparate treatment of bumpstocks and machineguns. Congress can amend the law -- and perhaps would have done so already had ATF stuck with its earlier interpretation."

So Alito appears to be saying that it is within Congress's power to outlaw bumpstocks and machineguns. If only we had a Congress that functioned to protect ordinary Americans, you know like church-goers, shoppers at WalMart and supermarkets, employees at work, movie-goers, college kids.

And then, to be fair, there is this from Sotomayor:

"Today, the Court puts bump stocks back in civilian hands. To do so, it casts aside Congress's definition of 'machinegun' and seizes upon one that is inconsistent with the ordinary meaning of the statutory text and unsupported by context or purpose. When I see a bird that walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, I call that bird a duck. A bump-stock-equipped semiautomatic rifle fires 'automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, by a single function of the trigger.' §5845(b). Because I, like Congress, call that a machinegun, I respectfully dissent."

Isn't that part and parcel what " well regulated " is suppose to mean? I guess the founding fathers were never cognizant of the advances in firearms that might happen in a almost 250 years.Muzzleloaders morphed into AR 15s .

Well regulated at the time of the founding documents meant "In good working order. Disciplined". And the second amendment says "arms", not "firearms". Google the Puckle gun. The advances in firearm technology have no bearing on the right. Any more than the internet, digital media, and social media do related to the first amendment in terms of the quill pen and parchment paper of that era.

And as we all know, any snarky uses of militia in suggesting the second amendment was only a collective right will be referred to detention for a studious and sincere review with Mr. Hand of the founding documents (precursors, documents themselves, and immediate post establishment documents) until clarity is achieved. Modern era post-1970 revisionist second amendment scholarly gymnastics, even by the likes of Warren Burger, will result in further demerits and detention. And missing out on Pheobe Cates getting out of the pool in her red bikini.

The duck analogy above is wishful thinking by someone who's knowledge of semiautomatic firearm mechanics and function could fit on the head of a pin. Lots of emotional responses today in the partisan political dumpster fire that is the American discourse on guns.

David Yamane. Gun curious. Great read.

Enjoy the weekend, gents.

From wiki

The Second Amendment was based partially on the right to keep and bear arms in English common law and was influenced by the English Bill of Rights of 1689. Sir William Blackstone described this right as an auxiliary right, supporting the natural rights of self-defense and resistance to oppression, and the civic duty to act in concert in defense of the state.[12] While both James Monroe and John Adams supported the Constitution being ratified, its most influential framer was James Madison. In Federalist No. 46, Madison wrote how a federal army could be kept in check by the militia, "a standing army ... would be opposed [by] militia." He argued that State governments "would be able to repel the danger" of a federal army, "It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops." He contrasted the federal government of the United States to the European kingdoms, which he described as "afraid to trust the people with arms", and assured that "the existence of subordinate governments ... forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition".[13][14]

I hope Mr. Madison got detention for this.

... I would not put too much weight on this Madison quote. While the quote is accurate, Madison and the second amendment is far more complex. To understand you might want to look at Paul Finkelman. A serious historian's look at the writing of the constitution and bill of rights. The 2nd is all about State militias!! It is not about slavery and it is not about individual gun rights for hunters.