You should have known better than to challenge me on Constitutional grounds...
You're referring the Constitution according to DC v Heller. The Second Amendment was super ambiguous for the first 200 some odd years of the Republic. Given the Federalist fear of the populous as well as events like Shay's Rebellion, the Second Amendment would never have been passed if it gave individuals firearms rather than the "well regulated militia" permission that was granted at the Constitutional convention. I imagine Hamilton would be particularly pissed about gun control...
But you have hit my soft spot for legal pedantry. The Federal Government has stated that an individual has the right to bear arms, so the law should fall under scrutiny by the Supreme Court. However, what violates a right isn't always clear. States make restrictions on who is qualified to own a firearm already, and no one considers it a violation of DC v Heller. The California law does enter a grey area, but is by no means a cut and dry violation. We'll have to wait to see how the courts rule.
Yes I suppose we will have to see. I'm not opposed to taking guns away from people who clearly should not have them, just a little concerned that the bar is set so low in the case of this law that someone really only has to say "I'm scared of this person and they own guns," and that person now has their firearms confiscated for 21 days. Again, if the person has a clear history of violence and/or clear intent to harm in the very near future then this will be a useful tool, but the scattershot nature of it can catch law-abiding citizens.
Kevin James Loibl has been named by police as the shooter in that incident and said the 26-year-old travelled to Orlando from his home in St Petersburg, Florida, about two hours’ drive away, with the intention of carrying out the crime.
Kevin James Loibl has been named by police as the shooter in that incident and said the 26-year-old travelled to Orlando from his home in St Petersburg, Florida, about two hours’ drive away, with the intention of carrying out the crime.
What? Loibl was the gamergate-lookin' white guy lashing out and murdering the celebrity lady he probably was obsessed with. No one has yet been ID'd in the Orlando gay club terror attack.
Greg your question means different things to different people. It's a question of value, if you were asking about the monetary value of a big mac, there'd be an objective answer. But you're not asking that. You're asking what amount of freedom is worth some people's lives.
The name "Loibl" weirds me out. He is definitely the descendant of carinthian immigrants. "Loibl" is the carinthian version of the slovenian "ljubl" (as in Ljubljana), e.g. Loibl pass.
Anyway, both incidents are terrible and it's more than high time that america got its shit together about guns and domestic terrorism targeting minorities.
Greg your question means different things to different people. It's a question of value, if you were asking about the monetary value of a big mac, there'd be an objective answer. But you're not asking that. You're asking what amount of freedom is worth some people's lives.
Such is the nature of any meaningful question in social sciences.
Kevin James Loibl has been named by police as the shooter in that incident and said the 26-year-old travelled to Orlando from his home in St Petersburg, Florida, about two hours’ drive away, with the intention of carrying out the crime.
"...Police confirmed there was no known connection between the two shootings."
It's scary how close these two shootings are to eat other, it's almost impossible not to link them. What will it take to call for some stricter gun control?
After seeing all the crap going on from everyone for the last weeks, it's apparent to me that the first step to meaningful anything, is destroy all the current rules, to the letter, and start from absolute scratch on anything and everything firearms related. If they want to go all the way down to the Bill of Rights and challenge the 2nd amendment I guess we can do that too. But get experts in crime and sociology and health and firearms and military and police and pretty-much anyone with a base of knowledge relevant to firearms in society, and have them figure out the technical bits and develop proposals as part of their think tanks, keep politics and special interests on all sides far the fuck away until it's time to pass this thing. And have some people put out some videos about these proposals so that the public knows the actual facts being presented in the proposals, and then they can base their calls to their reps on that knowledge.
That's not gonna happen, like in any form; so I just see the current laws as absolute an shitshow no matter how much or little gets done, because I think most everyone can agree the current rules are a shitshow one way or another, and just adding to the shitshow can't cover up the smell or flavor.
But if they say "we're just gonna trash everything and start fresh" then game on.
Chances are a lot of people will push for harder things, a lot of people will push for less and the result won't be far off from today.
I'd be able to write a rulebook on firearms that's pretty comprehensive and fair and would actually address a lot of issues, but still wouldn't be able to cover everything and people'd still be pissed on both sides, so no winning with the sensible compromise, it has to be all or nothing bullshit that turns into a half-measure shitshow at the end after everyone starts to cave a little anyway.
So sit in, demand change, block the cameras, sing songs, shoot guns, yell conspiracy theories online, or make a film in which you illegally purchase a rifle 'legally'... until we remove the tons and tons of crap law in the way and make a new deal that isn't weighed down by 100 years of failed gun control based on reactions to old events, we aren't going to find meaningful progress outside 'all the guns' and putting them in either the has or no-has piles.
In regards to some of the new proposed laws, I would be perfectly fine with people on the terrorist watch list being banned at least temporarily from buying guns if there were more regulations on putting people on the lists and taking them off. Right now it's just too easy to be put on the lists and nearly impossible to be taken off. Even not taking guns into account the no-fly list has really fucked some innocent people over.
or make a film in which you illegally purchase a rifle 'legally'
I've seen them do this multiple times, but the most recent that comes to mind is CBS's shocking report that you can in fact buy a gun at a gun store. At the end of the article they say that they transferred it to an FFL two hours after purchasing it. Now if this was their plan all along, isn't that a crime of lying on the form 4473 since they intended to transfer it immediately after and it wasn't exactly bought as a gift? Or does the fact that it was a dealer change that?
They weren't buying it for the dealer. The individual was buying it for themselves to use for a very specific purpose and then as soon as the purpose was completed, would have kept it, but sold it to an FFL holder.
A violation to 4473 would have been if they had bought it on behalf of a 3rd party to take ownership, and I'm assuming mostly only if there is not a background check to be had. If the 3rd party is also the seller that could be a 4473 violation; for example if the store said "buy it and then sell it to us in a face-to-face so we don't have to log it being in our possession" then that would be a violation since the store is using the sale to get a rifle off their books. However I'm pretty sure if the sale involves it going back in their inventory log then it's not much of a violation as no-one is concealing the transfer process of the weapon. Depending on specific circumstances I guess it's a bit of a grey area possibly. But I don't see a violation in buying a gun figuring that you can sell it back to a gun shop when you're done with it.
Well, I don't know about this year but overall crime has been down, or at least gun deaths have been gradually going down each year according to fbi statistics. We just have some pretty huge outliers that might not go along with that, due to reasons mentioned above.
Comments
You're referring the Constitution according to DC v Heller. The Second Amendment was super ambiguous for the first 200 some odd years of the Republic. Given the Federalist fear of the populous as well as events like Shay's Rebellion, the Second Amendment would never have been passed if it gave individuals firearms rather than the "well regulated militia" permission that was granted at the Constitutional convention. I imagine Hamilton would be particularly pissed about gun control...
But you have hit my soft spot for legal pedantry. The Federal Government has stated that an individual has the right to bear arms, so the law should fall under scrutiny by the Supreme Court. However, what violates a right isn't always clear. States make restrictions on who is qualified to own a firearm already, and no one considers it a violation of DC v Heller. The California law does enter a grey area, but is by no means a cut and dry violation. We'll have to wait to see how the courts rule.
What? Loibl was the gamergate-lookin' white guy lashing out and murdering the celebrity lady he probably was obsessed with. No one has yet been ID'd in the Orlando gay club terror attack.
Anyway, both incidents are terrible and it's more than high time that america got its shit together about guns and domestic terrorism targeting minorities.
"...Police confirmed there was no known connection between the two shootings."
fix link
http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/12/orlando-shooting-nightclub-pulse-gunman
It's scary how close these two shootings are to eat other, it's almost impossible not to link them. What will it take to call for some stricter gun control?
https://www.periscope.tv/ScottPetersSD/1YpKkpolYOmGj
That's not gonna happen, like in any form; so I just see the current laws as absolute an shitshow no matter how much or little gets done, because I think most everyone can agree the current rules are a shitshow one way or another, and just adding to the shitshow can't cover up the smell or flavor.
But if they say "we're just gonna trash everything and start fresh" then game on.
Chances are a lot of people will push for harder things, a lot of people will push for less and the result won't be far off from today.
I'd be able to write a rulebook on firearms that's pretty comprehensive and fair and would actually address a lot of issues, but still wouldn't be able to cover everything and people'd still be pissed on both sides, so no winning with the sensible compromise, it has to be all or nothing bullshit that turns into a half-measure shitshow at the end after everyone starts to cave a little anyway.
So sit in, demand change, block the cameras, sing songs, shoot guns, yell conspiracy theories online, or make a film in which you illegally purchase a rifle 'legally'... until we remove the tons and tons of crap law in the way and make a new deal that isn't weighed down by 100 years of failed gun control based on reactions to old events, we aren't going to find meaningful progress outside 'all the guns' and putting them in either the has or no-has piles.
A violation to 4473 would have been if they had bought it on behalf of a 3rd party to take ownership, and I'm assuming mostly only if there is not a background check to be had. If the 3rd party is also the seller that could be a 4473 violation; for example if the store said "buy it and then sell it to us in a face-to-face so we don't have to log it being in our possession" then that would be a violation since the store is using the sale to get a rifle off their books. However I'm pretty sure if the sale involves it going back in their inventory log then it's not much of a violation as no-one is concealing the transfer process of the weapon. Depending on specific circumstances I guess it's a bit of a grey area possibly. But I don't see a violation in buying a gun figuring that you can sell it back to a gun shop when you're done with it.