Gun Control in the US

AbusesToilets · 26-02-2018 03:25PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

What is the law in regards to threating a person with a firearm (legally held).

In terms of the arming teachers, would a teacher be open to being sued if they pulled the gun out to scare a kid for example?

Yes, absolutely.

GreeBo · 26-02-2018 03:35PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Yes, absolutely.

Also probably get sued if they didn't pull out the gun...funtimes ahead.

eire4 · 26-02-2018 07:47PM

FatherTed wrote: »

Correct but as the gun lovers on here have said, adding insurance/taxes/licences fees etc on guns will infringe on their second amendment rights. They will take it to the supreme court and probably win because Trump is trying to stack the SC with very conservative judges. So we are fooked. That's why I keep saying the second amendment needs to be repealed.

You might be right that the gun nuts would take things like insurance requirements to the supreme court probably they would. However even though it might get shot down by the Republican controlled supreme court I think it is well worth going down this road. I think it is important to more and more put on record in a very public way exactly who is responsible for the continuing blood baths and murders of so many American children and shame them.

We have seen in recent days how the shaming of companies who financially support the NRA has resulted in a number of companies ending that support so I think any way that those who continue to oppose gun regulation are shown up in a very public way for their complicity in the mass killings is a good thing.

looksee · 26-02-2018 09:35PM

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/375620-pa-school-to-close-for-churchs-blessing-ceremony-involving-ar-15s

Children being removed from an elementary school next week because of a 'blessing of guns' in a nearby church. Church authorities have said they will ensure the guns are not loaded - which seems a bit odd, don't the bullets need a blessing too?

dr.fuzzenstein · 26-02-2018 10:09PM

looksee wrote: »

http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/375620-pa-school-to-close-for-churchs-blessing-ceremony-involving-ar-15s

Children being removed from an elementary school next week because of a 'blessing of guns' in a nearby church. Church authorities have said they will ensure the guns are not loaded - which seems a bit odd, don't the bullets need a blessing too?

'murica!

Manic Moran · 28-02-2018 12:02AM

Delaware Supreme Court had a look at a ban on firearms in State parks a couple months ago, the opinion just came across my desk, as it were. It ruled that the prohibition violated the right to bear arms for defense. The opinion, at the bottom of this link, looks at the history of firearms in the State, going back to the mid 1700s.
https://www.delawareonline.com/story/news/local/2017/12/08/gun-ban-delaware-state-parks-unconstitutional-high-court-rules/934091001/

Two observations:

1) Delaware is one of the 40+ States to have a right to arms in the State constitution. The court observed that they had no need to look at the Federal Second Amendment, their own State Constitution was quite sufficient (and very clear on the point). This is the sort of thing which a lot of folks commenting on the Federal 2A keep missing.

2) The lower court, which it reversed, observed that "the need to respond to a threat with a firearm is diminished when firearms are prohibited in the area". The Supreme Court opined that "that conclusion is premised on the questionable notion, unsupported by reference to any evidence, that outlawing possession of a firearm in an area makes law-abiding citizens safer because criminals will, for some reason, obey the Regulations"

The second makes mention to a fairly important principle which is still being debated in the courts, called "standard of scrutiny". The most basic is called "rational basis", i.e., if there is some reasonable correlation between the stated goal of legislation and the legislation itself, it's permitted. This has been explicitly denied by SCOTUS, though which of the two higher levels (intermediate or strict) they want remains to be determined. (Pretty much anything in the bill of rights immediately defaults to one of the two higher). What's important here is that unlike rational basis, there is a burden of proof on the government to support its legislation: If there is a proposal to restrict something, the government has to show why the restriction is related to the goal.

At SCOTUS level, Justice Thomas issued an unusually scathing 14-page dissent on the Supreme Court's refusal to take up a new firearms case this week. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/17pdf/17-342_4hd5.pdf

If a lower court treated another right so cavalierly, I have little doubt that this Court would intervene. But as evidenced by our continued inaction in this area, the Second Amendment is a disfavored right in this Court. Because I do not believe we should be in the business of
choosing which constitutional rights are “really worth insisting upon,” Heller, supra, at 634, I would have granted certiorari in this case [...] If this case involved one of the Court’s more favored rights, I sincerely doubt we would have denied certiorari.

He's not wrong. There is a very clear split in the circuit courts, and everyone knows that SCOTUS is going to have to take up the issue eventually. They are only delaying the inevitable, and in the meantime, a hodgepodge of interpretations are out there.

Cookie_Monster · 28-02-2018 02:54AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

This is the sort of thing which a lot of folks commenting on the Federal 2A keep missing.

Well, not really. Depending on any theoretical re-draft or removal of the 2nd, all state constitutions would have to change to maintain legality with the federal constitution, no?

Manic Moran · 28-02-2018 06:55AM

I think it would depend very much on the re-write.

Bearing in mind this is fairly virgin territory. The Constitution grants specific authorizations to the Federal Government, but generally speaking, outside of those, it is more a limitation on what the federal government can’t do. Don’t forget the Tenth Amendment reserves all rights not specifically given to to the federal government to the States.

If the federal Constitution were to be amended to state “The manufacture, sale or possession of firearms is prohibited”, then , yes, that would be a superseding. However, that requires the votes of 3/4 of the States, and I am not sure if a State delegation can vote for something specifically in contravention of their own Constitutions, so such amendment may not possibly happen in the first place. I honestly don’t know of anyone has considered it.

The closest precedent was Prohibition, but there are at least two major and one minor differences. Firstly, prohibition said nothing about personal possession. If you had booze, you could keep it as long as you want. Unsure why this was the case. Maybe someone decided that the constitutional prohibition on ex post facto laws applied to Constitutional amendments. Secondly, there was no State right to booze. (Indeed a number of States already prohibited it). Thirdly, it is impossible to determine the location of manufacture of booze, which brings us to the current State-internal question, and particularly marijuana.

There is no doubting that the Feds prohibit marijuana for all uses. To the extent that they will target banks that hold money created by the marijuana trade. (Which is causing a new set of headaches in the States). There is also no doubting that despite this prohibition, the States don’t care, and it remains legal at the State and local level. This rather fuzzy situation seems to be despite current case law, Gonzales v Raich. This is the case where the Supreme Court decided that the Feds could restrict marijuana grown in California for use in California under the premise of commerce clause (I.e. interstate transactions). This was a split decision, and not along “party lines”, you had Thomas siding with O ‘Connor in the dissent, for example, and Alito with Breyer in the majority.

Raich made two relevant observations. First, that federal power was not unlimited with firearms, citing the Lopez case. That overruled the Federal Gun Free School Zones Act (the Feds attempted to prohibit guns in schools) on the basis that carrying guns in schools bore no relevance to interstate commerce. The second was that the argument of “in California is for Californians” did not suffice, because it would be impossible for the Feds to determine if cannabis found was from California or some other State.

This led to a number of States passing a form of nullification law. Some, like Kansas’, were well out of bounds of reality: Kansas made it illegal for federal agents to enforce federal firearms law within the State. That didn’t get anywhere with the courts. Montana’s was a little more creative. It made clear that firearms and ammunition, clearly marked as “Made in Montana”, should not be subject to federal law within Montana. This got as far as the 9th Circuit, which held that markings or no markings, the firearms could cross State lines. I would be very curious to see how SCOTUS would take that in view of Raich. However, SCOTUS has been running from 2A cases, and this was no different, it refused to take up the appeal.

The last plan, being adopted by a few States is basically similar to the propositions put forward by sanctuary states with immigration enforcement. “We can’t stop your Federal Agents from enforcing federal firearms law to the best of your ability, but we are absolutely not going to co-operate or help”.

The last possibility, which would be particularly interesting, would be if the State itself started firearms manufacturing as a governmental service. Not sure the level of immunity.

Sweg · 03-03-2018 02:52PM

Banning guns just means that law-abiding citizens won't have guns, criminals on the other hand.....

Brian? · 03-03-2018 05:49PM

Sweg wrote: »

Banning guns just means that law-abiding citizens won't have guns, criminals on the other hand.....

Who wants to ban guns?

This straw man is trotted out repeatedly.

Leroy42 · 03-03-2018 06:19PM

Sweg wrote: »

Banning guns just means that law-abiding citizens won't have guns, criminals on the other hand.....

I totally agree. Luckily USA has by far the highest private ownership rates in the non-war world, and with it has the lowest crime rates.

Oh wait....

Manic Moran · 03-03-2018 06:32PM

I totally agree. Luckily USA has by far the highest private ownership rates in the non-war world, and with it has the lowest crime rates.

Disarming the law-abiding isn't likely to help lower the crime rates. Solution likely lies somewhere else.

Cruz apparently used limited-capacity magazines. I don't understand why, but the claim is that the standard 30s didn't fit in his bag well, so he just used tens.

Leroy42 · 03-03-2018 06:36PM

Manic Moran wrote: »

Disarming the law-abiding isn't likely to help lower the crime rates. Solution likely lies somewhere else.

Cruz apparently used limited-capacity magazines. I don't understand why, but the claim is that the standard 30s didn't fit in his bag well, so he just used tens.

I was replying to a post that suggested that taking away guns would leave people defenceless against the criminals.

The crime rates do not back this assertion up. Crime rates, based on that argument, should be much lower in the US than other countries but they are not.

So people need to remove this fear that criminals are waiting to ambush them. In the main, most criminals want cash, goods. They don't want to be gunning people down.

So make an argument for guns of you wish, but lower crime rates is not one of them.

AbusesToilets · 03-03-2018 06:43PM

Brian? wrote: »

Who wants to ban guns?

This straw man is trotted out repeatedly.

Hardly a straw man when the desire to ban semi auto rifles is considered a starting point for many in here and elsewhere.

AbusesToilets · 03-03-2018 06:44PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I was replying to a post that suggested that taking away guns would leave people defenceless against the criminals.

The crime rates do not back this assertion up. Crime rates, based on that argument, should be much lower in the US than other countries but they are not.

So people need to remove this fear that criminals are waiting to ambush them. In the main, most criminals want cash, goods. They don't want to be gunning people down.

So make an argument for guns of you wish, but lower crime rates is not one of them.

These aren't mutually exclusive. Crime rates can be low, as they are now, and one can still worry about being defenseless against an armed criminal.

Leroy42 · 03-03-2018 06:48PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Hardly a straw man when the desire to ban semi auto rifles is considered a starting point for many in here and elsewhere.

They they mean banning all guns, not many people are advocating that.

Is that the real fear, that by giving even an inch the creep will start and eventually all guns will be gone? Because that seems to be part of the thinking of the NRA. Don't allow any movement on age etc as it is the slippery slope.

So we just have to put up with the death and destruction for fear of what may happen in the future.

Even the debate is allowed to centre just on the number who are killed. The last school shooting resulted in 17 dead, but how many were terrorised? Hundreds I would say. Including teachers. But it is a price worth paying to allow people to have military grade weapons.

Leroy42 · 03-03-2018 06:51PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

These aren't mutually exclusive. Crime rates can be low, as they are now, and one can still worry about being defenseless against an armed criminal.

But if you are going to make an argument that taken guns off the public will leave the criminals with guns, then one should at least be able to show the difference that having these guns (the current situation) is having on crime.

Statistically, the US does not have less crime than non-gun owning countries, so that argument simply falls in the face of the facts.

Now you could argue that crime might be higher still without them, but since nobody can show that it would be an opinion based on nothing and therefore can be treated as nothing more than an opinion.

AbusesToilets · 03-03-2018 07:19PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if you are going to make an argument that taken guns off the public will leave the criminals with guns, then one should at least be able to show the difference that having these guns (the current situation) is having on crime.

Statistically, the US does not have less crime than non-gun owning countries, so that argument simply falls in the face of the facts.

Now you could argue that crime might be higher still without them, but since nobody can show that it would be an opinion based on nothing and therefore can be treated as nothing more than an opinion.

Perhaps, as you say, it's hard to prove a negative. At the end of the day, the fact is criminals do utilise guns, so in my efforts to protect my family, I would be remiss if I didn't take appropriate steps to counter that threat.

AbusesToilets · 03-03-2018 07:22PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

They they mean banning all guns, not many people are advocating that.

Is that the real fear, that by giving even an inch the creep will start and eventually all guns will be gone? Because that seems to be part of the thinking of the NRA. Don't allow any movement on age etc as it is the slippery slope.

So we just have to put up with the death and destruction for fear of what may happen in the future.

Even the debate is allowed to centre just on the number who are killed. The last school shooting resulted in 17 dead, but how many were terrorised? Hundreds I would say. Including teachers. But it is a price worth paying to allow people to have military grade weapons.

This isn't an unwarranted fear, no more than it is for those on the Pro-choice side of abortion. The goals and methodologies of both the 'Anti" sides are the same; incremental steps aimed at restricting and parsing the Right out of existence, or as good as.

You're being disingenuous imo if you can't acknowledge this.

Brian? · 03-03-2018 09:35PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Hardly a straw man when the desire to ban semi auto rifles is considered a starting point for many in here and elsewhere.

Burn that straw man! BURN HIM!

No one is talking about banning guns. Some people are talking about new restrictions on certain guns. Come on.

Brian? · 03-03-2018 09:39PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

This isn't an unwarranted fear, no more than it is for those on the Pro-choice side of abortion. The goals and methodologies of both the 'Anti" sides are the same; incremental steps aimed at restricting and parsing the Right out of existence, or as good as.

You're being disingenuous imo if you can't acknowledge this.

“It’s the thin end of the wedge, it’s an attack on our 2nd amendment rights”. How come you don’t have the same view of restrictions on fully auto weapons?

Or flamethrowers

Or surface to air missiles.

Leroy42 · 03-03-2018 09:55PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Perhaps, as you say, it's hard to prove a negative. At the end of the day, the fact is criminals do utilise guns, so in my efforts to protect my family, I would be remiss if I didn't take appropriate steps to counter that threat.

I don't have to prove a negative, the statistics already tell the story. I merely pointed out that there is the possibility that the guns have reduced the rate below that which it would be, but that is for gun advocates to prove, since that is what part of their argument is based on.

My argument is that having all these guns makes no difference to the crime rate, a position backed up by the fact that US crime rates are no lower than other countries with much lower gun ownership levels.

AbusesToilets wrote: »

This isn't an unwarranted fear, no more than it is for those on the Pro-choice side of abortion. The goals and methodologies of both the 'Anti" sides are the same; incremental steps aimed at restricting and parsing the Right out of existence, or as good as.

You're being disingenuous imo if you can't acknowledge this.

So you think that laws should only ever be brought in and left as is, if there is any possibility of movement then the law should be rejected? So you are against speed limits, or drinking age, or what amount age of consent?

Of course it is a concern of any citizen about law creep, but that is the job of the citizens to hold the politicians to account. But it doesn't mean that no laws should ever be brought in.

AbusesToilets · 03-03-2018 11:47PM

Brian? wrote: »

Burn that straw man! BURN HIM!

No one is talking about banning guns. Some people are talking about new restrictions on certain guns. Come on.

Are you being serious right now? I consider you a solid contributor to threads from experience, but I can't believe you would be this deliberately obtuse. Multiple folks in this thread and elsewhere in the greater media have openly stated a desire to ban "assault rifles, semi auto rifles, all guns in general.

AbusesToilets · 03-03-2018 11:49PM

Leroy42 wrote: »

I don't have to prove a negative, the statistics already tell the story. I merely pointed out that there is the possibility that the guns have reduced the rate below that which it would be, but that is for gun advocates to prove, since that is what part of their argument is based on.

My argument is that having all these guns makes no difference to the crime rate, a position backed up by the fact that US crime rates are no lower than other countries with much lower gun ownership levels.

So you think that laws should only ever be brought in and left as is, if there is any possibility of movement then the law should be rejected? So you are against speed limits, or drinking age, or what amount age of consent?

Of course it is a concern of any citizen about law creep, but that is the job of the citizens to hold the politicians to account. But it doesn't mean that no laws should ever be brought in.

I'm not against any new laws when it comes to firearms. I am absolutely against banning semi auto rifles. I don't know how many different ways I could say the same thing.

And at the end of the day, if new laws were passed to change the 2nd or introduce such a ban, I would follow it, being law abiding and all.

Manic Moran · 04-03-2018 04:41AM

Leroy42 wrote: »

But if you are going to make an argument that taken guns off the public will leave the criminals with guns, then one should at least be able to show the difference that having these guns (the current situation) is having on crime.

Statistically, the US does not have less crime than non-gun owning countries, so that argument simply falls in the face of the facts.

Now you could argue that crime might be higher still without them, but since nobody can show that it would be an opinion based on nothing and therefore can be treated as nothing more than an opinion.

This argument is exclusively at the macro level, however. Basically, you're playing the odds. If the chances of being on the receiving end of crime are less than X per 100,000 citizens, then all is good, and the assessment ends. Any crimes committed on citizens are just their misfortune, and they are limited as to what they can do about it.

Where we see a difference between the American attitude and the British/Irish one, however, is that the Americans continue on to the next question. "If I am one of those 12 per 100,000 citizens (Insert number here), then what?" Possession of lawful firearms has not been particularly proven to adjust crime rates up or down in the US at the macro scale. I'm quite happy to stipulate to this. At the micro scale, however, in the case of "I am the individual currently at the shop when someone decides to conduct an armed robbery", or "I am the individual at home when someone breaks in", the chances of a positive outcome for the crime victim are higher, especially when the victim in question is not of the typical demographic of the criminal (i.e., healthy, strong, young male). It is certainly not a guarantee of a positive outcome, but when society maths has failed and you have fallen victim to the odds, at least there's a viable backup plan. Especially in places where the local cop can take a while to get to you.

Leroy42 · 04-03-2018 10:17AM

Manic Moran wrote: »

This argument is exclusively at the macro level, however. Basically, you're playing the odds. If the chances of being on the receiving end of crime are less than X per 100,000 citizens, then all is good, and the assessment ends. Any crimes committed on citizens are just their misfortune, and they are limited as to what they can do about it.

Well of course they are the macro level, it would be impossible to draft any laws when every persons individual view had to met. Unfortunately, there is no way to fully negate all crime, there are just some people who won't abide by the rules, by the statistics simply do not back up the assertion that having guns is making any difference. The odds on meeting resistance in the US by a gun owner is far higher than in other countries yet it doesn't seem to reduce the level of crime, yet it is only in the US that people feel scared enough to warrant the free use of weapons by everyone.

It is unhealthy, and I would would say, impossible, to live any other way. The odds of the plane crashing are low, but it could happen. So why does anyone fly,or drive, or cross the street, or eat bacon, or drink, or smoke or....

Manic Moran wrote: »

Where we see a difference between the American attitude and the British/Irish one, however, is that the Americans continue on to the next question. "If I am one of those 12 per 100,000 citizens (Insert number here), then what?" Possession of lawful firearms has not been particularly proven to adjust crime rates up or down in the US at the macro scale. I'm quite happy to stipulate to this. At the micro scale, however, in the case of "I am the individual currently at the shop when someone decides to conduct an armed robbery", or "I am the individual at home when someone breaks in", the chances of a positive outcome for the crime victim are higher, especially when the victim in question is not of the typical demographic of the criminal (i.e., healthy, strong, young male). It is certainly not a guarantee of a positive outcome, but when society maths has failed and you have fallen victim to the odds, at least there's a viable backup plan. Especially in places where the local cop can take a while to get to you.

So even though the statistics do not back up this assertion you want to bring it down to the individual level. OK. Lets look at this logically then.

I totally agree that there is fear of being caught up in crime, that exists everywhere, to greater or lessor extent. So lets consider the scenario.

You want everyone to be able to access any type of firearm on the basis that at some point they may be faced with a criminal. So they first need to be caught up in the event, they then need to be not caught by surprise, have access to the gun, not have the criminal demand the gun (which they would as they will think you have one), and then if all of this is true, to be able fashion a situation where you get a chance to take a shot at the perp.

And the price for all this? Criminals come into situations (on which they have the element of surprise) knowing that they need to be armed and prepared to shoot. You have the massive number of shooting accidents every year. The large number of questionable shootings by police officers who are, in many cases, in constant fear of the person they just stopped having access to a firearm. The almost daily school shootings. Attacks such as the Orlando nightclub, Las Vegas, Texas church.

So, in a nutshell, you are prepared so all these people, and countless others into the future, including all those that may that are injured and traumatised, on the basis that you should be prepared for an event that may never happen and even if it does statistically the outcomes are no different.

Brian? · 04-03-2018 01:53PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Are you being serious right now? I consider you a solid contributor to threads from experience, but I can't believe you would be this deliberately obtuse. Multiple folks in this thread and elsewhere in the greater media have openly stated a desire to ban "assault rifles, semi auto rifles, all guns in general.

I am being 100% sincere, if a little light hearted in my response.

Banning all guns in the US is simply not under discussion.

Brian? · 04-03-2018 01:56PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

This isn't an unwarranted fear, no more than it is for those on the Pro-choice side of abortion. The goals and methodologies of both the 'Anti" sides are the same; incremental steps aimed at restricting and parsing the Right out of existence, or as good as.

You're being disingenuous imo if you can't acknowledge this.

The "thin end of a wedge" argument? It's exactly the argument use to whip up hysteria and block ANY gun law reform.

AbusesToilets · 04-03-2018 02:49PM

Brian? wrote: »

The "thin end of a wedge" argument? It's exactly the argument use to whip up hysteria and block ANY gun law reform.

You say it's not on the table, but other posters in this thread and activists in the US have openly stated such desires, repeatedly. I don't consider the idea of banning semi auto rifles as some sort of compromise either, nor an idea that would have any meaningful impact on reducing deaths.

Anti-gun folks want a spectacular win, so to speak. A repeat of the Assault Weapons Ban or something similar. There is a strong chance of passing laws that could gain consensus and have an positive outcome. Better background checks, education, policing initiatives, and most fundamentally, improving mental health care.

Leroy42 · 04-03-2018 02:59PM

AbusesToilets wrote: »

You say it's not on the table, but other posters in this thread and activists in the US have openly stated such desires, repeatedly. I don't consider the idea of banning semi auto rifles as some sort of compromise either, nor an idea that would have any meaningful impact on reducing deaths.

Anti-gun folks want a spectacular win, so to speak. A repeat of the Assault Weapons Ban or something similar. There is a strong chance of passing laws that could gain consensus and have an positive outcome. Better background checks, education, policing initiatives, and most fundamentally, improving mental health care.

You have entirely created this 'thin edge of the wedge' stuff yourself in order to create an enemy to fight against.

As I said earlier, that argument could be taken to stop any law. Why allow speed limits, they'll only lower them? Why ban some drugs, they'll ban everything soon. Why have an age of consent, sure they'll outlaw sex in total soon.

Its a nonsense, another ungrounded fear. For such a brave and free country they live in perpetual fear of the future.

Gun Control in the US

Comments