10 shot dead at Batman showing in Denver

Mickeroo wrote: »

Is there anything in place where a dealer has to report someone buying unusually high amounts of ammo and such? Would the amount of rounds this guy bought be considered unusually high?

Dear Lord. I am so sorry guys, but I've written another novella. See what happens when you have time on your hands? :


http://ammoman.com/c/8/223-556

5,56 is typically sold in large batches. The more you purchase, the better the costs. During the 2000's, I had personally purchased several thousand rounds of all manner of ammunition from them. I have also, in my lifetime, owned roughly 2 dozen different types of firearms, some machineguns, one of which was definitely an assault rifle - an HK53. One weekend I put 2400 rounds of 5.56 through it. Compared to my Texan compatriots, I am not considered a very gun-oriented person. Most of my preliminary gun decisions were made for me by my friends, and I took it from there into hunting and bench rest target shooting.

Some states have considered limited ammunition. The road block to that is several recent Supreme Court precedents and decisions which have clearly stated that, in order to protect the right, that all individual parts of the right are equally protected as the right. Most recently the Supreme Court demonstrated this when it came to Super Pac fund raising organizations. Because it has been shown that it is necessary for the media to have funding in order to promote their 1st Amendment right to speech, the court could not abridge the right of SuperPAC's to donate funding to politicians. I don't necessarily agree with it (as well as some gun laws, I might add), but that is the law of the land right there.

This same precedent and decision have led to the Supreme Court finding the handgun ban in Washington DC unconstitutional, as well as parts of the law that forced the owners to store the weapon unloaded, locked, or disassembled. This was one of The Court's first nods to self-defense being a right. In order to exercise the right to self defense, the gun owner should not be forced to store a firearm completely disassembled, or otherwise made inoperable.

The Supreme Court has also acknowledged that firearm ownership is an individual's right, and not simply a state's right.

While I realise many of the persons here are simply venting their frustration, and I do not blame them. Remember, I am living in the middle of it. Or, well, at least in the northwest corner of it. I'm not sure some of the folks commenting here on further gun safety realise just how powerful the second amendment is. I do not expect commenters to be well-versed in US constitutional laws, but I do think a further understanding of how the US became this way, and will stay this way for the foreseeable future, might temper their statements. There is a wealth of knowledge regarding the US Constitutional available on line.

As I said previously, between the amount of firearms available in the US to all parties, the second amendment, and the Supreme Court, that passing future firearms regulations with any real teeth will be difficult.

Let us not also forget the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause:
"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
In other words, the supreme law in the states must be applied to all citizens in the same manner. The state government can not show favouritism or leniency and subjectively or perform arbitrarily in enforcing it's own laws, either.

Many are debating a psychological requirement. We'll ignore the fact Ireland itself doesn't require this, however. The Supreme Court has ruled it is unconstitutional to require unreasonable costs in exercising a person's right. Health care in the US is not socialised as it is in Ireland. In the US, a GP's word on mental health is not enough to declare someone mentally insolvent in most states. You must have a professional psychologist interact with the person in question for several hours, usually at the cost of several hundred dollars. In order for such a law to pass the constitutional test, the state would have to pay for this review. Since they sell millions of firearms in the States every year, this would incur a cost in the billions to the states. It seems that such a law is extremely unlikely to be enacted. Passing a requirement for those that purchase firearms to pay several hundred dollars for the right to even apply to own a firearm is unlikely to pass both the scrutiny of the 2nd and 14th amendments.

I have been labelled defeatist, and perhaps uncaring for the enactment of any new laws. But I am simply laying before you what I see as the hurdles to such new regulations. I have said it before, and say again: The second amendment is the main hurdle you must manage first. And, it seems highly likely the 14th amendment will also have to be tackled as well. I have stated previously, there have been over 10,000 new amendments tabled before congress since the inception of the US, with that resulting in the repeal of just one amendment. I am not holding my breath.

goat2 wrote: »

did he purchase all this firearm stuff from one or many suppliers, and as was stated today on cnn news, he was on little enough earnings which would not afford him all of this, so they say they have to follow the money also, was he really on his own with all of this where did the money come from is one of the questions

He won a grant that is still paying roughly $2,100 per month. His family was also likely helping to support him. His father is a manager at a software company according to the last news report I saw.

He was found competent enough to be entered in to a doctorial degree program by neuro scientists. By all accounts, directly up to the event, those that knew him stated he seemed 'normal, if nerdy'.