Gun Control Laws - Where are we really? Where to go? (1 Viewer)

[moleculo]

Some yokel carrying his assault rifle into Starbucks isn't a well-regulated militia.

I agree that he's a yokel, but the Supreme Court would disagree with you regarding your interpretation of 2A

That's the problem right there, in a nutshell.

People absolutely should not be open carrying a high capacity semi-automatic weapon into a retail/school/church/etc environment.  Full stop.  Any law that leads towards that being OK should be changed.   The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

 

[The Commish]

If you go back and read my comment in context, it was referring to the right to bear arms was for all parties (race/gender) from the outset, whereas the right to vote required amendment to  apply to women or blacks/African-Americans. 

I don't think that was an accident. 

I don't either.  It's a direct reflection on the opinion of white men on minorities and women.  It was pretty gross and got remedied eventually, but there's no question there was value of guns over those groups of people unfortunately.  However, one can't ignore the entirety of what was going on during the time.  The 2A didn't apply to slaves...they had no rights and once they got their rights, the "slave codes" were moved to "black codes" and African Americans continued to have their Constitutional rights absolutely trampled.

Remember, back at the beginning of this country the 2A was interpreted in a very literal sense.  You had to be in a militia.  Guess who wasn't allowed in militias.  That's one example out of dozens and we could go on for pages and pages about our history, but I don't think there is a point.  Your initial comment struck me as odd knowing what happened during that time of our country's existence.  

 

[Stealthycat]

You think people armed with ARs is going to matter?  This isn't musket vs musket.

what happened in Ukraine vs Russia ?

 

[Stealthycat]

That's the problem right there, in a nutshell.

People absolutely should not be open carrying a high capacity semi-automatic weapon into a retail/school/church/etc environment.  Full stop.  Any law that leads towards that being OK should be changed.   The Constitution is not a suicide pact.

and such a law would have stopped the Uvalde shooter ?

c'mon .... these people walk right through laws

you'd take this woman's right to self defense and your suggestion would have led to another mass shooting. do you see that ?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/28/armed-woman-kills-man-firing-rifle-party/9975381002/

 

[bostonfred]

If the Supreme Court disagrees with the interpretation then we just need to watch kids die until enough people are willing to vote for a constitutional amendment or to change the structure of the Supreme Court.  

Icon you never answered my question about how many kids you needed to see die to change your mind.   You've clearly stated that school shootings don't make up a high enough percentage of gun deaths, so how many kids will it take for you?   

 

[moleculo]

I'm definitely following.  You're just choosing to ignore the solution. No system can identify every potentially suicidal person but you can impede their ability to quickly make an irrevocable decision that harms themselves or others. 

You can't identify people who have a bad day before they have a bad day.  You can't identify people with undiagnosed mental health issues without a diagnosis, although I do also support universal healthcare and if this is the issue that drives more support of universal healthcare then I'm all for it.  

This is why the mental health angle is particularly problematic.  You stigmatize every person with legitimate mental health issues by labeling them a potential murderer or suicidal. And that prevents people from getting help for their problems. 

But you know that it's impossible to solve the mental health problem - you certainly won't make everyone who wants to buy a gun go through a full psychological examination. So you can just throw up your hands and say oh it's mental health there's nothing that can be done, then you can pretend to care.  

Firearms are the tool used in half of all suicides, and 60% of all gun deaths are suicides. Waiting periods, registration, and liability for the gun owners if their weapons are used in a crime are all significant impediments to rash decisions particularly by the thousands of young men who kill themselves each year and they do not prevent you from bearing arms. It's a simple and effective compromise. 

this sounds similar to the argument that banning assault rifles won't stop all shootings.  If we can better identify 50%, isn't that a good thing?

Let's do both.

 

[bostonfred]

and such a law would have stopped the Uvalde shooter ?

c'mon .... these people walk right through laws

you'd take this woman's right to self defense and your suggestion would have led to another mass shooting. do you see that ?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/28/armed-woman-kills-man-firing-rifle-party/9975381002/

This except exactly the opposite

The Uvalde shooter waited until he was 18 to legally buy an AR-15 and murdered 21 people with it while people with legally owned guns didn't act in self defense or to prevent a mass shooting. 

 

[moleculo]

and such a law would have stopped the Uvalde shooter ?

c'mon .... these people walk right through laws

you'd take this woman's right to self defense and your suggestion would have led to another mass shooting. do you see that ?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/28/armed-woman-kills-man-firing-rifle-party/9975381002/

the Uvalde guy bought his guns legally, and I said nothing about her right to conceal carry a pistol

 

[The Commish]

I think the realities of the Heller decision are beginning to sink in.  I have no real problem with the ruling.  Everyone in the country is part of the militia etc.  That said, and I said this when Heller was decided, it's a double edged sword.  Now the entirety of the country's behavior is to be taken into consideration when determining if the militia is well regulated and healthy.  Constitution doesn't say "mostly well regulated".  We are only as good as our weakest link.  

 

[Stealthycat]

Yes. 

I see a reoccurring them , people seem to not care about really about suicide or murder, they really don't

They are super concerned if someone uses a scary looking gun to kill somebody else. 

They are concerned if someone uses a gun to kill themselves or somebody else. 

They are not concerned at all about people using other methods of suicide. They are not concerned with people using other weapons and killing people. They are not really concerned about people dying, because nobody wants to discuss all the deaths that people and children suffer through other ways. 

CNN and media shows an AR15 and dead people - and that's what people are focused on. 

This is repeated over and over and over and over throughout the last 20 years it seems. Media glamourizes a tragedy, and anti-gun people get another little piece of anti-gun legislation and hail it as a success and talk about how much they've done .... Biden has been doing this for what, 50 years? Gun legislation and promising results?

So new laws are passed and the core problem (the people doing these things) are again and again overlooked and the results are, we still have mass shootings and people killing people. All those stacks of new laws did nothing because the core problem is ignored.

rinse, repeat :(  

 

[John123]

We hear often "just enforce the laws already on the books"...which laws are not being enforced?  Are they all good laws?  Is some revamping necessary since we don't enforce such things and are there ways to improve the current laws to make us all safer?

It's not just about laws.  In the Uvalde case, the cops violated their own department policies/protocols regarding active shooter situations, which had been drilled in to them again recently.  Not only were they cowards, they held back the heroes who ultimately took the guy out by an hour until those people basically told them go to hell and went in and took the guy out.  What's the point in having action plans and drilling for such situations if the people you hired and rely on to carry out those plans are cowards who refuse to act?  We saw the same thing in Florida. 

The laws that need to be enforced vary from incident to incident but quite often we find laws that haven't been enforced or, in the case of the Buffalo shooter and the NY red flag law, not taken advantage of when they could have been.

 

[Stealthycat]

the Uvalde guy bought his guns legally, and I said nothing about her right to conceal carry a pistol

how many laws did he break going onto the school grounds with a gun ? the law you suggest already exists, doesn't it ?

and your suggested law would likely have kept that lady from carrying - and not being able to stop the murderer dead

you see that, right ?

 

[Stealthycat]

It's not just about laws.  In the Uvalde case, the cops violated their own department policies/protocols regarding active shooter situations, which had been drilled in to them again recently.  Not only were they cowards, they held back the heroes who ultimately took the guy out by an hour until those people basically told them go to hell and went in and took the guy out.

anti-gun people want police to protect everyone vs people having the right to protect themselves

they don't see how that worked in Uvalde ?

 

[moleculo]

how many laws did he break going onto the school grounds with a gun ? the law you suggest already exists, doesn't it ?

and your suggested law would likely have kept that lady from carrying - and not being able to stop the murderer dead

you see that, right ?

nope.  I'm suggesting any laws that lead to people open carrying high capacity semi-automatic weapons in public need to be curtailed.  

 

[moleculo]

I see a reoccurring them , people seem to not care about really about suicide or murder, they really don't

They are super concerned if someone uses a scary looking gun to kill somebody else. 

They are concerned if someone uses a gun to kill themselves or somebody else. 

They are not concerned at all about people using other methods of suicide. They are not concerned with people using other weapons and killing people. They are not really concerned about people dying, because nobody wants to discuss all the deaths that people and children suffer through other ways. 

CNN and media shows an AR15 and dead people - and that's what people are focused on. 

This is repeated over and over and over and over throughout the last 20 years it seems. Media glamourizes a tragedy, and anti-gun people get another little piece of anti-gun legislation and hail it as a success and talk about how much they've done .... Biden has been doing this for what, 50 years? Gun legislation and promising results?

So new laws are passed and the core problem (the people doing these things) are again and again overlooked and the results are, we still have mass shootings and people killing people. All those stacks of new laws did nothing because the core problem is ignored.

rinse, repeat :(  

toothless laws have been  passed.  anything that would actually make a difference gets shouted down because people like you insist on maintaining convenience of their neat hobby.

 

[Stealthycat]

I think the realities of the Heller decision are beginning to sink in.  I have no real problem with the ruling.  Everyone in the country is part of the militia etc.  That said, and I said this when Heller was decided, it's a double edged sword.  Now the entirety of the country's behavior is to be taken into consideration when determining if the militia is well regulated and healthy.  Constitution doesn't say "mostly well regulated".  We are only as good as our weakest link.  

lets work to identify these killers, commit them for a long time or life even .... them being in society just isn't acceptable because of the threat they pose to themselves and others

CNN and most major media do NOT show how often these people are caught ... we also don't know how often they are revolving door violence :(

look specifically at the one in red ...

 I wonder if .... Santos had connections to those two ?

"On April 25, 2018, authorities obtained juvenile directives to take the students into custody, in which prosecutors charged them for conspiracy to commit murder. They were placed in a juvenile detention facility in Del Rio."

At least they jailed them 

https://www.local10.com/news/florida/2022/05/30/deputies-florida-teen-arrested-after-threatening-to-conduct-school-shooting/

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2022/05/30/fifth-grader-arrested-mass-shooting-threat-florida/9992440002/

https://www.newsweek.com/florida-10-year-old-arrested-mass-shooting-threats-1711262

https://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/ny-student-16-arrested-for-threatening-mass-shooting-at-high-school-police/3709440/

https://www.ksat.com/news/local/2022/05/27/in-2018-uvalde-police-arrested-2-teens-for-plotting-columbine-style-mass-shooting-at-middle-school/

https://krdo.com/news/2022/05/30/man-arrested-for-making-threat-to-commit-school-shooting-in-facebook-post/

 

[Stealthycat]

toothless laws have been  passed.  anything that would actually make a difference gets shouted down because people like you insist on maintaining convenience of their neat hobby.

toothless ?

background checks, age limits, the things anti-gun side wanted and insisted on are "toothless" ? laws written dozens of ways to say "don't kill people' are toothless? 

they why the hell did anti-gun side insist on them ?

 

[timschochet]

It's not just about laws.  In the Uvalde case, the cops violated their own department policies/protocols regarding active shooter situations, which had been drilled in to them again recently.  Not only were they cowards, they held back the heroes who ultimately took the guy out by an hour until those people basically told them go to hell and went in and took the guy out.  What's the point in having action plans and drilling for such situations if the people you hired and rely on to carry out those plans are cowards who refuse to act?  We saw the same thing in Florida. 

The laws that need to be enforced vary from incident to incident but quite often we find laws that haven't been enforced or, in the case of the Buffalo shooter and the NY red flag law, not taken advantage of when they could have been.

Of course laws have to be enforced. But in terms of gun access, we need more restrictive laws in the first place. 

 

[moleculo]

toothless ?

background checks, age limits, the things anti-gun side wanted and insisted on are "toothless" ? laws written dozens of ways to say "don't kill people' are toothless? 

they why the hell did anti-gun side insist on them ?

yes.  Toothless.

why did they insist?  Because you guys stomp your feet and whine any time anything meaningful gets proposed.

 

[John123]

Of course laws have to be enforced. But in terms of gun access, we need more restrictive laws in the first place. 

Says you.  And when those laws don't work, we'll need more restrictive laws.  And when those laws don't work we'll need more restrictive laws.  Rinse and repeat. 

 

[Stealthycat]

nope.  I'm suggesting any laws that lead to people open carrying high capacity semi-automatic weapons in public need to be curtailed.  

right

and murderers will ignore them, and law abiding people will be defenseless and waiting on police to act

just like Uvalde - how'd that work out ?

I'm serious - anti-gun people got what they wanted in Uvalde. Laws saying don't kill, don't go on school ground with guns, unarmed school with lax security so the kids wouldn't "feel" a certain way and school teachers who couldn't carry guns and a police force to protect the school if something went wrong

That didn't work well at all did it ?

33 miles away

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELCJXtGW4AI3JrU.jpg

 

[Stealthycat]

yes.  Toothless.

why did they insist?  Because you guys stomp your feet and whine any time anything meaningful gets proposed.

well, thanks for admitting your side passes toothless laws that don't mean much - that's a start

if you knew for a fact no new laws targeting law abiding gun owners would pass ... what laws targeting criminals would you suggest?

laws that would identify these murderers .... can you suggest anything at all ?

 

[Stealthycat]

Says you.  And when those laws don't work, we'll need more restrictive laws.  And when those laws don't work we'll need more restrictive laws.  Rinse and repeat. 

that's what has happened for 20 years - moleculo just admitted the laws are toothless 

 

[moleculo]

right

and murderers will ignore them, and law abiding people will be defenseless and waiting on police to act

just like Uvalde - how'd that work out ?

I'm serious - anti-gun people got what they wanted in Uvalde. Laws saying don't kill, don't go on school ground with guns, unarmed school with lax security so the kids wouldn't "feel" a certain way and school teachers who couldn't carry guns and a police force to protect the school if something went wrong

That didn't work well at all did it ?

33 miles away

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELCJXtGW4AI3JrU.jpg

let me  be clear - I don't want anyone to have high capacity, high caliber semi-automatic weapons available... to anyone.   

further, I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti AR-15.  

 

[Stealthycat]

Of course laws have to be enforced.

of all the background checks that were failed .... in the last couple of years ... how many were prosecuted ?

any idea ?

 

[timschochet]

Says you.  And when those laws don't work, we'll need more restrictive laws.  And when those laws don't work we'll need more restrictive laws.  Rinse and repeat. 

I want universal background checks, red flag laws, and moving up the age to purchase AR-15s. Why shouldn’t any of these laws work? 

 

[moleculo]

well, thanks for admitting your side passes toothless laws that don't mean much - that's a start

if you knew for a fact no new laws targeting law abiding gun owners would pass ... what laws targeting criminals would you suggest?

laws that would identify these murderers .... can you suggest anything at all ?

If you can propose a way to identify people who would commit a mass shooting, I'm all ears.  How do you propose such a thing?

 

[Stealthycat]

let me  be clear - I don't want anyone to have high capacity, high caliber semi-automatic weapons available... to anyone.   

further, I'm not anti-gun, I'm anti AR-15.  

so you don't mind shooters using shorguns and handguns, just not a scary looking AR15 ?

a person carrying a 9mm with 9 and 1 is ok with you ?

just being clear here

 

[John123]

that's what has happened for 20 years - moleculo just admitted the laws are toothless 

Yes, and KarmaPolice admitted to me earlier that he'd still be in favor of additional gun control even if the ONLY people getting hurt were the shooter's themselves via suicide.  I can't speak for others, but I put suicide in to it's own category that shouldn't even be in this discussion.  I won't ever find common ground with people that want to use suicide as a reason for more gun control.  Full Stop.

 

[timschochet]

yes.  Toothless.

why did they insist?  Because you guys stomp your feet and whine any time anything meaningful gets proposed.

The poster you’re responding to has questioned the legitimacy of what happened at Sandy Hook. Many of us have resolved that it is better not to respond at all to this poster. 

 

[John123]

I want universal background checks, red flag laws, and moving up the age to purchase AR-15s. Why shouldn’t any of these laws work? 

NY has a red flag law.  They dropped the ball and people died.  The kid in Uvalde passed a background check.  And he would have used other weapons if he didn't have an AR-15.  And then you would have wanted whatever other weapon he used instead banned. 

 

[JIslander]

right

and murderers will ignore them, and law abiding people will be defenseless and waiting on police to act

just like Uvalde - how'd that work out ?

I'm serious - anti-gun people got what they wanted in Uvalde. Laws saying don't kill, don't go on school ground with guns, unarmed school with lax security so the kids wouldn't "feel" a certain way and school teachers who couldn't carry guns and a police force to protect the school if something went wrong

That didn't work well at all did it ?

33 miles away

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ELCJXtGW4AI3JrU.jpg

wat?  the scenerio couldn't have been set more at Uvalde for just what you pro gun people want.  Good guys with guns everywhere.  How'd that work out?

 

[Stealthycat]

I want universal background checks, red flag laws, and moving up the age to purchase AR-15s. Why shouldn’t any of these laws work? 

have your background checks worked? Red Flag IF THEY ARE DONE RIGHT I could maybe get along with. 21 to buy an AR as well but again, those are toothless

you know that, and when they fail and mass murders continue .... then what will you suggest ?

lets be honest - your side will ask for more laws, restrictions and bans - that's a 100% truth isn't it ?

 

[[icon]]

Have you considered the idea that only talking about mental health in conjunction with gun violence further stigmatizes mental health issues and thus makes it more difficult for people to access care?

Except the conversation is about ways to improve access to care and identify and help those in crisis.
 

At least IMO it is... which makes it bizzare that everyone is afraid to talk about it.

Data CLEARLY shows a pattern wrt mental health crisis as a key contributing fact to suicide which is the largest factor in gun-related deaths.  

Any aversion to addressing that angle in conjunction with refining gun control is a huge red flag that you're not serious about helping the problem... and are more concerned with piggybacking a crisis to further an agenda. 

 

[Stealthycat]

wat?  the scenerio couldn't have been set more at Uvalde for just what you pro gun people want.  Good guys with guns everywhere.  How'd that work out?

wat?

teachers didn't have guns, did they? no armed guards were there to stop the shooter were they? any citizens that did have guns, your police force that is there to stop these people didn't do anything for what, 80 minutes ?

no - what I'd lobby for didn't happen at all 

Uvalde ... a known young man with issues from a terribly broken home, school was pretty much defenseless, wide open and for some reason, the police force that people want for protection (because they don't want to do it themselves) failed horribly

and thus, Uvalde

 

[Stealthycat]

The poster you’re responding to has questioned the legitimacy of what happened at Sandy Hook. Many of us have resolved that it is better not to respond at all to this poster. 

lol

you can use my name - its ok to disagree, but at least bring something to the table to make your case?  that's the entire concept of discussions/message boards isn't it ?

 

[[icon]]

If you can propose a way to identify people who would commit a mass shooting, I'm all ears.  How do you propose such a thing?

For starters we can listen / report when the majority of them announce their intentions in advance.... 

And that's just if we are talking low hanging fruit... 

Ad others have posted there are clear data points that are associated with suicide attempts as well... maybe start identifying those people and getting them help 
 

 

[JIslander]

wat?

teachers didn't have guns, did they? no armed guards were there to stop the shooter were they? any citizens that did have guns, your police force that is there to stop these people didn't do anything for what, 80 minutes ?

no - what I'd lobby for didn't happen at all 

Uvalde ... a known young man with issues from a terribly broken home, school was pretty much defenseless, wide open and for some reason, the police force that people want for protection (because they don't want to do it themselves) failed horribly

and thus, Uvalde

Your good guys with guns were there and they failed.  More guns doesn't work.

 

[RCon]

Your good guys with guns were there and they failed.  More guns doesn't work.

The new talking point is "better guys with better guns".

 

[[icon]]

If the Supreme Court disagrees with the interpretation then we just need to watch kids die until enough people are willing to vote for a constitutional amendment or to change the structure of the Supreme Court.  

Icon you never answered my question about how many kids you needed to see die to change your mind.   You've clearly stated that school shootings don't make up a high enough percentage of gun deaths, so how many kids will it take for you?   

You must have missed the 10 point plan I outlined to address all gun violence including school shootings. It included several concessions on firearms restrictions, as well as making schools harder targets to protect kids, and it addressed mental health issues.

It was A fair balanced approach that covers all angles of the problem, unlike most  here. 

If you did see it and you just don't like it because  it's different than what you want, I'm sorry but that's where I'm at on the issue.  How many kids have to die before you're ready to address the whole issue including mental health? 

 

[The Dude]

Raising legal age to buy an assault rifle.

Not sure it would have stopped him as he might have gotten illegal access to an AR - but making it harder to access is a start - which is a ban on ARs for anyone under some age higher than 21.

I think it was stated 4 of the last AR attackers were under 21.  If you do anything that results in an AR landing in the hands of someone under the age, you will be penalized.  If the gun is used in shooting you can be charged up to the same as the attacker.

 

[[icon]]

Your good guys with guns were there and they failed.  More guns doesn't work.

I must have missed some new info... who stopped the uvalde shooting and how, again?  Has something changed? 

 

[[icon]]

Raising legal age to buy an assault rifle.

Not sure it would have stopped him as he might have gotten illegal access to an AR - but making it harder to access is a start - which is a ban on ARs for anyone under some age higher than 21.

I think it was stated 4 of the last AR attackers were under 21.  If you do anything that results in an AR landing in the hands of someone under the age, you will be penalized.  If the gun is used in shooting you can be charged up to the same as the attacker.

Yep! One of my 10 points is raising the age of AR purchase to 21, as well as requiring an enhanced possession permit (on a shall issue basis) requiring practical and written training & examination. 

 

[RCon]

Yep! One of my 10 points is raising the age of AR purchase to 21, as well as requiring an enhanced possession permit (on a shall issue basis) requiring practical and written training & examination. 

@[icon] - For those of us who aren't gun nerds (and may also be too lazy to look this up), can you give the 2-minute explanation on what "shall issue basis" means?  TIA, will answer yours.

 

[[icon]]

An assessment of the dominos of gun-rights cases about to cascade from the pending decision of NYSRPS v BRUEN in the Supreme Court -- From r/gunpolitics:

As disturbed as Biden is with the imminent announcement of the decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen, he will just have to follow that decision, as will unfriendly States like California and NY.

NOTE: the Supreme Court is expected to strike down NY's (and by extension all state's) restriction on concealed carry licenses... and possibly all restrictions on public carry. 

The decision and opinions for NYSRPA v. Bruen are anticipated to be released sometime in June.  [The full docket for the case is here](https://www.supremecourt.gov/docket/docketfiles/html/public/20-843.html).

What terrifies Biden is that not only will NYSRPA v. Bruen be decided (and most likely in a manner unfavorable to the ideology of his Partisans) but that this then sets in motion a cascade of events that have been bottled up for years, essentially awaiting for this moment (because so many things have been "held pending a decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen"):

\- Young v. Hawaii should be able to proceed

\- Once Young v. Hawaii has its decision, [Nichols v. Newsom](https://californiaopencarry.com/) will also be allowed to move to a decision (this is the longest running 2nd Amendment case in existence and potentially would overturn the open carry ban in California)

\- [Duncan v. Becerra](https://michellawyers.com/duncan-v-becerra/)  (which also was held pending a decision NYSRPA v. Bruen) will be able to move forward:

A [quote from the judge's order in that case](https://d3uwh8jpzww49g.cloudfront.net/sharedmedia/1510684/2064261_2019-03-29-order-granting-plaintiffs_-msj.pdf) (ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, DECLARING CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE § 32310 UNCONSTITUTIONAL and ENJOINING ENFORCEMENT), which has since of course been appealed by California and thus is awaiting its turn up at the U.S. Supreme Court where it has recently been docketed, to see if once and for all California can be ruled against:

"In one year in California (2017), a population of 39 million people endured 56,609 robberies, 105,391 aggravated assaults, and 95,942 residential burglaries.  There were also 423 homicides in victims’ residences. (...) Nationally, the first study to assess the prevalence of defensive gun use estimated that there are 2.2 to 2.5 million defensive gun uses by civilians each year. Of those, 340,000 to 400,000 defensive gun uses were situations where defenders believed that they had almost certainly saved a life by using the gun. (...)  California Penal Code § 32310 is hereby declared to be unconstitutional in its entirety and shall be enjoined.  This decision is a freedom calculus decided long ago by Colonists who cherished individual freedom more than the subservient security of a British ruler. The freedom they fought for was not free of cost then, and it is not free now."

\- And also, the case that is striving to overturn the so-called "Safety for All" (California's onerous ammunition laws which became a thing because of zombie voters), the [Rhode v. Becerra case](https://michellawyers.com/rhode-v-becerra/), can now also move forward since that was held pending Duncan. (Technically the Rhode case is still on hold but not for much longer - once there is an issuance of a mandate in Duncan then Rhode goes forward.)  You see how this worked here:  Rhode was held pending Duncan, Duncan was held pending NYSPRPA v. Bruen.  In a similar way, Nichols was held (still is held) pending Young, and Young is held pending NYSRPA v. Bruen.  Once the decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen is released in June 2022, the next year (or two) will be like a waterfall of decisions that some plaintiffs have been working for / waiting to get a decision on for over ten years.  Yes, rights have been delayed AND denied. (It has taken around 209 years for the U.S. Supreme Court to evolve to the point that they've been able to accept a case that will, in all probability challenge unconstitutional state laws on concealed carry issuance standards - the first state law restricting / banning concealed carry was enacted around 209 years ago and sadly, similar state laws spread across the land.)
 

 

TLDR: The Supreme Court seems primed to strike down NY State restrictions on concealed carry (and possibly all public carry). This Precedent is expected to cascade into a slew of other cases in other states completely opening up issuance of concealed carry (at the least) nationwide. 

The lawyers of GOA and FPC have been very very busy.  

I feel like a lot of folks missed this. It's looking like right to carry for self defense is about to become far more widespread in this country. 

 

[moleculo]

here are the changes I would propose:

1. guns to be purchased only from licensed dealer/broker.  no more of this "gun show" loophole or private purchase business.  If want to sell your gun, you are going to have to go thru a broker.  Selling a gun without a license should be a felony.  This is important to prevent work-around for all other restrictions.
   
2. different license requirements for different classes of weapons.  I would seek assistance for defining classes from our gun enthusiast friends.  If fully-automatic weapon access can be restricted, similar restrictions can apply to different classes.  Semi-automatic high capacity guns should be treated than low capacity revolvers, shotguns, bolt-action hunting rifles, etc. 
   
3. If you want an AR15, you have a right to own one but you need to have a special license.  This requires a deeper background check including social media, psych evaluation, class work, etc, similar to a CCW class.  it will probably between a few hundred and a thousand dollars.  Licenses are only good for a few years - they will need to be renewed regularly. Possession of such a weapon without license is a felony.
   
4. No license required for other classes of guns - I'm talking about bolt action hunting rifles, shotguns, and revolvers.  Again, let the gun-guys help define this.
   
5. Purchase age for all guns to be raised to 21.
   
6. 14 day waiting period.  However, I could be ok with something like TSAPre-check, where you can skip the waiting period.
   
7. multiple infractions of felony weapons possession or sale will result in looong prison sentences -20 years or so.  Put some teeth behind this so people take it serious.
   
8. To transition in, there would be a grace period where current owners would have to either sell their guns (thru a broker) or acquire the license.  After that, it's on.
   

Legit gun shop owners should support this as it would funnel more business to them - they could sell guns on consignment, where they facilitate the transaction.  No big deal.  They are there to make sure everything is on the up and up.  In this manner, the pro-gun community can police itself.  Guys like @[icon] would be free to acquire a dealer license and they could help ensure guns are purchased responsibly.

There would be no changes for traditional hunting rifles or self defense guns, and I am asking the gun crowd to help with the regulations.  It's quite clear to me that people who don't know guns shouldn't be crafting gun laws.

What do you guys think of this?

 

[[icon]]

@[icon] - For those of us who aren't gun nerds (and may also be too lazy to look this up), can you give the 2-minute explanation on what "shall issue basis" means?  TIA, will answer yours.

Shall Issue means the default outcome of the application is approved, barring any clear cut violation that would restrict ownership.

It also generally implies a finite time before a default approval to eliminate bogging down applications in red tape as a back door to gun control. 

 

[The Commish]

lets work to identify these killers, commit them for a long time or life even .... them being in society just isn't acceptable

...

Why do you continually respond to posts with stuff that has nothing to do with the post you are responding to?

 

[bostonfred]

I must have missed some new info... who stopped the uvalde shooting and how, again?  Has something changed? 

Do you consider Uvalde a success story

 

[JIslander]

I must have missed some new info... who stopped the uvalde shooting and how, again?  Has something changed? 

Arrived 11:28 -- shot at 12:50