Author Topic: Gun Control Watch  (Read 54533 times)

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,947
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #650 on: June 18, 2024, 09:36:32 AM »
AP is not wrong here.  As far as I know they never did recover that 240.

???

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30,298
  • On Patrol In The Epsilon Eridani System
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #651 on: June 18, 2024, 09:50:13 AM »
Schumer is trying to get a bump stock ban around normal procedure according to Guns & Gadgets. Considering they only need a few Rs to ram it thorough it's something to keep an eye on.

Schumer Readies Vote on Bump Stock Ban
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/06/18/schumer-readies-vote-on-bump-stock-ban-n1225309

ATTENTION: Anti-Gun Senators To Attempt Vote On Another Ban TODAY!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_blgzNJZVQ

"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".
- Calvin and Hobbes

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30,298
  • On Patrol In The Epsilon Eridani System
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #652 on: June 18, 2024, 12:27:27 PM »
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".
- Calvin and Hobbes

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30,298
  • On Patrol In The Epsilon Eridani System
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #653 on: June 18, 2024, 02:05:48 PM »
You can't hate the media enough

Quote
Nicholas Fondacaro
@NickFondacaro
NBC's Erin McLaughlin blames the Supreme Court's decision on bump stocks to 3 mass shootings over the weekend, despite the fact none of the weapons were equipped with them.

https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/1802689317879374160
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".
- Calvin and Hobbes

Boomhauer

  • Former Moderator, fired for embezzlement and abuse of power
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,423
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #654 on: June 18, 2024, 02:13:07 PM »
You can't hate the media enough

https://x.com/NickFondacaro/status/1802689317879374160


It’s never possible to hate journalists enough
Quote from: Ben
Holy hell. It's like giving a loaded gun to a chimpanzee...

Quote from: bluestarlizzard
the last thing you need is rabies. You're already angry enough as it is.

OTOH, there wouldn't be a tweeker left in Georgia...

Quote from: Balog
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! AND THROW SOME STEAK ON THE GRILL!

WLJ

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 30,298
  • On Patrol In The Epsilon Eridani System
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #655 on: June 19, 2024, 09:38:43 AM »
Schumer is trying to get a bump stock ban around normal procedure according to Guns & Gadgets. Considering they only need a few Rs to ram it thorough it's something to keep an eye on.

Schumer Readies Vote on Bump Stock Ban
https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/06/18/schumer-readies-vote-on-bump-stock-ban-n1225309

ATTENTION: Anti-Gun Senators To Attempt Vote On Another Ban TODAY!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_blgzNJZVQ

Failed but looks like he's going to keep trying.

https://bearingarms.com/camedwards/2024/06/19/initial-bid-to-ban-bump-stocks-fails-in-senate-n1225328
"Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us".
- Calvin and Hobbes

Angel Eyes

  • Lying dog-faced pony soldier
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,754
  • You're not diggin'
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #656 on: June 19, 2024, 12:40:42 PM »
"The slide rule is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural."
                     - Darth Calculus

Angel Eyes

  • Lying dog-faced pony soldier
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,754
  • You're not diggin'
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #657 on: June 19, 2024, 01:22:08 PM »

"The slide rule is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural."
                     - Darth Calculus

Angel Eyes

  • Lying dog-faced pony soldier
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 12,754
  • You're not diggin'
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #658 on: June 19, 2024, 07:01:55 PM »
Failed but looks like he's going to keep trying.


The next logical step is to ban thumbs and belt loops:

https://x.com/GunloverClub1/status/1803499237277040752
"The slide rule is a pathway to many abilities some consider to be unnatural."
                     - Darth Calculus

AmbulanceDriver

  • Junior Rocketeer
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 5,965
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #659 on: June 19, 2024, 08:17:50 PM »
The next logical step is to ban thumbs and belt loops:

https://x.com/GunloverClub1/status/1803499237277040752


Not gonna lie, that looks like fun....  Once.   However I don't wanna think about how many rounds he went through perfecting that technique.
Are you a cook, or a RIFLEMAN?  Find out at Appleseed!

http://www.appleseedinfo.org

"For some many people, attempting to process a logical line of thought brings up the blue screen of death." -Blakenzy

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,071
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #660 on: June 20, 2024, 09:10:12 AM »
Not gonna lie, that looks like fun....  Once.   However I don't wanna think about how many rounds he went through perfecting that technique.
Agreed.  I used to own a bump stock.  Sold it off well before the new rule came in.  Anyway, I got it working on an upper.  My Dad and I emptied about 10 magazines into a hill.  It was fun.  I never shot it again and sold it after a few years. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

JTHunter

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #661 on: June 20, 2024, 10:29:46 PM »
Agreed.  I used to own a bump stock.  Sold it off well before the new rule came in.  Anyway, I got it working on an upper.  My Dad and I emptied about 10 magazines into a hill.  It was fun.  I never shot it again and sold it after a few years.

A relative of mine got to shoot one several years ago.  They said they had almost ZERO control and it wasted ammo because of that.
“I have little patience with people who take the Bill of Rights for granted.  The Bill of Rights, contained in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is every American’s guarantee of freedom.” - - President Harry S. Truman, “Years of Trial and Hope”

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,947
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #662 on: June 21, 2024, 09:30:24 AM »
The Rare Breed forced reset trigger looks awsome...!

MechAg94

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 34,071
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #663 on: June 21, 2024, 10:08:59 AM »
A relative of mine got to shoot one several years ago.  They said they had almost ZERO control and it wasted ammo because of that.
Yes.  My aim was Minute-of-Hill at 50 yards.  It was an odd balance of a loose hold to allow the "bump firing" while attempting to hold it steady enough to get somewhere close to point of aim.  I figure the belt loop and thumb idea is more accurate. 

That is one reason I am a bit doubtful about the Las Vegas shooter and the weapons he used.  The sounds recorded by people were a pretty steady cadence of fire.  I won't say that was impossible, just difficult with a bump stock. 
“It is much more important to kill bad bills than to pass good ones.”  ― Calvin Coolidge

MillCreek

  • Skippy The Wonder Dog
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 20,096
  • APS Risk Manager
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #664 on: June 21, 2024, 10:47:39 AM »
Shamelessly stolen from the r/firearms Reddit thread just now:

SCOTUS Opinion: United States v. Rahimi
Law
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-915_8o6b.pdf

The Supreme Court rejects the challenge to the constitutionality of a federal law that bans the possession of a gun by someone who has been the subject of a domestic violent restraining order.

8-1 only Thomas dissents

The court holds that when an individual has been found by a court to pose a credible threat to the physical safety of another, that individual may be temporarily disarmed consistent with the Second Amendment.

Roberts explains that "Since the founding, our Nation's firearm laws have included provisions preventing individuals who threaten physical harm to others from misusing firearms. As applied to the facts of this case, Section 922(g)(8) fits comfortably within this tradition."

This is what we expected, and IMO, is consistent with history and tradition. Because people suspected of posing credible threats were usually detained in jail, and disarmed. You threaten to murder someone, you get arrested.

Discussing the application by the lower courts of the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, Roberts writes that "some courts have misunderstood the methodology of our recent Second Amendment cases. These precedents were not meant to suggest a law trapped in amber." Otherwise, he explains, the Second Amendment would only provide protection to "muskets and sabers."

Lots elaborating on how lower courts should apply the methodology going forward. "Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions of similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations."

HERE IT IS!
Applying that methodology to this case, Roberts looks at early English and early American gun laws and concludes that they "confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."

When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."

That is the opening we were hoping for. This opens up a challenge to allowing non-violent offenders to have their 2A rights! It stands to argue that in that emphasized statement, that if an individual does NOT pose a clear threat of physical violence to another, they may not be disarmed.

Note that is not legally what he is saying, but I believe that a challenge has been opened on those grounds.

This is basically the exact ruling we expected:

If you pose a credible threat of violence, you can be disarmed.

If you don't pose a credible threat of violence, well, that's a case for another day...
_____________
Regards,
MillCreek
Snohomish County, WA  USA


Quote from: Angel Eyes on August 09, 2018, 01:56:15 AM
You are one lousy risk manager.

Brad Johnson

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 18,211
  • Witty, charming, handsome, and completely insane.
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #665 on: June 21, 2024, 11:47:56 AM »
Well, that didn't open up the floodgates for misuse and weaponization of Red Flag laws now, did it?

Brad
It's all about the pancakes, people.
"And he thought cops wouldn't chase... a STOLEN DONUT TRUCK???? That would be like Willie Nelson ignoring a pickup full of weed."
-HankB

JTHunter

  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 2,123
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #666 on: June 23, 2024, 04:11:03 PM »
Considering what an "unsavory character" Rahimi is, this decision was not unexpected.
“I have little patience with people who take the Bill of Rights for granted.  The Bill of Rights, contained in the first ten amendments to the Constitution, is every American’s guarantee of freedom.” - - President Harry S. Truman, “Years of Trial and Hope”

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,947
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #667 on: June 23, 2024, 10:20:55 PM »


HERE IT IS!
Applying that methodology to this case, Roberts looks at early English and early American gun laws and concludes that they "confirm what common sense suggests: When an individual poses a clear threat of physical violence to another, the threatening individual may be disarmed."


What early American gun law disarmed free American citizens?  Perhaps I am wrong, but I am completely unaware of any law like this.

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,822
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #668 on: June 23, 2024, 11:20:29 PM »
What early American gun law disarmed free American citizens?  Perhaps I am wrong, but I am completely unaware of any law like this.
I'm pretty sure those actually imprisoned for some crime were not allowed to retain their firearms while behind bars. AFAIK, post-prison disarmament wasn't "a thing" early in our country's history.
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

Pb

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4,947
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #669 on: June 24, 2024, 09:26:54 AM »
I'm pretty sure those actually imprisoned for some crime were not allowed to retain their firearms while behind bars. AFAIK, post-prison disarmament wasn't "a thing" early in our country's history.

So the precident for this is that people in prison could not have guns in early America?  And this means people who have never been convicted of a crime, or been imprisoned can disarmed now?

That's really stupid if I am understanding it correctly.

Boomhauer

  • Former Moderator, fired for embezzlement and abuse of power
  • friends
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 14,423
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #670 on: June 24, 2024, 09:43:55 AM »
The same kind of mental midgets who brought you decisions like Kelo v New London
Quote from: Ben
Holy hell. It's like giving a loaded gun to a chimpanzee...

Quote from: bluestarlizzard
the last thing you need is rabies. You're already angry enough as it is.

OTOH, there wouldn't be a tweeker left in Georgia...

Quote from: Balog
BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD! SKULLS FOR THE SKULL THRONE! AND THROW SOME STEAK ON THE GRILL!

HankB

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16,822
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #671 on: June 24, 2024, 09:57:56 AM »
So the precident for this is that people in prison could not have guns in early America?  And this means people who have never been convicted of a crime, or been imprisoned can disarmed now?

That's really stupid if I am understanding it correctly.
My point is that there is NO actual historical precedent or tradition for doing what they've been doing. So they shouldn't be doing it. IMHO if the justice system has determined that someone is too dangerous to be allowed access to firearms, they're too dangerous to be running around loose. And a felony conviction shouldn't be an automatic disqualifier. For example, even though I have NO idea what her stance is in firearms, I wouldn't be upset if convicted felon Martha Stewart wanted to take up skeet shooting - or, for that matter, IDPA shooting.
Trump won in 2016. Democrats haven't been so offended since Republicans came along and freed their slaves.
Sometimes I wonder if the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on, or by imbeciles who really mean it. - Mark Twain
Government is a broker in pillage, and every election is a sort of advance auction in stolen goods. - H.L. Mencken
Patriotism is supporting your country all the time, and your government when it deserves it. - Mark Twain

JN01

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 916
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #672 on: June 24, 2024, 05:19:08 PM »
So the precident for this is that people in prison could not have guns in early America?  And this means people who have never been convicted of a crime, or been imprisoned can disarmed now?

That's really stupid if I am understanding it correctly.

I believe SCOTUS talked about TEMPORARILY being disarmed after receiving DUE PROCESS, like those who were convicted of crimes.  Many of the red flag laws in effect do not provide sufficient due process protections so they can probably still be challenged on that basis.  Rahimi conceded to the protection order so due process couldn't have been an issue in his case. 

JN01

  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 916
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #673 on: June 24, 2024, 05:32:26 PM »
My point is that there is NO actual historical precedent or tradition for doing what they've been doing. So they shouldn't be doing it. IMHO if the justice system has determined that someone is too dangerous to be allowed access to firearms, they're too dangerous to be running around loose. And a felony conviction shouldn't be an automatic disqualifier. For example, even though I have NO idea what her stance is in firearms, I wouldn't be upset if convicted felon Martha Stewart wanted to take up skeet shooting - or, for that matter, IDPA shooting.

One could argue that locking someone up effectively disarms them and restricts them from many other rights, the TRO theoretically disarms them without infringing on other rights, so it is less severe.   It doesn't make sense to allow someone who is dangerous to themselves or others to roam around free without any attempts to intervene in stopping their bad behavior aside from a mostly useless TRO, but then you are getting into the territory of balancing tests which SCOTUS has rejected. 

As far as the restrictions on non-violent or ex-offenders, I think SCOTUS will be taking up that issue soon.
« Last Edit: June 24, 2024, 09:50:43 PM by JN01 »

230RN

  • I saw it coming.
  • friend
  • Senior Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 19,133
  • We NEED a President with his good luck!
Re: Gun Control Watch
« Reply #674 on: June 24, 2024, 07:15:14 PM »
Well, that didn't open up the floodgates for misuse and weaponization of Red Flag laws now, did it?

Brad

This statement troubles me as well:

"Why and how the regulation burdens the right are central to this inquiry. For example, if laws at the founding regulated firearm use to address particular problems, that will be a strong indicator that contemporary laws imposing similar restrictions of similar reasons fall within a permissible category of regulations."

It opens the same door as when someone says "No right is absolute."

While that is technically correct, as in justifiably removing many rights of prisoners during incarceration, it offers no limitation on how much a right can be curtailed.

"Oh, be reasonable, Terry!"

I am being reasonable.  It's just that my "reasonable" differs from your "reasonable."

Terry, 230RN

Sooner or later, law output will become greater than Court input.