Supreme Court Weighs Second Amendment Showdown After Mass Shootings

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

U.S.
Supreme Court Weighs Second Amendment Showdown After Mass Shootings
Bloomberg Greg Stohr,Bloomberg 4 hours ago


(Bloomberg) -- As mass shootings revive the U.S. debate over gun policy, the Supreme Court is weighing whether to go forward with a Second Amendment showdown for the first time in a decade.

The justices in January said they would hear a challenge to New York City rules that sharply limited where licensed handguns could be taken while locked and unloaded. Three city handgun owners said the regulations were the most extreme firearm-transportation restrictions in the country.

But then the city loosened its rules -- and said the case should be dismissed because there was nothing left for the court to decide. Gun-rights advocates called the city’s move a transparent effort to avoid a ruling that would bolster the right to bear arms nationwide.

The court could say this month what it will do with the case. It will be acting against the backdrop of gun massacres that killed 31 people last weekend in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio -- and ratcheted up the political acrimony in Washington. Congress has passed only incremental gun legislation despite heavy public support for some measures such as universal background checks.

A decision by the Supreme Court to forge ahead with the New York case would mean a ruling next year in the heat of the presidential campaign.

Ironically, a decision to drop the case could open the way to an even bigger ruling in the nine-month term that starts in October. The justices could take up a more sweeping New Jersey case they have been holding while they consider the New York City dispute. The New Jersey case centers on the right to carry a loaded handgun in public -- an issue that has divided federal appeals courts.

New Jersey is one of seven states, including California and New York, that bar most people from carrying weapons in public. New Jersey law requires people to show a “justifiable need” to get a carry permit -- a standard critics say very few people can meet.

The court also will be deciding in the coming months whether to consider bolstering the gun industry’s legal shield. Gunmaker Remington Arms Co. is asking the justices to block a lawsuit by family members of victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook Elementary school shooting in Connecticut.

Long Wait

Gun-rights supporters have been pressing the court for years to take up another Second Amendment case. The court hasn’t heard one since it threw out a Chicago handgun ban in 2010, two years after it ruled for the first time that the Constitution protects individual firearm rights. The court could become more receptive to pro-gun arguments with the addition of the newest justice, Brett Kavanaugh.

For now, the question is whether the court will rule in the New York case, even though the city said in court papers Monday that the challengers have received “everything they have sought in this lawsuit.”

Under the New York law, people with a licensed handgun at home were allowed to take it to one of seven shooting ranges in the city, but almost nowhere else. Weapons had to be locked and unloaded during travel, and ammunition had to be put in a separate container.

The residents who sued along with an advocacy group said they wanted to be able to take their handguns to more convenient target ranges outside the city and, in the case of a Staten Island man, to his second home.

The city and its supporters say those things are permissible after changes to New York City’s regulations and a related state law.

”There’s really no reason for the court to carry on with this issue,” said Adam Winkler, a professor at UCLA Law School who wrote a book on the fight over the Second Amendment.

Wasting Time

The residents said even the revised regulations are too strict, forbidding a handgun owner from stopping on the way out of town, requiring written permission to take a weapon to a gunsmith and precluding transport to a summer rental house. They urged the Supreme Court not to reward New York’s “undisguised effort to avoid a precedent-setting loss.”

New York state headed off a different Supreme Court clash earlier this year when it repealed a law banning so-called gravity knives -- easily opened with the flick of a wrist -- before the justices could say whether they would hear the appeal. The justices then turned away the challenge.

The gun-transportation case is different because the court has already agreed to hear it, said Erik Jaffe, a Washington lawyer who filed a brief opposing the restrictions. A federal appeals court upheld the restrictions.

“You’ve now wasted a whole bunch of time and forced people to write up a brief at the Supreme Court,” Jaffe said.

Should the Supreme Court press ahead, arguments would probably be in December or early next year, with a decision by the end of its term in June.

That timetable would push any consideration of the New Jersey case into the following term. Given the divide among federal appeals courts, Winkler said that case will be a strong candidate for review regardless of what happens with the New York fight.

“There’s got to be a pretty good likelihood they take the New Jersey case at the end of the day,” Winkler said.

Michael R. Bloomberg, founder of Bloomberg News parent Bloomberg LP, is a donor to groups that support gun control, including Everytown for Gun Safety.

The case is New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. New York, 18-280.

(Describes Sandy Hook case in eighth paragraph)

To contact the reporter on this story: Greg Stohr in Washington at gstohr@bloomberg.net

To contact the editors responsible for this story: Joe Sobczyk at jsobczyk@bloomberg.net, Laurie Asséo, Anna Edgerton

For more articles like this, please visit us at bloomberg.com

©2019 Bloomberg L.P.

[Elessar]

Wise consideration must be the path here.

Back in my early career days, for me to carry a .45 or a long gun on an LE boarding required a background check
and mental health examination. Then came "Shoot, No Shoot" training, then a police pistol course.

It is not that difficult if common sense is applied.

[Noir]

It is not that difficult if common sense is applied.

Yet mass shooting after mass shooting is taking place, while common sense is off adrift somewhere.

[STTAB]

Yet mass shooting after mass shooting is taking place, while common sense is off adrift somewhere.

Very true, for example, A little common sense tells anyone that guns are not the problem, but............

[Abbey Marie]

Very true, for example, A little common sense tells anyone that guns are not the problem, but............

But that would require two things the left seems to abhor: personal responsibility, and the belief that supernatural evil exists.

[Noir]

Very true, for example, A little common sense tells anyone that guns are not the problem, but............

Exactly, it’s video games, or dancing (especially the foxtrot - Scandalous!)

[Drummond]

Exactly, it’s video games, or dancing (especially the foxtrot - Scandalous!)

I think it's Lefties.:rolleyes:

Seriously ... imagine an American society where every American woke up, one day, to find not a trace of any Leftie pundit, any Leftie politician, any operating Leftie media outlet, any Leftie judge (.. amazing that you can have these !!), any Leftie outfit (e.g the ACLU) in existence, to foment further agitations and attempted indoctrinations.

What a peaceful society would be in prospect !!! :dance::dance::cool::cool::cool:

[Elessar]

Yet mass shooting after mass shooting is taking place, while common sense is off adrift somewhere.

I was not accusing those shooters of having common sense - nor was I accusing the weapons used of having common sense.
Shooters like that have sick minds, plain and simple.

[Noir]

I was not accusing those shooters of having common sense - nor was I accusing the weapons used of having common sense.
Shooters like that have sick minds, plain and simple.

and people with “sick minds” are being given guns.

[FakeNewsSux]

and people with “sick minds” are being given guns.

Why can't we be more civilized like the kingdom of Sadiq Khan and make this country safe for knife and vehicle attacks by people with 'sick minds"?

[Kathianne]

Why can we be more civilized like the kingdom of Sadiq Khan and make this country safe for knife and vehicle attacks by people with 'sick minds"?

Certainly more fun to debate guns with a British citizen, but what are you good with that the President appears to be considering?

[FakeNewsSux]

Certainly more fun to debate guns with a British citizen, but what are you good with that the President appears to be considering?

I'm simply fed up with the posturing and virtue signaling by both sides. What we need to do is try enforcing the laws that are already on the books. I also feel that the only true solution is a moral reawakening in this society. Reduce the attacks on religion by the state, encourage rather than work to destroy the nuclear family and in the interim, nationwide concealed carry linked to proper training to reduce the impact of 'out of control' events such as those witnessed last weekend.

[Kathianne]

I'm simply fed up with the posturing and virtue signaling by both sides. What we need to do is try enforcing the laws that are already on the books. I also feel that the only true solution is a moral reawakening in this society. Reduce the attacks on religion by the state, encourage rather than work to destroy the nuclear family and in the interim, nationwide concealed carry linked to proper training to reduce the impact of 'out of control' events such as those witnessed last weekend.

Do you think the president can sell that? That he would attempt to? If not him, who?

[FakeNewsSux]

Do you think the president can sell that? That he would attempt to? If not him, who?

I believe that he could easily sell it to his followers (roughly half of the population) but would be branded as a do nothing Pollyanna by the rest.

[Kathianne]

I believe that he could easily sell it to his followers (roughly half of the population) but would be branded as a do nothing Pollyanna by the rest.

I think you misjudge the reaction of those who would not agree. They would consider that a major escalation.

[FakeNewsSux]

I think you misjudge the reaction of those who would not agree. They would consider that a major escalation.

Of course they would. It's who they are, it's what they do.

[Kathianne]

Of course they would. It's who they are, it's what they do.

Well with the call from NRA, maybe the status quo will be maintained.

[FakeNewsSux]

Well with the call from NRA, maybe the status quo will be maintained.

Your reply was a bit to subtle for my simple mind. Not sure what you're saying.

[Kathianne]

Your reply was a bit to subtle for my simple mind. Not sure what you're saying.

I doubt you're going to see expansion on conceal carry or other types of loosening of laws. But does look like there's unlikely to be any more background difficulties or federal impetus for Red flag laws:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/08/08/the-nra-is-reportedly-warning-trump-that-supporting-universal-background-checks-will-hurt-him-politically/23790371/

[FakeNewsSux]

Looks like the public isn't waiting around for their politicians to do something:

Gun sales surge fueled by first-timers, mostly for ‘concealed’ pistolsGun sales are surging after the weekend mass shootings in El Paso, Texas, and Dayton, Ohio, fueled by first-time buyers seeking pistols they can carry with them for protection.
The latest jump validated a big increase in purchases and background checks recorded by the FBI that show the four most recent months higher than the same months in 2018.
What’s more, the trend in the “National Instant Criminal Background Check System,” or NICS, is on a path to make 2018 the second biggest year since 2016, when gun owners and prospective gun owners filled stores before the presidential election that was expected to elect gun control advocate Hillary Rodham Clinton.
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/washington-secrets/gun-sales-surge-fueled-by-first-timers-mostly-for-concealed-pistols

[FakeNewsSux]

I doubt you're going to see expansion on conceal carry or other types of loosening of laws. But does look like there's unlikely to be any more background difficulties or federal impetus for Red flag laws:

https://www.aol.com/article/news/2019/08/08/the-nra-is-reportedly-warning-trump-that-supporting-universal-background-checks-will-hurt-him-politically/23790371/

The reason that your typical, law abiding citizen is dubious about a laundry list of new laws restricting gun ownership is that, by definition, they will be the only ones restricted. The criminal class, which includes hard core lefties, simply ignore the law.

[Kathianne]

The reason that your typical, law abiding citizen is dubious about a laundry list of new laws restricting gun ownership is that, by definition, they will be the only ones restricted. The criminal class, which includes hard core lefties, simply ignore the law.

I get that. In general I support near a hands off 2nd amendment. I have a few areas I'm ok with-limiting the number of bullets able to be discharged-at 30 or so. I don't see a reason for that 100 shot drum for instance.

Not that they are legal, but I'm against weapons like bazookas by your everyday person.

[STTAB]

I get that. In general I support near a hands off 2nd amendment. I have a few areas I'm ok with-limiting the number of bullets able to be discharged-at 30 or so. I don't see a reason for that 100 shot drum for instance.

Not that they are legal, but I'm against weapons like bazookas by your everyday person.

My major beef with gun control is simple NONE of the proposals from the left work, and we know they don't work. The left knows they don't work, and they know we know.

If the left cared about gun control they would be in Chicago , where more people are shot every weekend in those two shootings combined, protesting.

If the left really cared they would be proposing real solutions that work, not the same old bullshit that they A) know they will never get and B) they know wouldn't do shit even if they did get it

Outlawing MY AR 15 and or its 100 round drum magazine won't save one innocent life. Not one. On the other hand, how many lives are ruined or just over because someone in Dayton didn't call the police and say "hey this student of ours has a list of girls he wants to rape and a list of boys he wants to kill, maybe yall should do something about him?"

[FakeNewsSux]

I get that. In general I support near a hands off 2nd amendment. I have a few areas I'm ok with-limiting the number of bullets able to be discharged-at 30 or so. I don't see a reason for that 100 shot drum for instance.

Not that they are legal, but I'm against weapons like bazookas by your everyday person.

Careful, you're beginning to sound like the NRA.

[FakeNewsSux]

Not that they are legal, but I'm against weapons like bazookas by your everyday person.

No bazookas? OK, how about this offering from lefty icon Elon Musk:

Tesla Chief Sells $10 Million in Flamethrowers… But Why?


February 02, 2018





https://gdb.voanews.com/4461431A-4D1D-4B6B-8EDC-9C61CEF80C4C_w1023_r1_s.jpg

In this photo shared on social media by Tesla and SpaceX chief Elon Musk, people test out his Boring Company branded flamethrower that brought in $10 million in pre-sales. (Elon Musk/Instagram)













No media source currently available



0:00
5:220
Elon Musk - head of electric carmaker Tesla and aerospace company SpaceX - is known for using creative methods to raise money for his businesses.
He has successfully gotten tens of thousands of interested buyers to place deposits of at least $1,000 for electric Tesla (https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/tesla-presents-electric-truck-new-roadster/4120838.html) vehicles that were not yet manufactured. Last year, SpaceX (https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/space-tourism-and-business-looking-up/3748550.html) announced that two private citizens had paid “a significant deposit” to ride on one of the company’s rockets for a future trip around the moon.
So it is not surprising that Musk recently launched another money raiser – this time for his tunnel-digging business, The Boring Company (https://www.boringcompany.com/). But what did surprise many people was the item he was selling - flamethrowers.
https://learningenglish.voanews.com/a/elon-musk-sells-10-million-in-flamethrowers-for-the-boring-company/4236305.html

[Kathianne]

Careful, you're beginning to sound like the NRA.

I didn't say anything against the NRA. It seems a common assumption if I write something folks think I'm saying something I'm not. ;)

[High_Plains_Drifter]

and people with “sick minds” are being given guns.
Yeah... we better outlaw guns quick... so nut cases have to use knives like in Europe, or trucks, or bombs, or hammers, or baseball bats...

https://i.ibb.co/Gxf4vNg/dumbass-demtard-trash-logic.jpg

[FakeNewsSux]

I'm simply fed up with the posturing and virtue signaling by both sides. What we need to do is try enforcing the laws that are already on the books. I also feel that the only true solution is a moral reawakening in this society. Reduce the attacks on religion by the state, encourage rather than work to destroy the nuclear family and in the interim, nationwide concealed carry linked to proper training to reduce the impact of 'out of control' events such as those witnessed last weekend.

Case in point:

Armed citizen foils mass shooting: How many lives could have been lost in three minutes?

This is a story you will probably hear about because if you’re reading NOQ Report, chances are good you’re a patriot with your finger on the pulse of conservative news in America. It’s a story that is being widely covered by right-leaning media, though progressive legacy media is clearly hoping to suppress it. Why? Because instead of another mass shooting at another Walmart carried out by an assailant with a scary gun (something that would have reinforced the narrative they’re currently pushing), the end result is no deaths, a suspect in custody, and an off-duty firefighter with a concealed-carry firearm to thank for this positive outcome.
The “good guy with a gun” scenario is invariably suppressed by leftist media.
In his instance, the suspect had over 100 rounds of ammunition, a scary looking “assault weapon,” at least one handgun, and body armor. That doesn’t sound like the type of garb someone would wear if they needed to pick up diapers and toilet paper. Thankfully, the alleged assailant was intercepted before he could commit his heinous act.
https://noqreport.com/2019/08/08/armed-citizen-foils-mass-shooting-many-lives-lost-three-minutes/

[Noir]

Case in point:
Armed citizen foils mass shooting: How many lives could have been lost in three minutes?


3 Minutes?
Wasn’t one of the more recent mass shooters stopped within a minute having already killed and injured dozens?

[CSM]

Isn't it ironic that murder by any means is already a crime and banned by law... so is assault and aggravated assault ... so is rape .... so is kidnapping

Clearly, since laws addressing murder, assault and other heinous acts fail to actually PREVENT them, what makes any sane person believe that laws banning certain weapons will actually prevent ANYTHING other than preventing law abiding folks from protecting themselves? I just don't get the logic or lack thereof.

[CSM]

3 Minutes?
Wasn’t one of the more recent mass shooters stopped within a minute having already killed and injured dozens?

yep, and the perpetrator was killed in 30 seconds as well. You will notice that mass shooters plan their attacks on an presumably unarmed populace congregated at undefended areas. Works really well for them and not so well for their targets.

[Noir]

yep, and the perpetrator was killed in 30 seconds as well. You will notice that mass shooters plan their attacks on an presumably unarmed populace congregated at undefended areas. Works really well for them and not so well for their targets.

So this pretty close to best case scenario for the ‘people at the scene able to defend themselves almost instantly’ and how many died?

[CSM]

So this pretty close to best case scenario for the ‘people at the scene able to defend themselves almost instantly’ and how many died?

how many more would have died is the question you wont ask!

I suppose being a European, that you feel much better if everyone is disarmed... nobody gets murdered in Europe! Having said that, you will tell us it's a matter of scale. Let's just agree that Americans are gun toting, bible thumping, mass murdering troglodytes. I am good with that. My advice to you, since we Americans are inherently evil people, is DON'T come America, DON'T interact with Americans, and whatever you do, DON'T ask Americans to defend your sorry asses next time one of your "peaceful but misunderstood" neighbors decides to invade your country!

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

So this pretty close to best case scenario for the ‘people at the scene able to defend themselves almost instantly’ and how many died?
Wrong question Noir. Question should be -how many more would have died or been injured had NOT the citizen been there armed that confronted the shooter?
And how many lives could be saved in the future if more law abiding citizens are armed and able to defend themselves and defend others?
Seems to me you are conveniently shortsighted when asking questions--questions that you think serve your liberal/leftist agenda well.
Questions and corresponding answers that you do not want asked and given. eh?-Tyr

[Noir]

how many more would have died is the question you wont ask!

I suppose being a European, that you feel much better if everyone is disarmed... nobody gets murdered in Europe! Having said that, you will tell us it's a matter of scale.

As I was saying - this example was pretty close to ‘best case’ under the ‘everyone is safer when everyone has guns’ theory. (Therefore it is a good outcome)

As for Gun massacres -
Americans population approx 325million.
European population approx 740 million.

Twice the population in Europe and nowhere near as many gun massacres, why is that? Whenever we are all disarmed and such weak, vulnerable, easy targets for these gun wielding mass murderers?

[STTAB]

As I was saying - this example was pretty close to ‘best case’ under the ‘everyone is safer when everyone has guns’ theory. (Therefore it is a good outcome)

As for Gun massacres -
Americans population approx 325million.
European population approx 740 million.

Twice the population in Europe and nowhere near as many gun massacres, why is that? Whenever we are all disarmed and such weak, vulnerable, easy targets for these gun wielding mass murderers?

Less black people in Europe. That is the plain and simple truth.

These mass shootings are rare in this country Noir, What's not rare is inner city blacks shooting the shit out of each other..

[CSM]

Less black people in Europe. That is the plain and simple truth.

These mass shootings are rare in this country Noir, What's not rare is inner city blacks shooting the shit out of each other..

Truthfully, you Europeans would rather wait for the "World War" type event where millions are massacred than have "mass shootings" where a mere few (10s) are murdered. You folks are thoughtful like that....

[High_Plains_Drifter]

As I was saying - this example was pretty close to ‘best case’ under the ‘everyone is safer when everyone has guns’ theory. (Therefore it is a good outcome)

As for Gun massacres -
Americans population approx 325million.
European population approx 740 million.

Twice the population in Europe and nowhere near as many gun massacres, why is that? Whenever we are all disarmed and such weak, vulnerable, easy targets for these gun wielding mass murderers?
Yeah, we Americans know all too well how it worked out for all you slobs being disarmed... one hellova lot WORSE than a few getting shot up here in my opinion... you disarmed dumbasses got slaughtered by the MILLIONS. Care to make another stupid comparison?

https://i.ibb.co/hR7m8T5/obeying1.jpg

[FakeNewsSux]

3 Minutes?
Wasn’t one of the more recent mass shooters stopped within a minute having already killed and injured dozens?


Did you even read the article? Your statement was one of the points made in the article. It took the Springfield PD three minutes to show up but the armed citizen already had the perp on the ground at gunpoint when they arrived. No one killed or injured. Remember, when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.

[Drummond]

As I was saying - this example was pretty close to ‘best case’ under the ‘everyone is safer when everyone has guns’ theory. (Therefore it is a good outcome)

As for Gun massacres -
Americans population approx 325million.
European population approx 740 million.

Twice the population in Europe and nowhere near as many gun massacres, why is that? Whenever we are all disarmed and such weak, vulnerable, easy targets for these gun wielding mass murderers?

How many 'knife massacres' (including the occasional machete !) do we have in the UK ? Our draconian anti-gun laws do a very great deal to restrict ownership, sure, but then murdering maniacs just find another way of killing. Sadiq Khan (that vitriolic critic of Trump and Leftie mayor), has let knife crime get out of control in London. He shows no sign of remedying that. So, the murders continue.

Think back to the 2011 England riots. Tell me ... if storekeepers had been allowed to own guns, and defend their properties from looting ... or if gun controls were relaxed far more generally ... do you SERIOUSLY reckon that those riots, and all that looting, would've happened, much less persisted for several days ? Knowing that if you go on a looting spree, there's a high probability that it'd end with being at the wrong end of a gun barrel ... not too likely to fail to deter, is it .. ?

[STTAB]

So this pretty close to best case scenario for the ‘people at the scene able to defend themselves almost instantly’ and how many died?

Noir, people who are willing to go to Wal Mart and shoot people are not going to obey gun laws, no matter which laws you pass.

The only person in that scenario who would not have had a gun is the guy who stopped the criminal. This isn't rocket science.

[Noir]

How many 'knife massacres' (including the occasional machete !) do we have in the UK ? Our draconian anti-gun laws do a very great deal to restrict ownership, sure, but then murdering maniacs just find another way of killing. Sadiq Khan (that vitriolic critic of Trump and Leftie mayor), has let knife crime get out of control in London. He shows no sign of remedying that. So, the murders continue.

Think back to the 2011 England riots. Tell me ... if storekeepers had been allowed to own guns, and defend their properties from looting ... or if gun controls were relaxed far more generally ... do you SERIOUSLY reckon that those riots, and all that looting, would've happened, much less persisted for several days ? Knowing that if you go on a looting spree, there's a high probability that it'd end with being at the wrong end of a gun barrel ... not too likely to fail to deter, is it .. ?

Would you rather be in a shopping mall when suddenly an intended mass murderer pulls out a knife or a gun?

Would you of preferred all the rioters had access to guns aswell?

[CSM]

Would you rather be in a shopping mall when suddenly an intended mass murderer pulls out a knife or a gun?

Would you of preferred all the rioters had access to guns aswell?

Nice try but you are presenting only half the equation. I would prefer that the millions of law abiding citizens were armed, trained and capable of effectively neutralizing any armed threat at any time. Do really believe that a mass murder would walk into WalMart and start shooting knowing that most of the folks in there were armed? There is a reason these whackos choose targets that they know are well populated by defenseless people. As for rioters being armed, I am quite certain they would think twice before rioting if they know the majority of those NOT rioting were armed as well.

I get what you are advocating and it's the same old philosophy that boils down to "I and others like me are weak or unwilling to defend ourselves. Let us make laws that curb and restrain those who oppose us. Let us rely on those few who are willing to defend us enforce the law but restrain them as well, lest they turn us. Let us do this in the name of progress and prosperity."

By the way, this is what happens on all levels. Many nations rely on the US to defend them but then declare the US is too warlike and its people too violent.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Would you rather be in a shopping mall when suddenly an intended mass murderer pulls out a knife or a gun?

Would you of preferred all the rioters had access to guns aswell?

I would prefer that I be allowed as a law abiding citizen to also protect myself, my family and other innocent people when my life or theirs was threatened by any crazed armed gunman!!!! I can not do that as things now stand , as government and Dems have made it very perilous for a man to defend oneself or others even when directly threatened with death or other serious harm. (yet in Chicago, their favorite voting block goes armed and murders daily, weekly, monthly at a staggering rate-with the Dems doing their best to hide that glaring fact/reality)
To defend myself and others, I must be allowed my Constitutional right to bear arm --without having to endure additional attacks, searches and violations of myself by law enforcement or any other agencies that want to keep me as a damn slave in desperate need of their damn overbearing stewardship, and arrogantly proclaimed bullshit so-called help..

We that have such ability are denied that Constitutional right because the dem party--in its socialist/liberal ideology fears us and wants a nation completely unarmed --where the central government is --ALL POWERFUL-- and functions as did a feudal kingdom or a dictatorship.
Yes, Noir, you get to ignore my posts because long ago I so refuted your stupidity(leftist/socialist type ideology) so damn truly , utterly and convincingly -- that running away was your only course to take.
Cold, hard truth-- something that the lying dems, libs and other vermin hate with monumental passion, fear and loathing..
A solid gold fact.--Tyr

[jimnyc]

I don't need to tell the lame liberals why I want or need my gun.

I don't need to answer their lame and loaded questions.

The law and the COTUS should simple be followed, end of loaded questions.

If a liberal would like to remain un-armed, I have no argument for them.

Criminals will not, not ever, simply give up their guns, and give up crime. Take away gun crimes by criminals, and guns are a much much much much smaller issue.

Law abiding citizens such as myself, will not give up their guns and ability to defend themselves. Ever.

---

Lindsey Graham Politely Explains to Idiot Reporters Why He needs an AR-15

A favorite question that the anti-gun crowd likes to ask is "Why does anyone need an AR-15?" Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) has a very practical answer to that, which he offered to reporters on Friday.

The New York Post:


Sen. Lindsey Graham knocked down the idea of banning semi-automatic weapons nearly identical to those used by soldiers on the off chance a hurricane slams into his South Carolina town.
“Here’s a scenario that I think is real: There’s a hurricane, a natural disaster, no power, no cops, no anything,” the Republican lawmaker told reporters aboard Air Force One.

A reporter asked if he meant looters.

“Yeah, people, they’re not going to come to the AR-15 home,” Graham responded. “Well, I think if you show up on the porch with an AR-15, they’ll probably go down the street.”

That's a very sound point. No matter where you live, you can come up with a legitimate argument for owning an AR-15 for self-defense. Of course, no one ever wants to be in a situation where they have to, but the peace of mind is a gift.

Although he can occasionally be a firebrand, Graham is still a United States senator and was flying with the president on Air Force One when asked about this. He remained very decorous and didn't offer the answer that a regular, law-abiding gun owner might.

I sleep with a loaded Beretta on my nightstand and was once asked why.

"Because I (expletive deleted) want to."

That's really the only answer anyone needs in response to being asked why he or she is doing something perfectly legal that isn't harming anyone else.

My dad (may he rest in peace) had a more polite, but still intentionally obnoxious, response when someone once asked him why he slept with a gun next to his bed:

"Where do you keep yours?"

Have I ever had to use a gun for self-defense? Thankfully, no. And I hope I never have to.

Rest - https://pjmedia.com/news-and-politics/lindsey-graham-politely-explains-to-idiot-reporters-why-he-needs-an-ar-15/

[High_Plains_Drifter]

i just heard Trump on Fox say that he and others are looking very closely at new background check and red flag laws.

Well, I'll tell ya what... he fucks around with red flag laws and makes back ground checks mandatory for EVERY gun sale, even private citizens, and I guarantee you, you can mark my words here, his next rally after he signs some shit like that and he'll have HALF the people there he normally does, and when he sees that, he'll know he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected. He fucked up. He's railed about protecting the second amendment at EVERY rally he's ever had, and it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." He's playing with fire, seriously. He signs some expansive new bull shit back ground checks that includes private sales, and we get red flag laws, he won't get my vote again.

[Kathianne]

i just heard Trump on Fox say that he and others are looking very closely at new background check and red flag laws.

Well, I'll tell ya what... he fucks around with red flag laws and makes back ground checks mandatory for EVERY gun sale, even private citizens, and I guarantee you, you can mark my words here, his next rally after he signs some shit like that and he'll have HALF the people there he normally does, and when he sees that, he'll know he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected. He fucked up. He's railed about protecting the second amendment at EVERY rally he's ever had, and it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." He's playing with fire, seriously. He signs some expansive new bull shit back ground checks that includes private sales, and we get red flag laws, he won't get my vote again.

No disrespect, but who are you going to vote for then? Going to let a Democrat win?

[High_Plains_Drifter]

No disrespect, but who are you going to vote for then? Going to let a Democrat win?
It won't be just me "letting a democrat win," he'll lose major support. If a democrat wins, it'll be TRUMP'S fault, not mine.

And when you have no one to vote for, you just don't vote.

Maybe I'd write MYSELF in.

[Noir]

Nice try but you are presenting only half the equation. I would prefer that the millions of law abiding citizens were armed, trained and capable of effectively neutralizing any armed threat at any time.

Well that’s a nice fantasy equation, my equation that you call “half” is the actual real day situation.


Do really believe that a mass murder would walk into WalMart and start shooting knowing that most of the folks in there were armed?

Yes.


As for rioters being armed, I am quite certain they would think twice before rioting if they know the majority of those NOT rioting were armed as well.

I doubt it, mobs are mobs, guns or not, and mob mentality will win out over any individual assessment.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Well that’s a nice fantasy equation, my equation that you call “half” is the actual real day situation.

Yes.

I doubt it, mobs are mobs, guns or not, and mob mentality will win out over any individual assessment.
......... :laugh:

[jimnyc]

i just heard Trump on Fox say that he and others are looking very closely at new background check and red flag laws.

Well, I'll tell ya what... he fucks around with red flag laws and makes back ground checks mandatory for EVERY gun sale, even private citizens, and I guarantee you, you can mark my words here, his next rally after he signs some shit like that and he'll have HALF the people there he normally does, and when he sees that, he'll know he doesn't stand a snowball's chance in hell of being reelected. He fucked up. He's railed about protecting the second amendment at EVERY rally he's ever had, and it states "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED." He's playing with fire, seriously. He signs some expansive new bull shit back ground checks that includes private sales, and we get red flag laws, he won't get my vote again.

I don't have much of an issue with certain types of background checks - kind of like it is now though, with a limited check via the FBI and what not, and a 3 day wait if needing further investigation, or 3 day weight in general at many places. Ways already to be disqualified:

Convicted crime of more than 2 year sentence
You have renounced your USA citizenship
In the country illegally
Convicted of domestic violence
Are a fugitive
Have a warrant
Are an addict
Dishonorably discharged from military
Diagnosed mentally ill or found not guilty by reason of insanity or unfit for trial

You get a background check if purchasing from someone with an FFL.

Private sales of any sorts must meet restrictions for possessing firearms under Federal law. And you think it's all private, so you can just lie, right?

And even via the NICS. Accidentally check off wrong box in criminal history? You're facing 18-36 in the slammer. Issues with your mental health, and you lie about it and get caught? That'll get your sentence increased!

An example of laws already in place for law abiding citizens and associated penalties. MANY states already have the NICS bg checks as mandatory, but the libs don't tell you that, do they? You know, places like Illinois. There, the buyer must have a valid firearm owner's identification card. State police MUST do a background check. And then the seller "May not knowingly transfer firearms to anyone who is ineligible to possess a firearm or who lacks a valid FOID card. All transfers of firearms must be recorded and maintained for 10 years." ----- that sure has worked out as a 10 out of 10, absolutely perfect in places like Chicago!!! Those criminals came up on so many police checks, and littered allllll over those kept records!! Alaska, Alabama Lousiana, Missouri.... and others..... must ensure the buyer fits within all laws and regulations, and must keep records.

This will cover a few examples:

Internet Gun Sales and Background Checks, Explained

Advocates of gun violence prevention have praised Facebook over the past week for its decision to ban private gun sales from the social network. Facebook’s new policy, enforced by reports from users, was announced at the end of a month that began with President Obama’s week of speeches and executive actions aimed at reducing gun violence. One of the most parsed moments in Obama’s speech unveiling his executive actions on guns on January 4th was a sentence that drew little interest from pundits and mainstream reporters.

“A violent felon can buy [a gun] over the Internet with no background check, no questions asked,” he said from the East Room, echoing a familiar refrain of advocates. Almost immediately, conservative critics pounced.

A writer at The Federalist said Obama’s remark was “so plainly not true.” The National Review writer Charles C.W. Cooke called the president’s statement “what is classically called a lie.”

...

You have a few options. If you Google “online gun store,” you’ll find a slew of websites with names like Grabagun.com, Impactguns.com, and Budsgunshop.com that act like digital versions of physical gun stores. Websites like Gunbroker.com, in contrast, host auctions, much like eBay. Then there are sites that don’t conduct gun sales, but rather allow individuals to arrange sales. The most well known is Armslist.com — essentially a Craigslist for guns — but discussion boards like Glocktalk.com also often have sections dedicated to classified ads.

...

You go through a background check.

Customers who purchase weapons from the website of a Federally Licensed Firearms dealer (FFL), like Kentucky-based Buds, can’t just enter their credit card and address and have a gun shipped to their doorstep. Instead, the seller will mail the gun to a local FFL, which will then perform a background check on the buyer before handing over the gun. In most cases, the local FFL will charge a transfer fee, usually $25–$50, for facilitating the transaction.

These rules apply to sellers with brick and mortar locations, like Bud’s, and those that conduct all their sales online, like Grabagun, which is based out of a Texas industrial park and has no storefront.

Rest - https://www.thetrace.org/2016/01/internet-gun-sales-background-checks/

Another read:

Top Gun Stats Liberals Don’t Want You to Know

In the wake of the Orlando terror attack–carried out by a gunman who ignored the Pulse Orlando’s gun-free designation–liberals are eagerly working to limit the Second Amendment rights of citizens throughout the country.
In so doing, they are pushing numerous gun controls that are not only theoretically troublesome but which have already been proven practical failures. Moreover, proponents of more gun control are glossing over facts and evidence that undermine claims about the AR-15 and other firearms, as well as facts and evidence regarding the manner in which guns are primarily used.

Here are the top stats liberals don’t want you to know:

1 - Background Checks Do Not Stop High Profile Attackers–Although gun grabbers relentlessly push background checks as the solution to stopping high profile attacks on innocent Americans, the facts are that background checks do not hinder high profile attackers in the least. Alleged Orlando attacker Omar Mateen passed a background check for his guns, as did UCLA gunman Mainak Sarkar and almost every high profile attacker in the past 10 years.

Breitbart New previously published a list of attackers and alleged attackers who passed background checks for their guns, and that list stands as evidence that background checks are no hindrance to evil persons dedicated to murder. The list includes: “Sayed Farook and Tashfeen Malik (San Bernardino), Noah Harpman (Colorado Springs), Chris Harper Mercer (Umpqua Community College), Vester Lee Flangan (Virgina), John Russell Houser (Lafayette), Muhammad Youssef Abdulazeez (Chattanooga), Dylann Roof (Charleston), Elton Simpson and Nadir Soofi (Garland), Jared and Amanda Miller (Las Vegas), Elliot Rodger (Santa Barabara), Ivan Lopez (Fort Hood 2014), Darion Marcus Aguilar (Maryland mall), Karl Halverson Pierson (Arapahoe High School), Paul Ciancia (LAX), Andrew John Engeldinger (Minneapolis), Aaron Alexis (DC Navy Yard), Tennis Melvin Maynard (West Virginia), Wade Michael Page (Sikh Temple), James Holmes (Aurora theater), Jared Loughner (Tucson), Nidal Hasan (Fort Hood 2009), Jiverly Wong (Binghamton), Seung-Hui Cho (Virginia Tech), Naveed Haq (Seattle), and Mark Barton (Atlanta).”

2. More People Killed With Clubs, Hammers Than Rifles–Amid the push for an “assault weapons” ban following the Sandy Hook attack, Breitbart News consulted FBI numbers for the years 2005-2011 and found that the number of murders by hammers and clubs constantly topped the number of murders by rifle. For example, In 2005 the number of murders committed with a rifle was 445, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 605. In 2006, the number of murders committed with a rifle was 438, while the number of murders committed with hammers and clubs was 618. In 2011, there was 323 murders committed with a rifle but 496 murders committed with hammers and clubs.

And it should be noted the rifles in view here include all kinds of rifles–bolt-actions, semiautomatic hunting rifles, semiautomatic target rifles, etc.–so the percentage of deaths in which a rifles like an AR-15 were used would be even smaller than the overall number quoted for the years above.

3.AR-15s Are Not “Automatic” Rifles–Although politicians like Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders, celebrities like Seth MacFarlene, and too many media pundits to number have referred to the AR-15 as an “automatic” weapon during last few months, the fact remains that AR-15s are semiautomatic firearms. They shoot one round–and only one round–each time the trigger is pulled. This means an AR-15 shoots no faster than a Smith & Wesson M&P 9mm handgun, or a Glock or Sig Sauer .40 caliber handgun, or an H&K or Ruger .45 caliber handgun. Claims to the contrary are either based on ignorance or are part of a focused attempt to demonize the AR-15.

4. Guns Are Legally Used For Self-Defense Purposes Approximately 760,000 A Year–Staggering isn’t it? Especially when you consider the way the mainstream media covers gun crime after gun crime, giving the impression that guns are just bad things which bad people use to hurt good people. Yet Florida State University criminologist Gary Kleck has demonstrated that guns are used for defensive purposes approximately 760,000 a year in the United States.

5.Gun-Free Zones Are Killing Fields–The Orlando terror attack to place in gun-free zone. Result? Approximately 50 dead. The attack in the Umpqua Community College gun-free zone (October 2015) left 9 dead, the attack on the gun-free Chattanooga military offices (July 2015) left five dead, the attack in Fort Hood’s gun-free zone (April 2014) left 3 dead, the earlier attack in Fort Hood’s gun-free zone (November 2009) killed 13, the attack in the gun-free DC Navy Yard (September 2013) killed 12, the attack on gun-free Sandy Hook Elementary (December 2012) killed 26, the attack in the gun-free Aurora movie theater (July 2012) killed 12, and the attack on the gun-free Virginia Tech campus (April 2007) killed 32. Think about it–Eight gun-free zones, 207 firearm-related deaths.

6. More Children Under 10 Killed By Fire, Drowning Than Accidental Gun Deaths—Breitbart News previously reported Centers for Disease Control and Prevention numbers for 2010. The figures were compiled by John Lott, they showed the number of children under the age of 10 unintentionally killed in fire-related deaths was over seven times higher than the number of children killed in unintentional gun-related deaths, and the number of children killed in unintentional drowning deaths was sixteen times higher than the number of children killed in unintentional gun-related deaths. The raw numbers were as follows: Number of children killed in unintentional fire-related deaths was 262, the number of unintentional drowning 609, the number of accidental gun-related deaths was 36.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2016/06/16/top-gun-stats-democrats-dont-want-know/

If and when the time comes I will need to read exact specifics on any proposal or changes, but if he somehow demands or forces more than that, and it's unreasonable in any way, he will not have my support on that issue. Not voting for him and allowing one of the socialists to take office instead? Not sure I can do that. But I would be extremely vocal about the issue. But the fact is, a liberal would likely try the same crap if not worse. I think I would still support him overall to to get another 4, but then push as hard as possible to keep that from happening. OR, if it happens prior, no way in hell I support too much change if at all, and then he will have a problem come election time. I'll still prefer him over any of the nitwits on the left, without a thought, but also no doubt a ton more simply stay away over such an important issue.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

@jimnyc (http://www.debatepolicy.com/member.php?u=1)... I can go to local gun shows all around WI here and buy and sell guns LEGALLY. Sales and purchases between private citizens is legal here. $20 a day buys you a table at one of these gun shows and bring whatever you want to sell, and as a private citizen, you're not required to do any check on someone purchasing anything. It's often referred to on the news as the "GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE." Well it's really got nothing to do with gun shows, it's simply private citizens being legally able to purchase and sell guns without a background check.

And I can tell you this, that is a VERY important issue to MANY, because if background checks are expanded to EVERY gun sale, even PRIVATE, then the government knows about EVERY firearm, and that's really what they NEED to be one step closer to being able to CONFISCATE THEM ALL.

I guarantee, if Trump and the republicans go there and eliminate private sales without a background check, HE, WILL, LOSE, in 2020... GUARANTEED... and the repubs would probably lose the senate too.

One other thing, you can have a warrant out on you and still own a firearm in WI. Warrants can issued for failure to appear for a speeding ticket, but it's still a misdemeanor. Only felony convictions prohibit someone from owning a gun.
But myself, I don't think that's even fair. I think felons should still be able to own a gun. I think anyone convicted of a non violent offense should not lose their 2nd amendment rights. I think being convicted of ANY sort of violence is where you have to look. If you've been convicted of felony assault in the first degree, you attacked someone and beat them senseless, and it wasn't self defense, that's when you lose your 2nd amendment rights.

[jimnyc]

jimnyc... I can go to local gun shows all around WI here and buy and sell guns LEGALLY. Sales and purchases between private citizens is legal here. $20 a day buys you a table at one of these gun shows and bring whatever you want to sell, and as a private citizen, you're not required to do any check on someone purchasing anything. It's often referred to on the news as the "GUN SHOW LOOP HOLE." Well it's really got nothing to do with gun shows, it's simply private citizens being legally able to purchase and sell guns without a background check.

And I can tell you this, that is a VERY important issue to MANY, because if background checks are expanded to EVERY gun sale, even PRIVATE, then the government then knows about EVERY firearm, and that's really what they NEED to be one step closer to being able to CONFISCATE THEM ALL.

I guarantee, if Trump and the republicans go there eliminate private sales without a background check, HE, WILL, LOSE, in 2020... GUARANTEED... and the repubs would probably lose the senate too.

Oh, absolutely. But the guys selling still has rules/laws to follow, even if the liberals scream otherwise. Wisconsin too, a private seller must ensure the age requirements are met, and that the buyer isn't otherwise prohibited by law in any way.

Liberals don't understand that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are RESPONSIBLE people, they KNOW what personal responsibility is. Liberals couldn't possibly imagine others being responsible outside of the government or police direct enforcement. It's a foreign concept to them.

And I agree about the horrid record keeping/tracking laws getting out of hand. Outside of ensuring legality, I don't think records should ever be transferable in any way to the government or police. Nothing that allows for confiscation down the road should be allowed. I know my brother Jeff in Georgia has the EXACT stance as you, as he's bought guns in such a manner in Georgia. And their laws are almost identical to Wisconsin.

[jimnyc]

Really a damn good idea if you think about it. PROVE to America that it's the right choice. Maybe even start somewhere large like California. See if very tough regulations stem the flow of blood from gun crimes, and see if such laws and regulations get the criminals to lay their weapons down, or not use them in crimes since they are now further regulated.

Perhaps somewhere like Chicago? Oh wait, they already have some of the toughest laws and regulations in the country. Perhaps not the worst.... but lots of what the liberals want. Then we have Baltimore, Maryland, where ALL weapons must go through a FFL, or law enforcement for background checks.

Six Shot in Less than Two Hours in Gun-Controlled Baltimore

Six people were shot in less than two hours late Friday night to early Saturday morning in heavily gun-controlled Baltimore, Maryland.
WBALTV reports that the first of the shooting incidents occurred around 11:18 p.m. Friday and the last occurred around 1:00 a.m. Saturday.

The 11:18 p.m. incident resulted in a 34-year-old being shot, and the 1:00 a.m. incident resulted in a 37-year-old man being shot.

At 11:43 p.m., three people–a 31-year-old man, a 44-year-old woman, and a 15-year-old boy–were all shot and left with non-life-threatening injuries.

Additionally, a 32-year-old man was treated for gunshot wounds around midnight.

On July 29, 2019, Breitbart News reported that Baltimore is on track to top 300 homicides for the fifth consecutive year.

Baltimore, like all of Maryland, has a ban on “assault weapons” and “high capacity” magazines. It also has a registration/fingerprint requirement for would-be purchasers of new handguns.

Rest - https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/08/10/six-shot-less-two-hours-gun-controlled-baltimore/#


https://i.imgur.com/3V92QzE.jpg

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Oh, absolutely. But the guys selling still has rules/laws to follow, even if the liberals scream otherwise. Wisconsin too, a private seller must ensure the age requirements are met, and that the buyer isn't otherwise prohibited by law in any way.
I don't think so, pard. If I sold a gun to someone, I'm not required to do any sort of investigation into any of that person's past or legal issues. If the person buying the gun had any issues as to why he isn't supposed to posses one, then it's on him for illegally buying and possessing a firearm, not me for selling it to him.

Far as age goes, the age for purchasing and carrying, hunting, etc in WI is 12, but again, I think that only pertains to sales from an FFL individual or business. A don't believe a private citizen is required to check anyone's age. Of course, a 12 year old is going to be accompanied by an adult when buying a gun, and if they're not, I surely wouldn't sell them anything. I wouldn't sell a gun to anyone that doesn't at least look 16.

Hunting is MAJOR industry here in WI. It keeps our state going. If deer hunting alone were to all of a sudden stop, not to mention small game, our economy would be in the toilet, and I think even the gun hating democrats in this state realize that.

I know I'm the only here that's said that Trump is playing with fire talking about expanded background checks and red flag laws. I'll take the hit if I'm wrong, but I'd bet my bottom dollar I'm not. He can screw himself so fast it'll make his head spin if he dicks around and goes too far, and considering how he won so many states by such small margins, that too far really isn't that far.

[jimnyc]

I don't think so, pard. If I sold a gun to someone, I'm not required to do any sort of investigation into any of that person's past or legal issues. If the person buying the gun had any issues as to why he isn't supposed to posses one, then it's on him for illegally buying and possessing a firearm, not me for selling it to him.

Far as age goes, the age for purchasing and carrying, hunting, etc in WI is 12, but again, I think that only pertains to sales from an FFL individual or business. A don't believe a private citizen is required to check anyone's age. Of course, a 12 year old is going to be accompanied by an adult when buying a gun, and if they're not, I surely wouldn't sell them anything. I wouldn't sell a gun to anyone that doesn't at least look 16.

Hunting is MAJOR industry here in WI. It keeps our state going. If deer hunting alone were to all of a sudden stop, not to mention small game, our economy would be in the toilet, and I think even the gun hating democrats in this state realize that.

I know I'm the only here that's said that Trump is playing with fire talking about expanded background checks and red flag laws. I'll take the hit if I'm wrong, but I'd bet my bottom dollar I'm not. He can screw himself so fast it'll make his head spin if he dicks around and goes too far, and considering how he won so many states by such small margins, that too far really isn't that far.

It may be more of that personal responsibility system, but a seller/buyer can still be held responsible. In Wisconsin, for example, a seller must still ensure the buyer is over 18. They must ensure the buyer is not otherwise restricted by federal law. Now, they can do this via simply asking them, and that's what most do, and the majority know people or know a friend of a friend. But yes, others can simply sell and not have a care in the world, and the same from the buyer. But still severe penalties if caught. AND potentially other associated charges.

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) (a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

---

I just read this on a gun site from a guy in Wisconsin on what he does/asks in selling privately:

1) are you a felon?
2) are you the subject of a restraining order?
3) have you been to the loony bin?
4) are you legally permitted to purchase and posses a handgun?

If you're worried, you can run a criminal records search on WI CCAP.
Then i take a photo of their WI Drivers Lisc for my records in case the po-po comes looking.

---

Another question that is state specific:

Would a person be civilly liable if he unknowingly sells a gun to an ineligible person and that person commits a crime with it-if it could be proven that the instant background would have identified the person as ineligible? Would be the background check be considered necessary due diligence?

The answers all appear to point in the state specific direction.

---

I guess what I was trying to say:

In general, people who make the occasional sale, exchange, or gifting of a firearm are not required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL), which gun shop owners need, however, they are still required to know and abide by local, state, and federal laws.

Another good blog article - https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/3/buying-and-selling-a-firearm-private-sales-explained/

---

I wouldn't even question you or any other gun owners outside of NJ/NY! I was solely pointing out that the sellers/buyers must still follow the laws, even if not using NICS or handing over personal information to the DOJ/FBI. :)

[Gunny]

You are both correct. Jimbob on a technical, legal level. HPD at the "how it's usually done" level. It's the same here. You are supposed to abide by the law. However, most people just take the buyer's word for it.

I have always gotten at least a receipt that shows the other person is in fact liable for the use and possession of the firearm. Admittedly, it's been quite a few years since I have sold a gun to an individual and it was my brother. I do know the rules have stiffened here. If I was going to sell a firearm I would definitely have to update my knowledge of the law.

I also take into account of the above that HPD lives in the country. People in the country pretty much don't pay attention to stupid city people laws. When you see a cop about once a week or so where you live, you aren't waiting on them to take care of your business or they'll just be investigating your murder.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

It may be more of that personal responsibility system, but a seller/buyer can still be held responsible. In Wisconsin, for example, a seller must still ensure the buyer is over 18. They must ensure the buyer is not otherwise restricted by federal law. Now, they can do this via simply asking them, and that's what most do, and the majority know people or know a friend of a friend. But yes, others can simply sell and not have a care in the world, and the same from the buyer. But still severe penalties if caught. AND potentially other associated charges.

948.60  Possession of a dangerous weapon by a person under 18.

(1)  In this section, “dangerous weapon" means any firearm, loaded or unloaded; any electric weapon, as defined in s. 941.295 (1c) (a); metallic knuckles or knuckles of any substance which could be put to the same use with the same or similar effect as metallic knuckles; a nunchaku or any similar weapon consisting of 2 sticks of wood, plastic or metal connected at one end by a length of rope, chain, wire or leather; a cestus or similar material weighted with metal or other substance and worn on the hand; a shuriken or any similar pointed star-like object intended to injure a person when thrown; or a manrikigusari or similar length of chain having weighted ends.
(2) 948.60(2)(a)(a) Any person under 18 years of age who possesses or goes armed with a dangerous weapon is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor.
(b) Except as provided in par. (c), any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.
(c) Whoever violates par. (b) is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.
(d) A person under 17 years of age who has violated this subsection is subject to the provisions of ch. 938 unless jurisdiction is waived under s. 938.18 or the person is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of criminal jurisdiction under s. 938.183.
(3) (a) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon when the dangerous weapon is being used in target practice under the supervision of an adult or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the supervision of an adult. This section does not apply to an adult who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age for use only in target practice under the adult's supervision or in a course of instruction in the traditional and proper use of the dangerous weapon under the adult's supervision.
(b) This section does not apply to a person under 18 years of age who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who possesses or is armed with a dangerous weapon in the line of duty. This section does not apply to an adult who is a member of the armed forces or national guard and who transfers a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age in the line of duty.
(c) This section applies only to a person under 18 years of age who possesses or is armed with a rifle or a shotgun if the person is in violation of s. 941.28 or is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593. This section applies only to an adult who transfers a firearm to a person under 18 years of age if the person under 18 years of age is not in compliance with ss. 29.304 and 29.593 or to an adult who is in violation of s. 941.28.
History: 1987 a. 332; 1991 a. 18, 139; 1993 a. 98; 1995 a. 27, 77; 1997 a. 248; 2001 a. 109; 2005 a. 163; 2011 a. 35.
Sub. (2) (b) does not set a standard for civil liability, and a violation of sub. (2) (b) does not constitute negligence per se. Logarto v. Gustafson, 998 F. Supp. 998 (1998).

---

I just read this on a gun site from a guy in Wisconsin on what he does/asks in selling privately:

1) are you a felon?
2) are you the subject of a restraining order?
3) have you been to the loony bin?
4) are you legally permitted to purchase and posses a handgun?

If you're worried, you can run a criminal records search on WI CCAP.
Then i take a photo of their WI Drivers Lisc for my records in case the po-po comes looking.

---

Another question that is state specific:

Would a person be civilly liable if he unknowingly sells a gun to an ineligible person and that person commits a crime with it-if it could be proven that the instant background would have identified the person as ineligible? Would be the background check be considered necessary due diligence?

The answers all appear to point in the state specific direction.

---

I guess what I was trying to say:

In general, people who make the occasional sale, exchange, or gifting of a firearm are not required to have a Federal Firearms License (FFL), which gun shop owners need, however, they are still required to know and abide by local, state, and federal laws.

Another good blog article - https://www.nrablog.com/articles/2016/3/buying-and-selling-a-firearm-private-sales-explained/

---

I wouldn't even question you or any other gun owners outside of NJ/NY! I was solely pointing out that the sellers/buyers must still follow the laws, even if not using NICS or handing over personal information to the DOJ/FBI. :)
Private Sales in Wisconsin

Last updated October 8, 2018.
Wisconsin has no law requiring a background check on the purchaser of a firearm when the seller is not a licensed dealer.

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/private-sales-in-wisconsin/


Minimum Age to Purchase & Possess in Wisconsin

Last updated October 8, 2018.
Wisconsin generally prohibits the intentional transfer of any firearm to an individual under age 18.1

The state also generally prohibits the possession of a firearm by any person under age 18.2

These restrictions do not apply, however, when the firearm is being used by a person under age 18 when supervised by an adult during target practice or a course of instruction.3

Wisconsin law generally provides that for hunting purposes, the minimum age for possession or control of a firearm is age 12.4 A person age 12 but under age 14 may not hunt without being accompanied by his or her parent, guardian or a person at least 18 years of age who is designated by the parent or guardian.5 A young person 12 to 14 years of age also may possess a firearm if he or she is enrolled in instruction under the state hunter education program and is carrying the firearm in a case, unloaded, to or from that class, or is handling or operating the firearm during that class under the supervision of an instructor.6

https://lawcenter.giffords.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-or-possess-firearms-in-wisconsin/

[Mr. P]

Well, I have a lot to say about this issue but CSM has pretty much covered everything I'd say.

So, all I'll say is that it's not the guns people, it is the people !!!!! That's what needs addressed not (gun control) the inanimate object used.

At this time I oppose Red Flag laws...remember Hate crime laws? Gotten outta hand don't you think? I see the same occurring for Red Flag. Just sayin :salute:

[Kathianne]

I think it's going to matter what they put together as 'controls.'

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/08/12/president-abandoning-promise-defend-second-amendment/



President Abandoning His Promise To Defend Second Amendment
Posted at 8:30 am on August 12, 2019 by Tom Knighton

President Donald Trump made a lot of campaign promises, promises he’s done a pretty good job of keeping. While there were some promises I didn’t support, the man did what he said he was going to do.


However, there’s one big promise he doesn’t seem to be keeping, and that’s to defend the Second Amendment.


Now, I’m willing to let the bump stock thing slide. After all, I remember the legislation that was being considered and was also likely to pass. The reclassification of bump stocks by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF) averted a near disaster. I don’t like it, but I don’t have to.


The problem is, the president is once again talking gun control legislation and signaling his willingness to sign such laws.


The debate over gun control continues, with President Trump again calling for stronger background checks.


The President says it’s time for Congress to act—and also says he hopes the NRA will get on board.


But the President and the nation’s gun lobby could be in for a tough fight ahead.


President Trump on Friday was confident that some kind of gun reform is possible, even in the face of NRA resistance.


“We have tremendous support for really common sense, sensible, important background checks. I think we can get something really good done,” said President Trump.


This has only emboldened gun control groups like Brady, which now see a golden opportunity before them.


These groups see a president who is willing to give them what they’ve long wanted. However, we also see that despite the anti-gun establishment’s long claims of wanting to compromise, what they really want is to take from our right to keep and bear arms with nothing in return. Not even their typical version of “compromise.”


“If we are talking about universal background checks, we need that to be a true universal background check so that any gun purchased in this country is bought with a background check,” said Christian Heyne, of Brady.


Heyne is optimistic, but warns any legislation needs to be loophole-free.


“In the past, there has been proposals on the table that have allowed for a lot of gun lobby carve outs.”


In other words, gun control groups want it all and any exceptions. Loaning a gun to a friend or passing a firearm on to your children will require a background check if they get their way.


And worse, it looks like President Trump is willing to work with them on this. He’s willing to give them at least some of this.


President Trump promised us that he would work with the National Rifle Association to save the Second Amendment. Well, now is his chance. He can step up and recognize what gun rights activists have known all along, that guns are not the problem with mass shootings, or he can capitulate with the anti-gun crowd, win zero votes for 2020 and lose quite a few.


Look, President Trump was the choice for most gun rights advocates because the alternative was Hillary Clinton, who we knew damn good and well was coming for the guns if she got half a chance. However, if we’re going to get hammered by anti-gun laws from our federal government anyway, a lot of pro-gun folks are just going to stay home in November.


That’s not good for President Trump, and I’m sure his advisors know it. They would do well to remind the president that he was elected in significant part thanks to the gun rights movement. He would do well to remember that.

[CSM]

Well that’s a nice fantasy equation, my equation that you call “half” is the actual real day situation.



Yes.



I doubt it, mobs are mobs, guns or not, and mob mentality will win out over any individual assessment.

Your reality is not mine. I do understand why you think like you do, however. Those who enjoy the protection provided by others seldom consider what happens when those others are not present to protect them. I suppose there is some consolation for you that the perpetrator will (eventually) be punished for wounding or killing you.

[STTAB]

Oh, absolutely. But the guys selling still has rules/laws to follow, even if the liberals scream otherwise. Wisconsin too, a private seller must ensure the age requirements are met, and that the buyer isn't otherwise prohibited by law in any way.

Liberals don't understand that the overwhelming majority of gun owners are RESPONSIBLE people, they KNOW what personal responsibility is. Liberals couldn't possibly imagine others being responsible outside of the government or police direct enforcement. It's a foreign concept to them.

And I agree about the horrid record keeping/tracking laws getting out of hand. Outside of ensuring legality, I don't think records should ever be transferable in any way to the government or police. Nothing that allows for confiscation down the road should be allowed. I know my brother Jeff in Georgia has the EXACT stance as you, as he's bought guns in such a manner in Georgia. And their laws are almost identical to Wisconsin.

I'm sorry Jimmy but sadly this isn't true. We all wish it were true, but there are a lot of morons out there who own guns. Legally.

I can get on my Facebook right now and go to one of the many yardsale sites in this area and post "I'm looking to buy an AR15 today" and within an hour I'd have someone offering to sell it to me, no questions asked.

I don't believe that is right or proper. I know that there are many people out there who don't need so much as a .38 revolver, let alone an AR15, but that there are many people who don't give a shit who they sell their guns to .

Same thing as I say about cops. Of course there are bad cops. There are bad people and cops are people and thus you will have bad cops.

Of course this brings up the real issue with "universal background checks" how the hell would you enforce that? I could sell you any weapon I own and how would the government even know unless we told them, let alone enforce me running a background check on you? Oh that's right, the only way the government would know is if they knew what guns each of us owned then they could say "wait a minute STTAB used to own this weapon, but not Jimmy owns it, where is the background check?"

And again, liberals know this.

I'll tell you what I would do if I were Trump though, I'd fight for a federal law making it a federal felony to open carry long arms in public. And I'd dare someone to challenge that law in court. It would be upheld.

I'm not talking about the guy , or gal, who has their hunting rifle safely put up in their vehicle, or the guy carrying his long gun in a carrying case. I'm talking abut the moron who shows up at a fucking airport with his AR15 slung across his chest like he's fucking Rambo. There is no need for that, it serves no purpose other than letting him imagine his penis is larger than it really is, and scaring people for no fucking reason.

This way every single person who is open carrying a long arm can be detained by police simply for carrying the weapon, no questions asked.

Or as the case last week near me in Springfield MO where a person made a citizen's arrest, and may actually end up in legal trouble himself because it's not clear that the kid carrying the AR15 violated any laws, he was merely being an asshole.

[Kathianne]

Your reality is not mine. I do understand why you think like you do, however. Those who enjoy the protection provided by others seldom consider what happens when those others are not present to protect them. I suppose there is some consolation for you that the perpetrator will (eventually) be punished for wounding or killing you.

I think it's related to the same rationalization that allows one to 'feel good' by 'helping the helpless' as is said about the poor Palestinians with asinine discrimination that is happening. Too late the response is, "We didn't know. Never again!"

[CSM]

I'm sorry Jimmy but sadly this isn't true. We all wish it were true, but there are a lot of morons out there who own guns. Legally.

I can get on my Facebook right now and go to one of the many yardsale sites in this area and post "I'm looking to buy an AR15 today" and within an hour I'd have someone offering to sell it to me, no questions asked.

I don't believe that is right or proper. I know that there are many people out there who don't need so much as a .38 revolver, let alone an AR15, but that there are many people who don't give a shit who they sell their guns to .

Same thing as I say about cops. Of course there are bad cops. There are bad people and cops are people and thus you will have bad cops.

Of course this brings up the real issue with "universal background checks" how the hell would you enforce that? I could sell you any weapon I own and how would the government even know unless we told them, let alone enforce me running a background check on you? Oh that's right, the only way the government would know is if they knew what guns each of us owned then they could say "wait a minute STTAB used to own this weapon, but not Jimmy owns it, where is the background check?"

And again, liberals know this.

I'll tell you what I would do if I were Trump though, I'd fight for a federal law making it a federal felony to open carry long arms in public. And I'd dare someone to challenge that law in court. It would be upheld.

I'm not talking about the guy , or gal, who has their hunting rifle safely put up in their vehicle, or the guy carrying his long gun in a carrying case. I'm talking abut the moron who shows up at a fucking airport with his AR15 slung across his chest like he's fucking Rambo. There is no need for that, it serves no purpose other than letting him imagine his penis is larger than it really is, and scaring people for no fucking reason.

This way every single person who is open carrying a long arm can be detained by police simply for carrying the weapon, no questions asked.

Or as the case last week near me in Springfield MO where a person made a citizen's arrest, and may actually end up in legal trouble himself because it's not clear that the kid carrying the AR15 violated any laws, he was merely being an asshole.

I have to disagree on this one. Your presumption (and assertion) that there is "no need for that" is the very same argument used by most gun control advocates. There is "no need" for the average citizen to posses a firearm. I have a real problem with that sort of thing. If one owns a car, can we presume that they are also a drunk driver? Of course not, that would be silly. Such a presumption goes against the very core of our justice system.... the presumption of innocence ... The idea that openly carrying a long gun (or any other firearm) indicates criminal intent is one of the slippery slopes which, in my opinion will lead to the demise of this country. There is no single instance (in my opinion) that any law enforcement agency should be able to detain a person, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, for any reason. The KGB, SS and other such organizations thrived on that philosophy.

[STTAB]

I have to disagree on this one. Your presumption (and assertion) that there is "no need for that" is the very same argument used by most gun control advocates. There is "no need" for the average citizen to posses a firearm. I have a real problem with that sort of thing. If one owns a car, can we presume that they are also a drunk driver? Of course not, that would be silly. Such a presumption goes against the very core of our justice system.... the presumption of innocence ... The idea that openly carrying a long gun (or any other firearm) indicates criminal intent is one of the slippery slopes which, in my opinion will lead to the demise of this country. There is no single instance (in my opinion) that any law enforcement agency should be able to detain a person, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, for any reason. The KGB, SS and other such organizations thrived on that philosophy.

I was hoping someone would go there.

In Philadelphia in 1787 it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm within city limits.

The 2nd Amendment is so clearly misunderstood by both sides.

Just as the second was never intended to mean "only the militia may have guns" it was never intended to mean "hey you can carry anything anywhere at any time"

In short, the framers never intended for you to be able to carry an AR15 into an airport. That isnt' a right. If it were, then the government couldn't draw a line and say "okay up to here you can carry a gun, past here you can not"

And so now that we have deduced that you do not have a right to carry a firearm wherever you wish, it becomes a question of legitimate need versus public safety. Sorry, there is no legimate need to carry an AR 15 in public and certainly not one that outweighs the public safety.

Failure of gun owners to grasp and acknowledge this point is going to lead to worse gun laws , and doesn't even make sense. It's right up there with abortion freaks who try to argue that a fetus isn't a human being. When we can all clearly see that yes it's a fetus. Well we can also clearly see that only a moron wants to open carry a rifle in public.

Left and right we all need to stop catering to morons. I don't give a fuck if someone wants to carry an AR15 into an airport, that guys an idiot.

[jimnyc]

I'm sorry Jimmy but sadly this isn't true. We all wish it were true, but there are a lot of morons out there who own guns. Legally.


Not doubting, as I don't even know which state? But that is crazy then. So you could sell a gun to a 12 year old and no repercussions if caught? Only the 12 year old for buying? What if a year younger but looks older? No repercussions or responsibility to find that out? What if he shot someone an hour later? No repercussions to you for selling it to him? What if someone is a charged and convicted murderer. You have zero responsibility to even ask about their background? And zero repercussions if he's found to have shot someone an hour later?

I get that some don't care, but would hope they are known criminals knowing they are involving themselves in criminal events. I'd like to think most owners have a sense of responsibility, and of course no criminal involvement from themselves. Personally, I would still keep something, a picture, anything for my own records that I did my due diligence, but that would be for me only. A fine line - but not such a fine line when you consider the "other side" would like to confiscate one day. And considering (in some states) that there is this responsibility, and one could get in trouble, I would make it a habit of personal protection on top of my personal responsibility.

Wisconsin has no LAW that states sellers must do background checks of any kind - but one CAN be penalized - and hence the responsibility and protection, IMO. And maybe also not even addressed - the civil liability that may be involved.


any person who intentionally sells, loans or gives a dangerous weapon to a person under 18 years of age is guilty of a Class I felony.

is guilty of a Class H felony if the person under 18 years of age under par. (b) discharges the firearm and the discharge causes death to himself, herself or another.

[Kathianne]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/United_States_Map_of_Homicide_Deaths_per_100%2C000 _People_by_State_%282015%29.svg/350px-United_States_Map_of_Homicide_Deaths_per_100%2C000 _People_by_State_%282015%29.svg.png Homicide deaths per 100,000 people per year by state (2015)
1.4 – 2.6
2.6 – 3.5
3.5 – 4.8
4.8 – 5.9
5.9 – 7
7 – 10.1
10.1 – 11.9
11.9 – 11.9

Color key would not copy, it's light to dark in ascending order.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_homicide_rate

[Kathianne]

https://huntingmark.com/gun-ownership-stats/

At this site you can find guns per population by state.

[jimnyc]

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3e/United_States_Map_of_Homicide_Deaths_per_100%2C000 _People_by_State_%282015%29.svg/350px-United_States_Map_of_Homicide_Deaths_per_100%2C000 _People_by_State_%282015%29.svg.png Homicide deaths per 100,000 people per year by state (2015)
1.4 – 2.6
2.6 – 3.5
3.5 – 4.8
4.8 – 5.9
5.9 – 7
7 – 10.1
10.1 – 11.9
11.9 – 11.9

Color key would not copy, it's light to dark in ascending order.

NM, my image was something else I think!

[STTAB]

Not doubting, as I don't even know which state? But that is crazy then. So you could sell a gun to a 12 year old and no repercussions if caught? Only the 12 year old for buying? What if a year younger but looks older? No repercussions or responsibility to find that out? What if he shot someone an hour later? No repercussions to you for selling it to him? What if someone is a charged and convicted murderer. You have zero responsibility to even ask about their background? And zero repercussions if he's found to have shot someone an hour later?

I get that some don't care, but would hope they are known criminals knowing they are involving themselves in criminal events. I'd like to think most owners have a sense of responsibility, and of course no criminal involvement from themselves. Personally, I would still keep something, a picture, anything for my own records that I did my due diligence, but that would be for me only. A fine line - but not such a fine line when you consider the "other side" would like to confiscate one day. And considering (in some states) that there is this responsibility, and one could get in trouble, I would make it a habit of personal protection on top of my personal responsibility.

Wisconsin has no LAW that states sellers must do background checks of any kind - but one CAN be penalized - and hence the responsibility and protection, IMO. And maybe also not even addressed - the civil liability that may be involved.

Of course it is illegal to sell a gun to a minor in ANY state Jimmy.

But you just take the buyer's word for it that they are not a minor and have no criminal history?

If that's the case, then how are conservatives pro voter ID laws? I mean why not just the person's word for it if they say they are allowed to vote?

Why have alcohol ID laws? Tobacco? You see where I'm going with this.

[CSM]

I was hoping someone would go there.

In Philadelphia in 1787 it was ILLEGAL to carry a firearm within city limits.

The 2nd Amendment is so clearly misunderstood by both sides.

Just as the second was never intended to mean "only the militia may have guns" it was never intended to mean "hey you can carry anything anywhere at any time"

In short, the framers never intended for you to be able to carry an AR15 into an airport. That isnt' a right. If it were, then the government couldn't draw a line and say "okay up to here you can carry a gun, past here you can not"

And so now that we have deduced that you do not have a right to carry a firearm wherever you wish, it becomes a question of legitimate need versus public safety. Sorry, there is no legimate need to carry an AR 15 in public and certainly not one that outweighs the public safety.

Failure of gun owners to grasp and acknowledge this point is going to lead to worse gun laws , and doesn't even make sense. It's right up there with abortion freaks who try to argue that a fetus isn't a human being. When we can all clearly see that yes it's a fetus. Well we can also clearly see that only a moron wants to open carry a rifle in public.

Left and right we all need to stop catering to morons. I don't give a fuck if someone wants to carry an AR15 into an airport, that guys an idiot.

Care to quote the part in the Constitution where it says you CANNOT carry a gun in specific places? Shall we ignore the "shall not be infringed" part?

Truthfully, my disagreement is not necessarily with your stance on the 2d Amendment but rather with your assertion "This way every single person who is open carrying a long arm can be detained by police simply for carrying the weapon, no questions asked." (bolding is mine). Where does that little gem stop? By the way, I disagree with "hate speech" laws too. Should folks be detained for wearing a ski mask? We all know criminals often use ski masks in the commission of a robbery. Should a person not be detained (given the aforementioned) NO QUESTIONS ASKED for wearing a ski mask in public places?

[Kathianne]

Care to quote the part in the Constitution where it says you CANNOT carry a gun in specific places? Shall we ignore the "shall not be infringed" part?

Truthfully, my disagreement is not necessarily with your stance on the 2d Amendment but rather with your assertion "This way every single person who is open carrying a long arm can be detained by police simply for carrying the weapon, no questions asked." (bolding is mine). Where does that little gem stop? By the way, I disagree with "hate speech" laws too. Should folks be detained for wearing a ski mask? We all know criminals often use ski masks in the commission of a robbery. Should a person not be detained (given the aforementioned) NO QUESTIONS ASKED for wearing a ski mask in public places?

Great job of summing up the queries, 'How far or how many rights are we comfortable giving up?' 'How far can one stretch the Bill of Rights before they become meaningless?'

I'm unlikely to every carry a gun, the 1 time I went shooting though, I enjoyed it. I do understand that we are all safer when it's a real threat to anyone who wishes to do any of us harm. It's why I have always been against 'gun free zones.' Seems more like an invitation to ne'er-do-wells.

Hate speech and hate crimes assume someone can read minds to determine intent. Personally I think all crimes are hate crimes, with perhaps someone stealing for food.

I truly do not trust the government, never have. The last few years have only given me more justification for not trusting on any level.

[jimnyc]

Of course it is illegal to sell a gun to a minor in ANY state Jimmy.

But you just take the buyer's word for it that they are not a minor and have no criminal history?

Absolutely, you ask. You see a copy of their DL. You're doing everything but the BG check itself, which you are doing verbally. Then it's, yes, a judgment call. And knowing that one can get in trouble, for the age one for example, it would make sense for one to do their due diligence. And same with any criminal history. I would at least get a signed receipt that I can later burn if need be. But no way I sell a gun to an "unknown" person, or someone not vouched for by someone else. Does it happen? Of course it does, and most of the time between criminals. Or do you prefer guess work without even asking the person you don't know or barely know? With ANY repercussions involving myself, I would at least do the due diligence part to try and protect myself.


If that's the case, then how are conservatives pro voter ID laws? I mean why not just the person's word for it if they say they are allowed to vote?

Why have alcohol ID laws? Tobacco? You see where I'm going with this.

I am not one who made any of those laws, and each can be considered on it's own. But for comparison's sake - sure, a lot of things, many of them dumb, will fall under comparisons. That doesn't make them the same. I also don't care for going for the "So what you're saying is..." or the non-stop "But when Bush did it, or when Obama did it". --- There's a whole ton of things that either need verifying in some manner and some where it's not the law or doesn't happen. But each one isn't a valid comparison.

My point from the beginning is that even though someone sells a gun privately, and no BG check is done, there are still laws that must be met, and repercussions are possible.

[STTAB]

Care to quote the part in the Constitution where it says you CANNOT carry a gun in specific places? Shall we ignore the "shall not be infringed" part?

Truthfully, my disagreement is not necessarily with your stance on the 2d Amendment but rather with your assertion "This way every single person who is open carrying a long arm can be detained by police simply for carrying the weapon, no questions asked." (bolding is mine). Where does that little gem stop? By the way, I disagree with "hate speech" laws too. Should folks be detained for wearing a ski mask? We all know criminals often use ski masks in the commission of a robbery. Should a person not be detained (given the aforementioned) NO QUESTIONS ASKED for wearing a ski mask in public places?

In MANY states it IS illegal to wear a mask in public, at least when participating in a protest or something like that.

And I'll reiterate , it was illegal to carry a fierarm in the capital city of the US at the time of the writing of the COTUS. Why? Because the founding fathers meant "bear arms" to mean own them and have them available for use" they did NOT mean "be able to carry them through town "

And again , if making them illegal to carry in certain areas were unconstitutional , you wouldn't see any gun free zones.

And let me be clear. I'm pro concealed carry. I simply don't see carrying a weapon as a right, and I don't see any legitimate reason to allow a person to carry an AR15 around in public.

[CSM]

In MANY states it IS illegal to wear a mask in public, at least when participating in a protest or something like that.

And I'll reiterate , it was illegal to carry a fierarm in the capital city of the US at the time of the writing of the COTUS. Why? Because the founding fathers meant "bear arms" to mean own them and have them available for use" they did NOT mean "be able to carry them through town "

And again , if making them illegal to carry in certain areas were unconstitutional , you wouldn't see any gun free zones.

And let me be clear. I'm pro concealed carry. I simply don't see carrying a weapon as a right, and I don't see any legitimate reason to allow a person to carry an AR15 around in public.

and again, I don't really care what your stance is on gun ownership or carry is. I will leave that up to the SC. I do find it disconcerting that you assert people should be detained for whatever reason with NO QUESTIONS ASKED. By the way, the COTUS was not ratified until Dec. 1787 and the Bill of Rights many years later. Before that, many state had laws that conformed to their state's constitution. Many of those constitutions were modified after the COTUS became the law of the land.

Clearly, we disagree on the right to carry. I will say that gun free zones do not seem to be very effective to me.

[CSM]

And just so folks know:

"On May 31, 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that carrying a firearm is not reasonable suspicion to detain someone."

[Kathianne]

Enough here to make me certain I don't want the federal government curtailing any 2nd amendment rights. States and cities as has been demonstrated many times, are well able or not of handling what is best for their states.

https://hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/08/13/trump-sabotages-push-red-flag-laws-says-chris-cuomo-angry-trust-gun/



Trump Sabotages Push For Red-Flag Laws, Says Chris Cuomo Is Too Angry To Trust With A Gun
ALLAHPUNDITPosted at 11:31 am on August 13, 2019

Torn between two theories to explain his latest tweet.


SEE ALSO: Houston Chronicle begs Beto: Drop out. Run against Cornyn, not Trump


1. He’s a loudmouthed imbecile who fundamentally doesn’t understand why stuff like this will steel opposition on the right to the sort of red-flag bill he’s endorsed.


RECOMMENDED


Chris Cuomo's meltdown: Is "Fredo" the N-word for Italians? Update: The truth hurts, Trump tweets


2. He’s playing eight-dimensional chess, deliberately sabotaging the push for a new red-flag bill to please his base by showing immediately how it would be abused by the government once it’s law.


Guess which theory I’m leaning towards.




Donald J. Trump
✔
@realDonaldTrump
Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!


47.6K
7:04 AM - Aug 13, 2019
Twitter Ads info and privacy
27.5K people are talking about this
“This is like a parody of what opponents of red flag laws say they’re worried about,” said lefty Benjy Sarlin of that tweet, correctly.




Dana Loesch
✔
@DLoesch
With one Tweet POTUS explains how red flag laws can and will be abused. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1161277403353759744 …


Donald J. Trump
✔

@realDonaldTrump

Would Chris Cuomo be given a Red Flag for his recent rant? Filthy language and a total loss of control. He shouldn’t be allowed to have any weapon. He’s nuts!


3,151
8:00 AM - Aug 13, 2019


The argument against red-flag laws is that they’ll be abused to justify confiscating weapons on flimsy pretexts from people who aren’t dangerous to others. Now here’s the president validating that concern before Lindsey Graham’s bill has even received a vote in Congress. Are you worried that the government might exploit the new legal regime to punish its political and media enemies who own guns? Well, per Trump, apparently you should be.


In fact, now that I think about it, Trump killing off a gun-control push by showing that he himself couldn’t be trusted to execute the new law responsibly is more like 12-dimensional chess. “I’m too tyrannically inclined to trust with a weapons ban” is an efficient way to give both the right and the left cold feet about new gun-control initiatives.


Not the first time he’s thought-farted his way into an uncomfortable moment while trying to sell gun control to the right, though, notes Sarlin. Remember this?


President Trump said Wednesday he favors taking guns away from people who might commit violence before going through legal due process in the courts, one of many startling comments he made in a rambling White House meeting designed to hash out school safety legislation with a bipartisan group of lawmakers.


“I like taking guns away early,” Trump said. “Take the guns first, go through due process second.”


That’s the sort of thing you say when you haven’t spent five minutes of your life thinking about due process. Last year’s push for new gun laws, after the Parkland massacre, ended in failure as the public gradually moved on to other topics and righty advocacy groups like the NRA leaned more heavily on Trump in private not to follow through. This one will probably end the same way — although, ironically, Trump has such enormous sway over the righty base that Senate Republicans might be willing to vote for a red-flag bill he’s supporting even though a tweet like the one he just published coming from a Democratic president would be Exhibit A in why the feds can never, ever be trusted with such power.


Two people who’ve spoken to the president in recent days say that he has referenced, during conversations about how he could possibly bend the NRA to his will in this case, his annoyance at media coverage of his post-Parkland about-face that suggested he was all talk and no action on the issue, and easily controlled by the NRA. One of the sources noted that Trump’s aversion to being seen as “controlled” by anyone or any organization makes it much more likely that the president will dwell on the issue for longer than he did last year.


Trump’s influence could well make or break legislation, since Republicans are unlikely to support anything without his blessing but will be just as hesitant to immediately reject a bill he puts his full support behind.


“Many Hill Republicans are waiting to see what Trump will get behind,” said a Senate GOP aide. “He gives them political cover. I don’t think you’re going to see any one bill or one proposal get any momentum until the President publicly endorses it.”


Further evidence that Trump might be serious is the fact that Ivanka is reportedly calling around to swing votes like Joe Manchin to sound them out. Gun-control fans might also be helped here by the recent panic within the GOP after several House Republicans retired that Texas is turning purple as suburbs there drift towards the Democrats. If, say, John Cornyn has cover from Trump on supporting a red-flag bill, would he vote for it in order to mollify Texas’s suburban voters? If not, what about a Thom Tillis or Richard Burr?


Via the Examiner, here’s Graham on Fox this morning touting his red-flag bill. A key element is the fact that confiscation in “red flag” cases wouldn’t happen at the federal level: Graham’s calling for grants to state PDs so that they can hire mental health experts to advise them in state “red flag” proceedings. That federalist approach will make it marginally more palatable to righties.


Video at site

[STTAB]

And just so folks know:

"On May 31, 2019, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court ruled that carrying a firearm is not reasonable suspicion to detain someone."

Just so you know that ruling really has nothing to do with whether or not there could be a new federal law making it illegal to open carry a long arm. The Penn Supreme Court did NOT rule that carrying a gun was a right, they merely ruled that under current law, simply carrying a gun did not establish reasonable suspicion that a law was being broken.

[Kathianne]

Just so you know that ruling really has nothing to do with whether or not there could be a new federal law making it illegal to open carry a long arm. The Penn Supreme Court did NOT rule that carrying a gun was a right, they merely ruled that under current law, simply carrying a gun did not establish reasonable suspicion that a law was being broken.

Just like minimum wage, not all states and areas within states are alike. For a myriad of reasons, the feds should keep their hands off the 2nd.

[CSM]

Just so you know that ruling really has nothing to do with whether or not there could be a new federal law making it illegal to open carry a long arm. The Penn Supreme Court did NOT rule that carrying a gun was a right, they merely ruled that under current law, simply carrying a gun did not establish reasonable suspicion that a law was being broken.

That was my point exactly. It sure seems to me that detaining a person openly carrying a firearm, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, would be against this particular ruling.

The PA SC did not have to rule on whether or not carrying a gun is right... the COTUS does that. What NEW laws COULD be written is a very different discussion altogether. There COULD be a new federal law enacted making it illegal to vote Republican, for example. Our Congress writes laws which are proven unconstitutional quite often.

I will say that in some place, openly carrying a firearm could lead to detainment or arrest on other charges such as being a public nuisance or something similar.

[STTAB]

Just like minimum wage, not all states and areas within states are alike. For a myriad of reasons, the feds should keep their hands off the 2nd.

I don't disagree but the notion that states weren't beholden to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights went by the wayside decades ago.

Carrying a gun is NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Owning one is, and of course if you own one you will have to from time to time transport it so laws making it hard or even impossible to transport one from one location to another demonstrably violate the 2nd, but our history is actually filled with historical examples of it being illegal to carry firearms within cities and such. One clear example is that it was illegal to carry a firearm in the very city that the COTUS was written and ratified in at the time that it was ratified.

[Kathianne]

I don't disagree but the notion that states weren't beholden to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights went by the wayside decades ago.

Carrying a gun is NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Owning one is, and of course if you own one you will have to from time to time transport it so laws making it hard or even impossible to transport one from one location to another demonstrably violate the 2nd, but our history is actually filled with historical examples of it being illegal to carry firearms within cities and such. One clear example is that it was illegal to carry a firearm in the very city that the COTUS was written and ratified in at the time that it was ratified.

I'll take my chances on the meaning of the Bill of Rights from the courts rather than your take. But thanks for trying to be the final voice of all.

[CSM]

I don't disagree but the notion that states weren't beholden to the restrictions of the Bill of Rights went by the wayside decades ago.

Carrying a gun is NOT guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment. Owning one is, and of course if you own one you will have to from time to time transport it so laws making it hard or even impossible to transport one from one location to another demonstrably violate the 2nd, but our history is actually filled with historical examples of it being illegal to carry firearms within cities and such. One clear example is that it was illegal to carry a firearm in the very city that the COTUS was written and ratified in at the time that it was ratified.

I am no scholar but I do believe the word "bear" means "carry" and NOT simply own and store. It was once legal to own slaves in this country but I seriously doubt such historical precedent would carry any weight these days.

[STTAB]

I am no scholar but I do believe the word "bear" means "carry" and NOT simply own and store. It was once legal to own slaves in this country but I seriously doubt such historical precedent would carry any weight these days.

Well, I AM a historical scholar, I have the PhD that proves it, and it is undeniable that the founding fathers did not intend for people to be able to just carry weapons wherever they wanted whenever they wanted.

As for your slavery analogy, there is actually a law making slavery illegal in this country (well a Constitutional Amendment) so your analogy really makes no sense.

There have been zero rulings from courts declaring that carrying a long arm in public is a right, and no doubt such a law would be challenged, but as I said if I were Trump I'd push for the law and dare someone to challenge it. There is ample proof that we have always had laws that limit when and where people may carry firearms

[CSM]

Well, I AM a historical scholar, I have the PhD that proves it, and it is undeniable that the founding fathers did not intend for people to be able to just carry weapons wherever they wanted whenever they wanted.

As for your slavery analogy, there is actually a law making slavery illegal in this country (well a Constitutional Amendment) so your analogy really makes no sense.

There have been zero rulings from courts declaring that carrying a long arm in public is a right, and no doubt such a law would be challenged, but as I said if I were Trump I'd push for the law and dare someone to challenge it. There is ample proof that we have always had laws that limit when and where people may carry firearms

I am impressed. I suppose you are a legal scholar as well.

However, uneducated lil ole me says your assertion regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers is speculative at best (unless you can read the minds of the dead). My analogy of slavery simply implies that historical precedent does not necessarily lend credence to your assertions.

[STTAB]

That was my point exactly. It sure seems to me that detaining a person openly carrying a firearm, NO QUESTIONS ASKED, would be against this particular ruling.

The PA SC did not have to rule on whether or not carrying a gun is right... the COTUS does that. What NEW laws COULD be written is a very different discussion altogether. There COULD be a new federal law enacted making it illegal to vote Republican, for example. Our Congress writes laws which are proven unconstitutional quite often.

I will say that in some place, openly carrying a firearm could lead to detainment or arrest on other charges such as being a public nuisance or something similar.

youre wrong in your thoughs CSM because what that ruling says essentially is cops can't say "I reasonably assumed that person carrying a firearm was going to commit a crime so I stopped them"

BUT if the law says "It is illegal to carry a long gun in the city" just as an example, then that ruling is really a moot point because it only deals with the question of using what is not illegal as suspicion of something that is illegal.

Take that to inside the gun free part of the airport , for example. The government actually DID have to make illegal to carry a gun inside that area of the airport because prior to that courts were telling them "no you can't just stop everyone who has a gun because you suspect they might be planning on committing a crime" but when it came to saying "okay in THIS area , no guns allowed" that was ruled Constitutional.

I get , and agree with, your concerns. As I said the law shouldn't apply to concealed carry permit holders with concealed hand guns. Nor should it apply to people are merely transporting said weapons. But I'm sorry an asshole who carries an AR15 into a fucking airport, or just through town is an asshole who needs to spend some time behind bars for being an asshole.

We KNOW for fact that people panic , and reasonably so , when they see such things, it's only a matter of time before someone is killed during the panic one of these morons causes. And as the law currently stands that person would not be hold criminally liable for that death. Carrying the AR15 in the first place would have to be ILLEGAL for that person to be criminally liable for any deaths .


Again, I don't argue that the law is a slipper5y slope, nor do I disagree with the notion that the government can't be trusted . BUT sometimes you have to weigh the consequences and say "we need to do this and just keep an eye on the government to make sure they aren't abusing the law" really the same concept as say the FISA courts, the government fucked Trump and his team and broke the law doing it, whomever took part should be held criminally responsible, BUT the system itself saves lives. We just need to better protect against abuses.

[STTAB]

I am impressed. I suppose you are a legal scholar as well.

However, uneducated lil ole me says your assertion regarding the intent of the Founding Fathers is speculative at best (unless you can read the minds of the dead). My analogy of slavery simply implies that historical precedent does not necessarily lend credence to your assertions.

My wife is the lawyer LOL

And I mean history is littered with examples of various towns and cities making it illegal to carry firearms within the city limits. There are thousands of current examples of such. Would a federal law REALLY make any difference in terms of the law abiding citizen? No it would not, all it would do is allow the full power of the federal government to be brought to bear on any person arrested for such, and it would allow for certain triggers against various communities that have such laws but simply don't enforce them enough.

For example, this guy in Springfield, he broke no current laws, but between you me and the wall we know his intentions were not good. Even if he wasn't planning on actually firing the weapon let alone shooting anyone, his intentions were to scare and harm people . He SHOULD face punishment for that. But he won't , as a matter of fact in actuality since he did NOT violate any laws, as perverse as it may seem the fireman who detained him could himself face federal charges including kidnapping.

[CSM]

youre wrong in your thoughs CSM because what that ruling says essentially is cops can't say "I reasonably assumed that person carrying a firearm was going to commit a crime so I stopped them"

BUT if the law says "It is illegal to carry a long gun in the city" just as an example, then that ruling is really a moot point because it only deals with the question of using what is not illegal as suspicion of something that is illegal.

Take that to inside the gun free part of the airport , for example. The government actually DID have to make illegal to carry a gun inside that area of the airport because prior to that courts were telling them "no you can't just stop everyone who has a gun because you suspect they might be planning on committing a crime" but when it came to saying "okay in THIS area , no guns allowed" that was ruled Constitutional.

I get , and agree with, your concerns. As I said the law shouldn't apply to concealed carry permit holders with concealed hand guns. Nor should it apply to people are merely transporting said weapons. But I'm sorry an asshole who carries an AR15 into a fucking airport, or just through town is an asshole who needs to spend some time behind bars for being an asshole.

We KNOW for fact that people panic , and reasonably so , when they see such things, it's only a matter of time before someone is killed during the panic one of these morons causes. And as the law currently stands that person would not be hold criminally liable for that death. Carrying the AR15 in the first place would have to be ILLEGAL for that person to be criminally liable for any deaths .


Again, I don't argue that the law is a slipper5y slope, nor do I disagree with the notion that the government can't be trusted . BUT sometimes you have to weigh the consequences and say "we need to do this and just keep an eye on the government to make sure they aren't abusing the law" really the same concept as say the FISA courts, the government fucked Trump and his team and broke the law doing it, whomever took part should be held criminally responsible, BUT the system itself saves lives. We just need to better protect against abuses.

I would point out that there is no law yet that prohibits one from being an "asshole".

Once again, my point in all this was that the idea of detaining anyone with no questions asked is absolutely horrifying on it's face. I surely hope that laws which are enacted going forward will be scrutinized by those ensuring the constitutionality of such. What gun laws are presented going forward are included.

I am of the opinion that no law actually PREVENTS criminal acts but rather provides a means for punishment for those who disobey said laws. That is why none of the current laws and measures in place seem to work. I never underestimate the insanity of people are capable of.

[STTAB]

I would point out that there is no law yet that prohibits one from being an "asshole".

Once again, my point in all this was that the idea of detaining anyone with no questions asked is absolutely horrifying on it's face. I surely hope that laws which are enacted going forward will be scrutinized by those ensuring the constitutionality of such. What gun laws are presented going forward are included.

I am of the opinion that no law actually PREVENTS criminal acts but rather provides a means for punishment for those who disobey said laws. That is why none of the current laws and measures in place seem to work. I never underestimate the insanity of people are capable of.

That's my point exactly CSM , there currently is no law that prevents THIS particular form of being an asshole. I would change that.

Which is far more likely to prevent gun crime CSM? Targeting actual assholes with guns of course. Taxing the fuck out of you or me or requiring us to do a background check on the other if we decide to sell a pistol to one or the other... Worthless because A) we're not dong anything illegal or being assholes simply by buying and selling guns and B) it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce anyway.

Pretty easy to enforce a law that makes it illegal to carry an AR15 or other long arm through town like you're fucking Rambo.

I might even could be convinced to join in the argument that anyone who would do such obviously has mental issues and thus shouldn't have a gun to begin with.

The point is this CSM, in order to protect legal law abiding gun owners and their rights, we have to turn on those who are assholes and abuse those rights. And I don't feel that way just about guns either bro. I feel the same way towards say these people who are going to other people's houses and spending all night in a group yelling and cursing and shit. I think THAT should be illegal, and I think the left is going to have to turn on those people

You should NOT be allowed to terrorize people and then hide behind your rights.

[CSM]

My wife is the lawyer LOL

And I mean history is littered with examples of various towns and cities making it illegal to carry firearms within the city limits. There are thousands of current examples of such. Would a federal law REALLY make any difference in terms of the law abiding citizen? No it would not, all it would do is allow the full power of the federal government to be brought to bear on any person arrested for such, and it would allow for certain triggers against various communities that have such laws but simply don't enforce them enough.

For example, this guy in Springfield, he broke no current laws, but between you me and the wall we know his intentions were not good. Even if he wasn't planning on actually firing the weapon let alone shooting anyone, his intentions were to scare and harm people . He SHOULD face punishment for that. But he won't , as a matter of fact in actuality since he did NOT violate any laws, as perverse as it may seem the fireman who detained him could himself face federal charges including kidnapping.

Fear can make people do some very strange things....

If it is proven that the fireman (that asshole!) detained an innocent civilian who was not doing anything illegal, should he not be prosecuted? Interestingly, as a former military member yourself, you well know we don't get to enforce only the "standards" (or laws) we agree with but are charged with enforcing ALL those in effect. Granted, some of those standards (laws) are seemingly stupid BUT just remember that someone thought those stupid standards or laws were a good idea....

[STTAB]

Fear can make people do some very strange things....

If it is proven that the fireman (that asshole!) detained an innocent civilian who was not doing anything illegal, should he not be prosecuted? Interestingly, as a former military member yourself, you well know we don't get to enforce only the "standards" (or laws) we agree with but are charged with enforcing ALL those in effect. Granted, some of those standards (laws) are seemingly stupid BUT just remember that someone thought those stupid standards or laws were a good idea....

Yes , under the current law if the fireman did something wrong I believe he should be prosecuted. I have warned about that on this and other message boards for YEARS when people start talking about citizen's arrests. You have to be VERY careful that you understand the law and your specific rights when doing so . To me it looks like the fireman obviously didn't realize he couldn't detain this guy just because......

Now, just because I agree he should be prosecuted IF he broke the law, doesn't mean I don't empathize with him, nor does it mean I agree with the law. The law needs to be changed.

[CSM]

That's my point exactly CSM , there currently is no law that prevents THIS particular form of being an asshole. I would change that.

Which is far more likely to prevent gun crime CSM? Targeting actual assholes with guns of course. Taxing the fuck out of you or me or requiring us to do a background check on the other if we decide to sell a pistol to one or the other... Worthless because A) we're not dong anything illegal or being assholes simply by buying and selling guns and B) it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce anyway.

Pretty easy to enforce a law that makes it illegal to carry an AR15 or other long arm through town like you're fucking Rambo.

I might even could be convinced to join in the argument that anyone who would do such obviously has mental issues and thus shouldn't have a gun to begin with.

The point is this CSM, in order to protect legal law abiding gun owners and their rights, we have to turn on those who are assholes and abuse those rights. And I don't feel that way just about guns either bro. I feel the same way towards say these people who are going to other people's houses and spending all night in a group yelling and cursing and shit. I think THAT should be illegal, and I think the left is going to have to turn on those people

You should NOT be allowed to terrorize people and then hide behind your rights.

LOL.... I submit that until it becomes, in fact, illegal, it is not abuse per say. Unethical, stupid, provocative and such.... most certainly. I agree that those who push the limits may have some issues but that does not mean they are criminals; at least until their actions are declared by law as being criminal.

All that being said, I do believe there are measures that would help in the long run. Requiring roof of training in the use and safety of firearms for those wishing to exercise their right to bear arms would seem to be a reasonable course of action. Background checks seem reasonable IF they are impartial rather than subjective and based on the premise of innocent until proven guilty, etc.

[CSM]

Yes , under the current law if the fireman did something wrong I believe he should be prosecuted. I have warned about that on this and other message boards for YEARS when people start talking about citizen's arrests. You have to be VERY careful that you understand the law and your specific rights when doing so . To me it looks like the fireman obviously didn't realize he couldn't detain this guy just because......

Now, just because I agree he should be prosecuted IF he broke the law, doesn't mean I don't empathize with him, nor does it mean I agree with the law. The law needs to be changed.

In that we can agree. If we don't like the law, CHANGE IT! There are processes in place to do so, including for amending the COTUS. I too understand and empathize with the fireman. He was trying to do the right thing. However, as has been said before, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I think it's going to matter what they put together as 'controls.'

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/08/12/president-abandoning-promise-defend-second-amendment/
Yep... like I said... Trump is playing with fire here. Rush has been railing on it for awhile now. Say's you don't give the democrats anything, because their ultimate goal is to totally disarm everyone, to repeal the second amendment. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, and to them, compromise means just give them what they want, and you get nothing in return. That's what compromise always means to democrats. Take it all, give nothing in return.

[STTAB]

LOL.... I submit that until it becomes, in fact, illegal, it is not abuse per say. Unethical, stupid, provocative and such.... most certainly. I agree that those who push the limits may have some issues but that does not mean they are criminals; at least until their actions are declared by law as being criminal.

All that being said, I do believe there are measures that would help in the long run. Requiring roof of training in the use and safety of firearms for those wishing to exercise their right to bear arms would seem to be a reasonable course of action. Background checks seem reasonable IF they are impartial rather than subjective and based on the premise of innocent until proven guilty, etc.

Interesting. So let me ask you this

How do you feel about the people who are abusing our law to get into this country legally ? Do you disagree with my use of the word abuse in that sense?

Oh and you yourself just admitted that they "probably have issues" meaning mental issues, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagrees with you , because it IS illegal for a mentally ill person to own or possess a firearm, but they certainly ruled that police can't use the fact that they are carrying a firearm in public as probable cause to stop them to see if they are for example a mentally ill person is possession of a firearm, which is illegal.

See, this is not as simple an issue as saying "nope you can't touch my 2nd Amendment right"

As for background checks, New Jersey has THE toughest background checks in the nation, bar none, and the last 4 mass shooters in this country all would have passed their background check to legally purchase an AR15 along with the ammo and such in that state.

NOTHING in their backgrounds precluded them from being able to buy a gun. (Now obviously that is a failure of the system, but that itself proves background checks don't work)

[High_Plains_Drifter]

LOL.... I submit that until it becomes, in fact, illegal, it is not abuse per say. Unethical, stupid, provocative and such.... most certainly. I agree that those who push the limits may have some issues but that does not mean they are criminals; at least until their actions are declared by law as being criminal.

All that being said, I do believe there are measures that would help in the long run. Requiring roof of training in the use and safety of firearms for those wishing to exercise their right to bear arms would seem to be a reasonable course of action. Background checks seem reasonable IF they are impartial rather than subjective and based on the premise of innocent until proven guilty, etc.
I'll bet my entire estate, that anyone that endorses background checks for ALL firearm sales, even PRIVATE, will never be elected president. Well... any REPUBLICAN, because they'll never have enough support to beat a democrat. Then watch out, because once the democrats have control again, kiss your guns goodbye. Then the real fun starts. The dems WILL push to take ALL GUNS. Then states secede, tell the feds to go pound sand, they won't enforce the laws, etc, because if states can tell the feds to go pound sand on immigration and have sanctuary cities, and STATES, they'll defy the feds on draconian gun laws as well.

[STTAB]

In that we can agree. If we don't like the law, CHANGE IT! There are processes in place to do so, including for amending the COTUS. I too understand and empathize with the fireman. He was trying to do the right thing. However, as has been said before, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And we've came full circle, because that's what I said from the start. If I were Trump that would be my sole concession to the left. NOTHING the left proposes to do would prevent shootings. THIS would if not prevent at least weed out legal gun owners , or at least most of them. Sure a few stubborn assholes would end up being arrested and charged but the vast majority of people who just carry firearms in public to make a point would not do so if it were outright illegal , allowing the police to further narrow down their attention to those who truly intend to do harm, rather than wasting time on poeple who are simply carrying AR15s around because they are assholes.

[STTAB]

Ask yourself this question CSM

How come none of the "name" Democrats have suggested making it a federal crime to carry a long gun in public?

There's a reason for that.

[Kathianne]

In that we can agree. If we don't like the law, CHANGE IT! There are processes in place to do so, including for amending the COTUS. I too understand and empathize with the fireman. He was trying to do the right thing. However, as has been said before, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I can agree that charges CAN be arrested if a cop wants to follow the law to the letter. I do doubt that he'd be brought to court on charges though. Discretion by either the police or DA would kick in. Indeed, he'd get a pat on the back.

The nutter might not have been doing anything illegal per se, but that incident actually was more effective than any 'Red flag' as his mom and sister already had TOLD HIM it was a stupid idea. They never did call the police or the store though.

[CSM]

Interesting. So let me ask you this

How do you feel about the people who are abusing our law to get into this country legally ? Do you disagree with my use of the word abuse in that sense?

Oh and you yourself just admitted that they "probably have issues" meaning mental issues, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagrees with you , because it IS illegal for a mentally ill person to own or possess a firearm, but they certainly ruled that police can't use the fact that they are carrying a firearm in public as probable cause to stop them to see if they are for example a mentally ill person is possession of a firearm, which is illegal.

See, this is not as simple an issue as saying "nope you can't touch my 2nd Amendment right"

As for background checks, New Jersey has THE toughest background checks in the nation, bar none, and the last 4 mass shooters in this country all would have passed their background check to legally purchase an AR15 along with the ammo and such in that state.

NOTHING in their backgrounds precluded them from being able to buy a gun. (Now obviously that is a failure of the system, but that itself proves background checks don't work)

It is indeed a complex issue.

Do I believe mentally ill folks should posses firearms? Depends on the diagnosis. Yes, the system failed in some cases (gun free zones don't always work either). There are many cases I am certain where background checks do work. As for the PA law regarding the legality of a mentally ill person possessing or owning a firearm, I will presume the state must PROVE they are mentally ill before bringing criminal charges. Case in point, there are those who swear I am insane though no medical diagnosis has been presented proving such.

I am not suggesting that we NOT at least try to remedy the situation, I am merely stating that we are VERY careful when we do so.

Abuse of immigration laws is another discussion altogether. However, abuse does not necessarily indicate illegality. Want to address abuses? Refine the law and address the loop holes which allow abuse.

We both know there is no such thing as perfection (something to strive for?) in our laws or even in social interaction. Human beings are imperfect things indeed!

[STTAB]

I can agree that charges CAN be arrested if a cop wants to follow the law to the letter. I do doubt that he'd be brought to court on charges though. Discretion by either the police or DA would kick in. Indeed, he'd get a pat on the back.

The nutter might not have been doing anything illegal per se, but that incident actually was more effective than any 'Red flag' as his mom and sister already had TOLD HIM it was a stupid idea. They never did call the police or the store though.

Thus my argument he should go to jail. A year is plenty, out in six months with good behavior, but for God sakes. And like I said , it's only a matter of time before someone is killed in the mass panic caused by one of these people, and it's very unlikely that they would be charged with a crime for that either as the law stands because all they have to say is " I did nothing illegal"

As for the fireman, I've often noted that citizens do NOT have quite the authority that police do, and many simply don't understand that. A cop WOULD have the authority to detain that kid even if ultimately it turns out he didn't do anything illegal. A citizen does not. A police officer will never be charged with kidnapping when they are acting in good faith, even if no charges are brought. A citizen, could be. If the nutter insists , oh and I know as in personally know the Attorney General of the Western District of Missouri, I would not be surprised if he brings charges against the fireman.

[Kathianne]

It is indeed a complex issue.

Do I believe mentally ill folks should posses firearms? Depends on the diagnosis. Yes, the system failed in some cases (gun free zones don't always work either). There are many cases I am certain where background checks do work. As for the PA law regarding the legality of a mentally ill person possessing or owning a firearm, I will presume the state must PROVE they are mentally ill before bringing criminal charges. Case in point, there are those who swear I am insane though no medical diagnosis has been presented proving such.

I am not suggesting that we NOT at least try to remedy the situation, I am merely stating that we are VERY careful when we do so.

Abuse of immigration laws is another discussion altogether. However, abuse does not necessarily indicate illegality. Want to address abuses? Refine the law and address the loop holes which allow abuse.

We both know there is no such thing as perfection (something to strive for?) in our laws or even in social interaction. Human beings are imperfect things indeed!

Yeah, like the President of the United States saying, 'Very angry, out of control. Nutty. No gun for you!'

Think of divorce and accusations of abuse against spouse or kids. Due process isn't something to screw around with.

[CSM]

Yeah, like the President of the United States saying, 'Very angry, out of control. Nutty. No gun for you!'

Think of divorce and accusations of abuse against spouse or kids. Due process isn't something to screw around with.

Exactly. Heck, some people just like screwing with other people (for whatever reason) and go way out of their way to do it. Unfounded accusations, often with made with no consequences, abound!

[Kathianne]

Exactly. Heck, some people just like screwing with other people (for whatever reason) and go way out of their way to do it. Unfounded accusations, often with made with no consequences, abound!

Yep, look at 'swatting' which was a rage for awhile. Then someone got killed.

[STTAB]

It is indeed a complex issue.

Do I believe mentally ill folks should posses firearms? Depends on the diagnosis. Yes, the system failed in some cases (gun free zones don't always work either). There are many cases I am certain where background checks do work. As for the PA law regarding the legality of a mentally ill person possessing or owning a firearm, I will presume the state must PROVE they are mentally ill before bringing criminal charges. Case in point, there are those who swear I am insane though no medical diagnosis has been presented proving such.

I am not suggesting that we NOT at least try to remedy the situation, I am merely stating that we are VERY careful when we do so.

Abuse of immigration laws is another discussion altogether. However, abuse does not necessarily indicate illegality. Want to address abuses? Refine the law and address the loop holes which allow abuse.

We both know there is no such thing as perfection (something to strive for?) in our laws or even in social interaction. Human beings are imperfect things indeed!

RE: Immigration laws. That's exactly my point , there ARE people abusing our laws, and thus our laws need to be changed. Same thing here, there ARE people abusing our gun laws. So it's time to change the laws.

As for gun free zones, they obviously DO work, but you really have to maintain a perimeter. Haven't seen any mass shootings in the White House have you? For example.

That's actually a good example of changing our laws because people were abusing the current law CSM. I'm currently on the school board of the same school I graduated from. When I was a student at this school. Our parking lots were completely open and we had at any given time no less than 20 pickups with loaded hunting rifles hanging in rear window in both the student and teacher parking lots. Absolutely no one ever thought anything of it. Most of those vehicles were probably unlocked. No one would ever have dreamed of a fight (and we had lots of fights) escalating into someone going out and getting one of those rifles and shooting someone. Most of the guys carried pocket knives to school. Yes , we're country bumpkins at heart LOL.

Today ? We have three campuses and each of them are surrounded by 20 foot tall chain link fences. We have an on duty city police officer at each campus at any time that students are on campus. All parking lots are electronically monitored. There are two gates to each campus, and you can only enter from one of them, and every car is visually checked as it comes on campus.

That's just the perimeter. And yes, we still have kids that hunt before school, but they aren't allowed to bring their guns on campus. They get one "oops I forgot" where we collect the gun and have the police deliver it to their home that evening. Second time is a 10 day suspension. We've never had a third offense.

Visitors are ALL checked onto campus and escorted into the building. No more just driving up and wandering in as you please.

Everyone enters through the main doors, which have embedded metal detectors. Same deal as with the guns outside, you get one free pass. Last year we gave a teacher a 10 day suspension without pay because twice he had his pocket knife on him. Rules are rules.

ALL hallways, classrooms, study areas, teacher lounges and other areas are monitored via video (excluding bathrooms and locker rooms of course)

Think we liked having to do that? Of course not, but the safety of our students comes first, well before some douches right to be an asshole and carry a gun on a school campus.

[STTAB]

Yeah, like the President of the United States saying, 'Very angry, out of control. Nutty. No gun for you!'

Think of divorce and accusations of abuse against spouse or kids. Due process isn't something to screw around with.

Trump should in no way be an arbiter of who is nutty and who isn't LOL

I'm pretty sure the defense of his tweet would be "hey I'm just asking the question......." but I feel it's an inappropriate question for the POTUS to be asking given his authority over the Justice Dept.

[Kathianne]

Trump should in no way be an arbiter of who is nutty and who isn't LOL

I'm pretty sure the defense of his tweet would be "hey I'm just asking the question......." but I feel it's an inappropriate question for the POTUS to be asking given his authority over the Justice Dept.


The red flag laws, depending how they're written, would really make this ok to bring to court. Ok, maybe there was 'malice' involved, but the accused can bring that up after he has the 'no gun permitted' attached. Then he can hire a lawyer to get the judge to admit he was snookered. Judges love the self-reflection as a whole.

[STTAB]

The red flag laws, depending how they're written, would really make this ok to bring to court. Ok, maybe there was 'malice' involved, but the accused can bring that up after he has the 'no gun permitted' attached. Then he can hire a lawyer to get the judge to admit he was snookered. Judges love the self-reflection as a whole.

The only way red flag laws should ever happen is if they are handled the way say a TRO is handled. You can't simply go in and say "your honor this person scared me" and get a TRO. You must prove a real threat exists if the TRO isn't issued"

And yeah if the guns are taken before any hearing. that's a clear violation of due process.

[Kathianne]

The only way red flag laws should ever happen is if they are handled the way say a TRO is handled. You can't simply go in and say "your honor this person scared me" and get a TRO. You must prove a real threat exists if the TRO isn't issued"

And yeah if the guns are taken before any hearing. that's a clear violation of due process.

Temporary restraining orders require proof of immediate harm threat. Even when granted, for some weird reasons the restrained, doesn't. Offs the holder of the TRO. Nice comparison.

red flag laws by the nature of what they are to prevent, would be absent proof, it's someone's 'gut.' Hell, might even be a kid in class hearing some nut job has her name on a rape or kill list. Now that would have been a good thing, but really are they going to keep those for years? When they would have expunged a record, IF the police had charged?

[STTAB]

Temporary restraining orders require proof of immediate harm threat. Even when granted, for some weird reasons the restrained, doesn't. Offs the holder of the TRO. Nice comparison.

red flag laws by the nature of what they are to prevent, would be absent proof, it's someone's 'gut.' Hell, might even be a kid in class hearing some nut job has her name on a rape or kill list. Now that would have been a good thing, but really are they going to keep those for years? When they would have expunged a record, IF the police had charged?

TRO's are often issued absent proof but based on someone's gut........ THat person is a judge someone who hopefully is in the position they are in because we trust their judgement.

The REAL question is how much would this log jam the already over burdened justice system? I'm assuming they would be heard in civil court rather than criminal court? In which case, someone's life could be ruined simply by an accusatoin because civil cases are not nearly as secret as criminal cases.

"Mr STTAB thank you for applying for a job here, now looking through your application I see that twenty years ago you were involved in a civil litigation in which you were questioned about whether you should have access to guns" and that is probably the end of any real chance at said job. The interviewer likely won't care that the accusation was made by my angry ex wife, and probably will not take the time to dig further into what happened. Too many other candidates out there

That's a real possibility, and one that we should be aware of before passing "red flag laws" I, of course, have no faith in Congress to actually think about the possible ramifications.

[Kathianne]

TRO's are often issued absent proof but based on someone's gut........ THat person is a judge someone who hopefully is in the position they are in because we trust their judgement.

The REAL question is how much would this log jam the already over burdened justice system? I'm assuming they would be heard in civil court rather than criminal court? In which case, someone's life could be ruined simply by an accusatoin because civil cases are not nearly as secret as criminal cases.

"Mr STTAB thank you for applying for a job here, now looking through your application I see that twenty years ago you were involved in a civil litigation in which you were questioned about whether you should have access to guns" and that is probably the end of any real chance at said job. The interviewer likely won't care that the accusation was made by my angry ex wife, and probably will not take the time to dig further into what happened. Too many other candidates out there

That's a real possibility, and one that we should be aware of before passing "red flag laws" I, of course, have no faith in Congress to actually think about the possible ramifications.

Maybe in Arkansas, but not in IL. You don't just get a lawyer and convince the good judge that your ex has threatened to kill you. Nope, got to have evidence, from the hospital is best.

[STTAB]

Maybe in Arkansas, but not in IL. You don't just get a lawyer and convince the good judge that your ex has threatened to kill you. Nope, got to have evidence, from the hospital is best.

IL won't grant a TRO unless a man has actually put a woman in the hospital? Yeah, they don't wait that long in Arkansas. We prefer our women not be beaten senseless before stepping in.

[Kathianne]

IL won't grant a TRO unless a man has actually put a woman in the hospital? Yeah, they don't wait that long in Arkansas. We prefer our women not be beaten senseless before stepping in.

Yeah, sounds like the schools where guys don't need no freakin' lawyer for their trials, no evidence. Everyone knows womin dont lie.

[STTAB]

Yeah, sounds like the schools where guys don't need no freakin' lawyer for their trials, no evidence. Everyone knows womin dont lie.

And pissy Kath is back.............


The gap from just taking a woman's word for it, to waiting until she has to go to the hospital is HUGE and you know it.

[Kathianne]

And pissy Kath is back.............


The gap from just taking a woman's word for it, to waiting until she has to go to the hospital is HUGE and you know it.

Let's review due process and the rule of law once again. There are reasons we need warrants, evidence, etc.

It would be great if every cop and judge were really human lie detectors, but they are not.

[STTAB]

Let's review due process and the rule of law once again. There are reasons we need warrants, evidence, etc.

It would be great if every cop and judge were really human lie detectors, but they are not.

By all means , let's do.

Do you understand that a TRO is a protection against future facts, rather than a reaction to past ones? In other words, a woman doesn't have to prove that a man beat the shit out of her in order to get one, instead she must convince a judge that he WILL do so of he can doesn't issue one.

And a TRO can be issued without the other party even knowing about it. There doesn't even need to be a hearing, the judge can just look at evidence in his or her chamber and sign the TRO which is then presented to the person being restrained and there is no appeal process.

Due process absolutely positively does not apply to TRO's.

[Kathianne]

By all means , let's do.

Do you understand that a TRO is a protection against future facts, rather than a reaction to past ones? In other words, a woman doesn't have to prove that a man beat the shit out of her in order to get one, instead she must convince a judge that he WILL do so of he can doesn't issue one.

And a TRO can be issued without the other party even knowing about it. There doesn't even need to be a hearing, the judge can just look at evidence in his or her chamber and sign the TRO which is then presented to the person being restrained and there is no appeal process.

Due process absolutely positively does not apply to TRO's.


Due process has everything to do with being able to respond to charges. Pretty hard to be responsive if there is no charges-red state laws.

TRO's other than from your friends in Arkansas are used for 'protection' after there's enough evidence to convince a judge that there are reasons to think the person has real reason to fear immediate threat from a specific person.

Most of us don't get overly optimistic since 'real threatening' people tend not to follow the laws. Imagine that. Sometimes a bit of hope if the threatening person really doesn't want to hurt someone more than they wish to avoid jail.

The red state laws would not only do away with reasonable level of evidence; but the only way to get off the list would be to incur an attorney to help get it 'removed.' On top of that, does anyone think in the wonderful world of the internet that you're being nutty enough for the no buy list, will not become available to future employers and such?

[Elessar]

In Oregon, open carry of sidearms is legal and not unusual. Now whether folks have to register with local / county LE is
unknown to me without googling it. In the rural areas, which comprises 90% of the state, it is not unusual to see rifles
or shotguns on a rack inside a vehicle on public roads, in parking lots, etc. I imagine they must be unloaded though
unless on private land.

In Long Beach CA, I used to take my bow to the Olympic Archery range to target shoot. Had the bow hung on a rack.
LB city cop stopped me one day, checked my credentials, and told me the bow needed to cased/covered, and unstrung.
Anyone who has used a compound bow knows that constant stringing and unstringing it is hard on the arms of it,
resulting in it being unbalanced. I quit going there after that incident.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

In Oregon, open carry of sidearms is legal and not unusual. Now whether folks have to register with local / county LE is
unknown to me without googling it. In the rural areas, which comprises 90% of the state, it is not unusual to see rifles
or shotguns on a rack inside a vehicle on public roads, in parking lots, etc. I imagine they must be unloaded though
unless on private land.

In Long Beach CA, I used to take my bow to the Olympic Archery range to target shoot. Had the bow hung on a rack.
LB city cop stopped me one day, checked my credentials, and told me the bow needed to cased/covered, and unstrung.
Anyone who has used a compound bow knows that constant stringing and unstringing it is hard on the arms of it,
resulting in it being unbalanced. I quit going there after that incident.
It's not odd in Wisconsin either. During deer hunting season there's guns everywhere. We register harvested deer right at the local gas stations, and there's always a bunch of people around someone registering a big buck, and it's not unusual for them to pull out their rifles and compare them either. Just not a big deal, no one thinks a thing of it. People are hunting with pistols here now too since they changed that law. They have to meet certain ballistics, but the .44 mag is getting real popular since much of the shooting here is done in close range. People will wear their pistol all over, even loaded. So long as it's visible it's legal, and even then, if the person has a CCW it's still not an issue. We used to ride the motorcycles around NV wearing our pistols too. Passed many a cop and they hardly paid any attention.

[icansayit]

Short, and Sweet. Politicians (all of them), know. Removing a citizen's right to BEAR ARMS makes it very easy for GOVERNMENT to control every person....AT THE POINT OF A GUN!

Giving Government more power over 'WE THE PEOPLE' by removing any of our Constitutional Rights. Gives up our rights, across the board, ONE, BY ONE. Until...as the Radical Socialist, Democrats would like...DESTROY the America we all know, and love. To allow Politicians to gain the POWER they need.

https://www.naturalnews.com/images/Experts-Agree-Gun-Control-600.jpg

[High_Plains_Drifter]

Short, and Sweet. Politicians (all of them), know. Removing a citizen's right to BEAR ARMS makes it very easy for GOVERNMENT to control every person....AT THE POINT OF A GUN!

Giving Government more power over 'WE THE PEOPLE' by removing any of our Constitutional Rights. Gives up our rights, across the board, ONE, BY ONE. Until...as the Radical Socialist, Democrats would like...DESTROY the America we all know, and love. To allow Politicians to gain the POWER they need.

https://www.naturalnews.com/images/Experts-Agree-Gun-Control-600.jpg

I guess this doesn't bother Noir... he's just the kind of brain washed little pacifist idiot authoritarian globalist shysters like to see...

https://i.ibb.co/hR7m8T5/obeying1.jpg

[Mr. P]

The point is this CSM, in order to protect legal law abiding gun owners and their rights, we have to turn on those who are assholes and abuse those rights. And I don't feel that way just about guns either bro. I feel the same way towards say these people who are going to other people's houses and spending all night in a group yelling and cursing and shit. I think THAT should be illegal, and I think the left is going to have to turn on those people

You should NOT be allowed to terrorize people and then hide behind your rights.

Bottom line here is...We don't need to turn on anyone. We need to strengthen and enforce the existing laws and prosecute swiftly. Problem solved. Then again there will always be assholes just fewer.

My wife is also an attorney and a Judge. Gets me nowhere really, but it does give me a closer look at the legal system and process than most folks get. Just sayin

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

I guess this doesn't bother Noir... he's just the kind of brain washed little pacifist idiot authoritarian globalist shysters like to see...

https://i.ibb.co/hR7m8T5/obeying1.jpg

You nailed it my friend. Abouttime did too...
That is the traitorous Dem party and its globalist inspired agenda..-Tyr

[STTAB]

Bottom line here is...We don't need to turn on anyone. We need to strengthen and enforce the existing laws and prosecute swiftly. Problem solved. Then again there will always be assholes just fewer.

My wife is also an attorney and a Judge. Gets me nowhere really, but it does give me a closer look at the legal system and process than most folks get. Just sayin

I disagree, respectfully.

Using the last two shooters as examples, there are ZERO existing laws that would have prevented those shootings. Now, none of the new laws proposed by Democrats would either. But that doesn't mean we can't do anything, nor is this is even a 2nd Amendment fight. It's a "people who have threat4ened to kill people shouldn't have legal access to guns" fight.

So, you can turn against those who think we shouldn't even do anything to take away guns from people who have threatened to commit murder , or you can risk the entire 2nd Amendment.

This is much like the crazies on the left who want criminals who are in prison to be able to vote. Voting is a right, same as gun ownership. Both protected IN the COTUS. However, I'm pretty sure you have zero problem taking the vote away from felons, and rightly so. That's not an issue of voter rights, it's an issue of "felons don't have rights"