Las Vegas Shooting

[jficke13]

Dr Wolfe rocked.   One of my favorite professors, too.    He did not mind if you disagreed, but he insisted you present a reasonable argument.

Can we institute the Dr. Wolfe rule on this board?

[Vander Blue Man Group]

Agree completely.

Unfortunately, the document was meant to live forever, so the Supreme Court has to interpret the old language in a world of new realities.  In this case, I wish they had determined that the Amendment permits only single-shot weapons, but alas, they didn't.

Sure, but it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.  I'm not a gun person so I don't quite understand the mindset (although I've tried) that civilians should have access to weapons, clips, rounds, etc that can do such damage.

[tower912]

Can we institute the Dr. Wolfe rule on this board?

Would love it.    Must present reasoned argument, cannot call names.    I am in. 

[Pakuni]

For more than a year, I have had exactly two photos on display in my office.  One is of my entire family on Marquette's campus the day of Glow jr.'s graduation, and the other is of Chick jr. and me proudly wearing finishing medals from our first half-marathon. It was taken three years ago, in the exact spot where the Las Vegas victims were shot down.

If we only focus on getting rid of the weapons, we will fail.  If you take away one type, they will move to another.  It has already been reported on the news that this shooter had Timothy McVeigh-type explosives as well.  Are we going to make fertilizer illegal, too?  What we have to do is get rid of the murderers. Somehow we have to figure out what prompts people to act in such an evil manner and address that. Anything else is simply mopping the floor when it rains instead of fixing the hole in the roof.

I don't claim to have the easy way to do that, but the discussion needs to start.

This is, at best, a case of letting perfect be the enemy of good.
You're right .... no gun control law will 100 percent eliminate any chance of a mass shooting. And no go control law will prevent someone from finding another means of doing harm if they're that determined.
To which I say ... so what?
A law doesn't have to have a 100 percent success rate to be effective and worthwhile. Maybe a clip size limit doesn't prevent last night's shooting, but maybe the guy gets off a couple hundred fewer shots. How many lives does that save? And aren't those lives worth saving to you? I bet they are to their loved ones.
Nobody applies this logic to anything but gun control. When the federal government successfully pushed states to lower the DUI limit from .10 to .08, nobody thought a reasonable argument against it was "People will drink and drive anyhow, so what's the point?" When states began raising the tobacco age from 16 to 18, smart people didn't argue that kids will find ways to smoke anyhow, so why restrict the age. And yet some seem to argue that any gun control measure that doesn't prevent all gun violence isn't worthwhile. That's nonsense.

Also, you're correct that gun control alone isn't the answer. That's a big red herring, since I'm pretty sure no one here - and no reasonable person anywhere - has ever suggested that. But maybe it's a start. And maybe - and perhaps I'm overly optimistic here - the 535 members of Congress and thousands in state legislatures across the country can walk and chew gum at the same time, and address this on multiple fronts.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

This is, at best, a case of letting perfect be the enemy of good.
You're right .... no gun control law will 100 percent eliminate any chance of a mass shooting. And no go control law will prevent someone from finding another means of doing harm by other means.
To which I say ... so what?
A law doesn't have to have a 100 percent success rate to be effective and worthwhile. Maybe a clip size limit doesn't prevent last night's shooting, but maybe the guy gets off a couple hundred fewer shots. How many lives does that save? And aren't those lives worth saving to you? I bet they are to their loved ones.
Nobody applies this logic to anything but gun control. When the federal government successfully pushed states to lower the DUI limit from .10 to .08, nobody thought a reasonable argument against it was "People will drink and drive anyhow, so what's the point?" When states began raising the tobacco age from 16 to 18, smart people didn't argue that kids will find ways to smoke anyhow, so why restrict the age. And yet some seem to argue that any gun control measure that doesn't prevent all gun violence isn't worthwhile. That's nonsense.

Also, you're correct that gun control alone isn't the answer. That's a big red herring, since I'm pretty sure no one here - and no reasonable person anywhere - has ever suggested that. But maybe it's a start. And maybe - and perhaps I'm overly optimistic here - the 535 members of Congress and thousands in state legislatures across the country can walk and chew gum at the same time, and address this on multiple fronts.

Completely agree with this.

[mu03eng]

I truly believe that if all guns were banned, our gun culture would disappear in 20-30 years. The generation above mine and my generation would hang on to it, but they wouldn't teach it to their kids. I'm not saying that's right or what should happen, but I do think gun culture doesn't have to be a permanent piece of our country.

Honestly, if all guns were banned it's much more likely that tens of thousands would die as the government tried to confiscate them. Talk about playing into all the fear mongering the NRA and the gun nuts advocate.

[GooooMarquette]

I don't know. With the caveat that this is not my area of practice, I'll give it a go. I'm also going to give the typical lawyer BS answer and say: It depends. So feel free to scream at me for being a bloody lawyer.

First, it depends on whether the Court applies "strict scrutiny" review (law must advance a "compelling government interest;" be "narrowly tailored to advance that interest;" and achieve it in the "least restrictive means possible." Typically, when strict scrutiny is applied, laws are found unconstitutional. Strict scrutiny is often applied in Bill of Rights related issues (free speech cases have lots of strict scrutiny). If 2A is determined a "fundamental right," and strict scrutiny is applied... it's just a tough bar to clear, but it can be done.

So, that being said the best shot is to write the laws narrowly and to define the terms clearly.

Checking yours off:
What is "mentally ill" and who or what determines if one is "mentally ill?" I think this is probably the hardest to write well enough to both pass (so much possibility for controversy in setting your definitions) and for the same reason, probably hard to clear the "least restrictive means possible" prong of strict scrutiny. I think that the fact that the restriction on felons possessing firearms exists and nobody seems to think it violates even a broadened view of 2A gives a lot of support to the idea that this could survive. FWIW, I do 100% support this restriction if we can figure out a way to define the terms in a way that isn't subject to abuse and ambiguity.

National gun registry... I honestly have no idea... probably? It probably depends a great deal on the facts and testimony about how one of these would meaningfully advance the government interest of catching violent criminals.

Background Check System, probably, assuming that whatever fail conditions are set are well-defined and narrowly tailored to the goal of preventing gun violence. The goal here would be to write your law in a way that filters out people with histories of violence, but doesn't impact Billy the MU Bro who got a drinking ticket in his 1st week at McCormick in 1981.

This is where the rubber meets the road: To survive Supreme Court review the law needs to be well-written law, not one that is shot out the door and dubbed the "Las Vegas Remembers Act" or something.

Lastly, the current make up of the Court is likely to be skeptical of laws that restrict 2A rights. There's some speculation that Kennedy may retire soon, and RBG and Breyer are no spring chickens (although they both will hold their seat til the Reaper takes them rather than give Trump the ability to nominate their replacements), so there's a chance the makeup may change and meaningfully affect how the Court is likely to follow or pull back from Heller and McDonald, both of which were 5-4 and had blistering dissents.

But, bear in mind that for whatever reason, Trump picked a well-respected Justice in Gorsuch (albeit one that probably aligns with skepticism of 2A restrictions) and not a lunatic, so there's no reason to assume that he will pick a screaming NRA defender if he gets another nomination.

Anyway, thus ends MUScoop Law's Monday evening class.

From one bloody lawyer to another...a pretty nice summary.

[rocket surgeon]

Sure, but it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.  I'm not a gun person so I don't quite understand the mindset (although I've tried) that civilians should have access to weapons, clips, rounds, etc that can do such damage.

thank you for your honesty, but just remember one thing-the weapons, clips, rounds, etc do no damage.  it's the person behind them that does.  i am all for strict laws against any person who does not use a weapon safely under the laws we have.  one thing i have noted however, why does it seem when a criminal/felon in possession of a firearm have that offense thrown out so easily, time after time.  if handguns are such a "bad thing" for the anti-gun people, one would think they would throw out the other chit and put 'em in jail for a long long time just based on the illegal gun possession


AND, to you mr.jficke13-well done sir-very well thought out and informative *golden nugget of the day*

[rocket surgeon]

Honestly, if all guns were banned it's much more likely that tens of thousands would die as the government tried to confiscate them. Talk about playing into all the fear mongering the NRA and the gun nuts advocate.

very well put and ya had me up to "the fear mongering..."   ya see, some people view "gun nuts" as those who do wish they could ban all guns as well

[4everwarriors]

Hoping the massacre in Vegas was not a hate crime against a group of people largely known to be Trump supporters.

[rocket surgeon]

Hoping the massacre in Vegas was not a hate crime against a group of people largely known to be Trump supporters.

  well according to that CBS attorney, hayley geftman-gold, she had no sympathy toward them because of this-very sad.  she's thankfully looking for another job.  no room for megan amram "jokes" either.  boy, if this is what humor has come to-very very sad as well.

[GooooMarquette]

Sure, but it doesn't have to be one extreme or the other.  I'm not a gun person so I don't quite understand the mindset (although I've tried) that civilians should have access to weapons, clips, rounds, etc that can do such damage.

I agree...but we unfortunately live in a political environment that has devolved into a battle of extremes.  Just look at the healthcare situation - we should be able to fine-tune the ACA into a very workable system, but it just doesn't happen.

[Jockey]

Hoping the massacre in Vegas was not a hate crime against a group of people largely known to be Trump supporters.

Peddle your conspiracy theories elsewhere.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

thank you for your honesty, but just remember one thing-the weapons, clips, rounds, etc do no damage.  it's the person behind them that does.  i am all for strict laws against any person who does not use a weapon safely under the laws we have.  one thing i have noted however, why does it seem when a criminal/felon in possession of a firearm have that offense thrown out so easily, time after time.  if handguns are such a "bad thing" for the anti-gun people, one would think they would throw out the other chit and put 'em in jail for a long long time just based on the illegal gun possession


AND, to you mr.jficke13-well done sir-very well thought out and informative *golden nugget of the day*

Obviously a person is the one pulling the trigger. Stricter gun control laws are certainly not a panacea. But in my opinion they could make a significant difference.  So while not a perfect solution shouldn't we strive for improvement wherever we can find it?

The judicial system, the sentences given, prison overcrowding, etc. I'm not an expert so I can't speak to that. It does seem there is not much consistency in terms of sentencing and lot of folks that should he behind bars continue to get slaps on the wrist and continue to repeat the same behaviors.

[Benny B]

I don't agree, Benny. You know I am about as far left as possible and I have no problem with people owning a handgun for protection or owning hunting rifles. I know of very few lefties who want to eliminate guns. Almost all lefties want elimination of large clips and assault rifles.

Your point is part of the problem by locking everyone into an all-or-nothing group. Most people don't think that way. There are many things that can be done to fight the constant mass shootings. Even YOU say that steps can be taken to "mitigate" the problem.

Sadly, people like you are the problem (not meant as a personal attack). I say that because it is ONLY when people on the right like you stand up and say something has to be done, that it will happen. We have tried on the left, but every time there is a mass shooting, those on the right say more guns is the answer. Until YOU guys stand up and say that life has value, nothing will be done.

The problem lies with people like me?  I guarantee that you've never met anyone like me (which means that was a personal attack).  And just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm on the right.  Hell, its people like you - and everyone in Washington - who wants to put everyone into one of two boxes because it's easier for mentally deficient people to win elections when they can simplify their view of the world into minimal categories... that's the real problem.  Compromise doesn't exist in our society because you can't energize your base and motivate people to go to the polls when you're focused on compromise and the greater good.  Nope, stick to your guns (no pun intended) and stick it to the other person... that's how you win elections in this country.

[Vander Blue Man Group]

I agree...but we unfortunately live in a political environment that has devolved into a battle of extremes.  Just look at the healthcare situation - we should be able to fine-tune the ACA into a very workable system, but it just doesn't happen.

You're right and that is a great example. Compromise is basically dead.

[forgetful]

thank you for your honesty, but just remember one thing-the weapons, clips, rounds, etc do no damage.  it's the person behind them that does. 

Here is my problem with this typical argument.  There are many useful chemicals (many of which come from natural sources) that are harmless on their own, but no completely illegal to purchase.  Why?  Because they can be converted to illegal drugs in fairly simple syntheses that the average person who has taken organic chemistry could perform. 

Those chemicals/natural produces do not damage on their own, and are actually often beneficial.  It's the person behind them that could use them for nefarious purposes, so we make it illegal to prevent possible nefarious activities. 

The types of devices and weapons used in these attacks have no beneficial or practical purpose (unlike many of these chemicals), rather they only pose a grave risk to the public...but we defend their sale because it isn't the gun/device that is dangerous...just the people behind them. 

And before one defends this as well 2nd amendment.  We already have restrictions on bearing arms.  I can't go out and buy rocket propelled grenade launchers, because there is no practical purpose for me to own it.  I can't go buy C4 explosives..again because there is no practical purpose for it.  We have no practical purpose for most of the weapons used in Vegas either, so there is legal precedent to ban them too. 

I'm a gun owner.  I believe in defending the 2nd amendment, and I believe in reasonable restrictions and bans on specific types of weapons.  I bet I'm in the majority nationwide. 

[Jockey]

The problem lies with people like me?  I guarantee that you've never met anyone like me (which means that was a personal attack).  And just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I'm on the right.  Hell, its people like you - and everyone in Washington - who wants to put everyone into one of two boxes because it's easier for mentally deficient people to win elections when they can simplify their view of the world into minimal categories... that's the real problem.  Compromise doesn't exist in our society because you can't energize your base and motivate people to go to the polls when you're focused on compromise and the greater good.  Nope, stick to your guns (no pun intended) and stick it to the other person... that's how you win elections in this country.

Maybe I wasn't clear. By "people like you ", I meant people on the right - not you personally. You can deny all you like, but People on the right need to stand up for human life and against the NRA in order for change to occur

[Benny B]

Maybe I wasn't clear. By "people like you ", I meant people on the right - not you personally. You can deny all you like, but People on the right need to stand up for human life and against the NRA in order for change to occur

Not people on the right.  Everyone. 

Stop grouping people into "right" and "left."  Your insistence that we can't all be on the same side is exactly why we aren't.

[Jockey]

Not people on the right.  Everyone. 

Stop grouping people into "right" and "left."  Your insistence that we can't all be on the same side is exactly why we aren't.

Again, I must not have made myself clear. I was referring to politicians on the left and right. Looking at my post, I wasn't specific when I should have been.

If all politicians on the left vote for some sort of gun control, it fails. There have to be people on the right - people like you (in Congress) - that vote for it in order for it to pass.

I try to keep my posts as short as possible so my true meaning doesn't always come through. I was not grouping people as left or right. I was grouping politicians as left or right - because they ARE left or right. And those on the right are the ones that get money from the NRA.

The last specific info I could find on NRA contributions to people running for national office was 2014. The NRA doled out $812,460 to 222 people -  211 Republicans and 11 Dems.

So, unless some who get money from the NRA vote against the NRA interests, nothing can pass.

[Jockey]

Stop grouping people into "right" and "left."  Your insistence that we can't all be on the same side is exactly why we aren't.

No it is not. If I were never born, people would still be on opposite sides. . 

[GGGG]

  "Here's my question, because I honestly don't know the answer. When was the last time, if ever, someone with concealed carry has ever stopped a shooting massacre, let alone one person."

  i haven't looked this up yet, but before i do, i will tell you that many of the the mass shootings occur in "GUN FREE ZONES"  note, i said many...so law abiding concealed carry people heed the laws and don't carry where firearms are not permitted.  many times i had been walking in to a building with a sign posted-no firearms allowed, or gun -back to the car i went, regardless of how far away i parked.  ok, i found this one, but i'm sure some here will be quick to criticize the source.  i'm sure if we look hard enough, we will find reasons to support both sides however.  but this makes a lot of sense.

   there have been many instances where lives have been saved by concealed carry permit holders, but mass shootings...see above


http://www.desmoinesregister.com/story/opinion/columnists/2017/02/09/john-lott-gun-free-zones-easy-targets-would--killers/97645622/

Well there are a lot of issues with Lott's research, but I will let that be.

But the issue of whether or not this was a gun free zone is irrelevant.  What "good guy with a gun" is going to stop a "bad guy with a gun" when he is shooting a modified semi-automatic weapon from 400 yards away on the 32nd story of a hotel?

I very much align with forgetful in this case.  I believe in the 2nd amendment.  But there is no reason to have these types of weapons in the marketplace. 

[rocket surgeon]

Again, I must not have made myself clear. I was referring to politicians on the left and right. Looking at my post, I wasn't specific when I should have been.

If all politicians on the left vote for some sort of gun control, it fails. There have to be people on the right - people like you (in Congress) - that vote for it in order for it to pass.

I try to keep my posts as short as possible so my true meaning doesn't always come through. I was not grouping people as left or right. I was grouping politicians as left or right - because they ARE left or right. And those on the right are the ones that get money from the NRA.

The last specific info I could find on NRA contributions to people running for national office was 2014. The NRA doled out $812,460 to 222 people -  211 Republicans and 11 Dems.

So, unless some who get money from the NRA vote against the NRA interests, nothing can pass.

you do realize that the politicians are voted in by the people who support their ideas and/or political leanings, right?  politicians are supposed to represent their constituents and unfortunately whereever the money comes from.  in this case, yes the NRA which is people too, get money for their existence and use it to protect what they believe in.  this goes on with special interest groups on both sides of the aisle.  some issues even (gasp) that the right may not be agree with(double gasp) but you knew this as well, right?  benny put it perfectly-
   "little boxes on a hillside, little boxes made of ticky tacky...and they all look just the same...there's a pink one and a green one...and they look just the same..."  bring it on home malvina

[Tugg Speedman]

Here's my question, because I honestly don't know the answer. When was the last time, if ever, someone with concealed carry has ever stopped a shooting massacre, let alone one person.

On the flip side take a look at the last two terrorsit attacks in London, the attack on Parliament and the one by London bridge. In both incidents the attackers (terrorists) only had access to knives and casualties weren't nearly as damaging as they were in Las Vegas and Orlando.

Obviously nobody can quantify the potential impact of there were guns but I would guess that most would agree there would have been more casualties if there were firearms involved, automatic or not.

And citizens didn't have the option to "protect themselves" with concealed carry.

Conceal carry shoot bad guys all the time.  But how do you know their future intention?  Here is one in 2015 in Logan Square in Chicago.  I'm sure others will argue that was unnecessary.... because we all view these things through our political biases.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-uber-driver-shoots-gunman-met-0420-20150419-story.html

[mu03eng]

Out of curiosity, would anyone turn down the grand bargain of universal gun registration for universal voter identification? If not, why not?