Las Vegas Shooting

[Jockey]

Consider me usually drifting a bit right on things but there absolutely needs to be more done with this.  In addition to some of the things listed here and already mentioned previously in this thread, I think there are two items that can help that I'm drawing from the auto industry on:

- Just like before you can legally drive a car, require those who want to purchase a gun to go through training classes, including how to properly use guns and gun safety.  A license to own the gun cannot be obtained without appropriate training and gun education

- Some form of "gun insurance".  Each gun has its own unique ID, force that to be registered and if that gun is then used in a violent crime, the registered owner faces some sort of consequence (there would obviously be other items to consider such as reporting a stolen gun, etc.).  But this could help crack down on illegal sales.  Whether its people selling illegally completely on purpose, or those selling illegally just because its much easier to do and less hassle.

Two more good reasonable examples that the huge majority of this country would support. Neither will happen.

Until we send a message that we will no longer elect these same appeasers to the NRA, we will solve nothing.

[tower912]

I agree with jiggie regarding  the passionate nature of gun lovers as single issue voters.  I have had a couple of dozen coworkers say some version of.....  I know republicans don't like public employees, want to gut collective bargaining and take away my pension and make me work longer hours for less.  But guns and babies. 

And they are unshakeable. 

[mu03eng]

Let's dispel the notion that there's some deep national divide over gun control (much less one that's going to lead to secession).
Middle-of-the-road restrictions are favored by a large majority of Americans. These won't prevent every mass shooting, of course, but if it stops a few, or even reduces the body count, it's worth it.

According to a recent poll (link below):
- 87 percent support a ban on sales to those with a mental illness history
- 86 percent support universal background checks
- 82 percent support child-proof locks
- 80 percent support all sales being reported to the federal government
- 78 percent support mandatory licensing
- 77 percent support a mandatory waiting period
- 72 percent support mandatory fingerprinting
- 70 percent support a national registry
- 68 percent want guns banned from college campuses
- 67 percent support an assault weapons ban
- 67 percent support a limit on purchase frequency
- 64 percent support limits on ammo purchases
- 63 percent support a ban on high-capacity clips
- 63 percent support a ban on semi-automatic guns

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/02/experts-and-the-public-agree-on-how-to-stop-gun-violence-politicians-dont/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5e9de1cf4ea1

Here's the sad fact of where we stand and why things won't change: support does not equal advocacy.

Those who are most passionate win in this country and the gun advocates are infinitely more passionate about limiting control of the government than the common person is in support of reasonable gun control measures

[jficke13]

Ha, you've got this seriously mixed up amigo. The 2nd amendment is not the mechanism to advance gun control. There's nothing in the Constitution or in Supreme Court precedent that says the right to bear arms includes the right to bear any weapon, including assault weapons (those didn't even exist when the Bill of Rights were drafted). Gun control legislation absolutely can be -- and has been! -- passed without running afoul of the 2nd amendment. What you meant to say was that the 2nd amendment would be the mechanism to advance gun prohibition, but not gun control.

I meant to say exactly what I said. Supreme Court jurisprudence interprets the 2nd Amendment in such a way as to consider the 2nd Amendment to enshrine the Constitutional right to bear arms in powerful terms (see District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago: "it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.").

The kind of "gun control" that people advocate for on cable news and message boards when these kinds of things happen would be subject to a constitutional attack under those case, and given the current make up of the Supreme Court, I'd say reasonably vulnerable to one.

Want to ban guns? Whole swaths of guns? Want there to be an end to ambiguity over what the right to keep and bear arms is? Want there to be a line in the sand that only bolt action, single-shot firearms for hunting that need to be checked out from the local DNR is the rule? Want only historically-accurate black powder muskets from 1782 to be legal? Want the "Aussie Solution?" We have a mechanism for that, but nobody wants to use it. Hell, you can put an amendment before states a few at a time, but still not even states like CT where you'd think it would be a slam dunk have done so (at least I haven't heard of them doing so).

Edited for clarity, I butchered the formatting of that post, sorry.

[warriorchick]

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.

[GGGG]

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.

If we only focus on that, we will fail too.

[TAMU, Knower of Ball]

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.

[D'Lo Brown]

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 sounds an awful lot like everyone's favorite old line, "guns don't kill people, people kill people". It certainly helps us all move past this without taking any action, which is great depending on your bent. We can obsess about it for a week and then move on to the next big story.

It's almost as if every time this happens, we completely forget that this has happened many times previously.

The guy shot over 500 people in a matter of a few minutes from a distance of what, 400 yards. If he has a saturday night special he might be about to go on a rampage and shoot a few before he's taken down or simply run away from. Difference of what, give or take 500? They're both news stories and awful, but the same level of crazy is only able to inflict a small fraction of the suffering. That seems like an easier step to take in the interim before we're able to tackle a massive upheaval in our society.

[GooooMarquette]

Of course weapons held one bullet when the second amendment was written almost 230 years ago. Strange how things change over that much time.

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.

[GGGG]

I meant to say exactly what I said. Supreme Court jurisprudence interprets the 2nd Amendment in such a way as to consider the 2nd Amendment to enshrine the Constitutional right to bear arms in powerful terms (see District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago: "it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.").

The kind of "gun control" that people advocate for on cable news and message boards when these kinds of things happen would be subject to a constitutional attack under those case, and given the current make up of the Supreme Court, I'd say reasonably vulnerable to one.

Want to ban guns? Whole swaths of guns? Want there to be an end to ambiguity over what the right to keep and bear arms is? Want there to be a line in the sand that only bolt action, single-shot firearms for hunting that need to be checked out from the local DNR is the rule? Want only historically-accurate black powder muskets from 1782 to be legal? Want the "Aussie Solution?" We have a mechanism for that, but nobody wants to use it. Hell, you can put an amendment before states a few at a time, but still not even states like CT where you'd think it would be a slam dunk have done so (at least I haven't heard of them doing so).

Edited for clarity, I butchered the formatting of that post, sorry.

Do you believe that a national gun registry, a prohibition on the mentally ill, or a background check system would survive the Court?

[rocket surgeon]

  "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/

[GB Warrior]

Let's dispel the notion that there's some deep national divide over gun control (much less one that's going to lead to secession).
Middle-of-the-road restrictions are favored by a large majority of Americans. These won't prevent every mass shooting, of course, but if it stops a few, or even reduces the body count, it's worth it.

According to a recent poll (link below):
- 87 percent support a ban on sales to those with a mental illness history
- 86 percent support universal background checks
- 82 percent support child-proof locks
- 80 percent support all sales being reported to the federal government
- 78 percent support mandatory licensing
- 77 percent support a mandatory waiting period
- 72 percent support mandatory fingerprinting
- 70 percent support a national registry
- 68 percent want guns banned from college campuses
- 67 percent support an assault weapons ban
- 67 percent support a limit on purchase frequency
- 64 percent support limits on ammo purchases
- 63 percent support a ban on high-capacity clips
- 63 percent support a ban on semi-automatic guns

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/10/02/experts-and-the-public-agree-on-how-to-stop-gun-violence-politicians-dont/?tid=sm_tw&utm_term=.5e9de1cf4ea1

Yeah, this falls apart when they see "Crooked Hillary" on the ballot and those that would otherwise support these measures sacrifice their morals to vote against the Dems.

As a result, these otherwise well meaning people vote for people in bed with the NRA and perpetuate the mass murders.

[GB Warrior]

  "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 in this moment, this is a completely moot point...like Sandy Hook...like in a dark club with alcohol like Pulse. This one is especially moot because the shots came from the 32nd floor.

[rocket surgeon]

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.

yes, but first you have to get rid of 300 million guns.  good luck.  oh, and one more thing-guess who will always have guns?  the bad guys and the government.  how many times have you heard of a bad guy leaving his gun home because he was going to a gun free zone

[Babybluejeans]

I meant to say exactly what I said. Supreme Court jurisprudence interprets the 2nd Amendment in such a way as to consider the 2nd Amendment to enshrine the Constitutional right to bear arms in powerful terms (see District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago: "it is clear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.").

The kind of "gun control" that people advocate for on cable news and message boards when these kinds of things happen would be subject to a constitutional attack under those case, and given the current make up of the Supreme Court, I'd say reasonably vulnerable to one.

Want to ban guns? Whole swaths of guns? Want there to be an end to ambiguity over what the right to keep and bear arms is? Want there to be a line in the sand that only bolt action, single-shot firearms for hunting that need to be checked out from the local DNR is the rule? Want only historically-accurate black powder muskets from 1782 to be legal? Want the "Aussie Solution?" We have a mechanism for that, but nobody wants to use it. Hell, you can put an amendment before states a few at a time, but still not even states like CT where you'd think it would be a slam dunk have done so (at least I haven't heard of them doing so).

Edited for clarity, I butchered the formatting of that post, sorry.

To say that any gun control legislation could only pass as a Constitutional amendment is simply wrong. So, your blaming of liberal states for not proposing amendments to the Constitution is not only illogical and impractical, but is built on an utterly flawed premise.

[jsglow]

Yeah, this falls apart when they see "Crooked Hillary" on the ballot and those that would otherwise support these measures sacrifice their morals to vote against the Dems.

As a result, these otherwise well meaning people vote for people in bed with the NRA and perpetuate the mass murders.

I think you are way out of line with that comment sir.

And as usual, a thoughtful, well meaning discussion devolves into name calling and incredibly broad generalizations.  I'm OUT.  This won't be productive at all for the next 10 pages.

[GGGG]

I think you are way out of line with that comment sir.

And as usual, a thoughtful, well meaning discussion devolves into name calling and incredibly broad generalizations.  I'm OUT.  This won't be productive at all for the next 10 pages.

It get's kinda inconvenient for you doesn't it.

[Pakuni]

I meant to say exactly what I said. Supreme Court jurisprudence interprets the 2nd Amendment in such a way as to consider the 2nd Amendment to enshrine the Constitutional right to bear arms in powerful terms (see District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago: "it is cinlear that the Framers and ratifiers of the Fourteenth Amendment counted the right to keep and bear arms among those fundamental rights necessary to our system of ordered liberty.").

The kind of "gun control" that people advocate for on cable news and message boards when these kinds of things happen would be subject to a constitutional attack under those case, and given the current make up of the Supreme Court, I'd say reasonably vulnerable to one.

Want to ban guns? Whole swaths of guns? Want there to be an end to ambiguity over what the right to keep and bear arms is? Want there to be a line in the sand that only bolt action, single-shot firearms for hunting that need to be checked out from the local DNR is the rule? Want only historically-accurate black powder muskets from 1782 to be legal? Want the "Aussie Solution?" We have a mechanism for that, but nobody wants to use it. Hell, you can put an amendment before states a few at a time, but still not even states like CT where you'd think it would be a slam dunk have done so (at least I haven't heard of them doing so).

Edited for clarity, I butchered the formatting of that post, sorry.

So did we all just imagine Friedman v.. Highland Park?

[GB Warrior]

I think you are way out of line with that comment sir.

And as usual, a thoughtful, well meaning discussion devolves into name calling and incredibly broad generalizations.  I'm OUT.  This won't be productive at all for the next 10 pages.

It's really not meant as an insult - it's the polarized landscape on every issue that leads to this. The point is that this issue is not number 1, 2 or 3 for most people when people go to the voting box. It's not for me except in this exact moment in time. So those in favor of, say, tax reform (raises hand) have to make a choice at which issues are our hot button. Do I prioritize my fiscal stance or my social one? It depends.

This is how bad policy on both ends of the poles lingers for generations.

[jficke13]

Do you believe that a national gun registry, a prohibition on the mentally ill, or a background check system would survive the Court?

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.

[GGGG]

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.

Thank you.  My favorite professor at MU was Christopher Wolfe and his constitutional law classes so I love hearing people's opinions about this stuff.

[jficke13]

To say that any gun control legislation could only pass as a Constitutional amendment is simply wrong. So, your blaming of liberal states for not proposing amendments to the Constitution is not only illogical and impractical, but is built on an utterly flawed premise.

I'm not blaming blue states for not passing one, although I do see how what I said could have come off that way. I think that there is a fundamental problem with 2A, it's ambiguous as all getout, and there's a way to fix that.

[tower912]

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

[GGGG]

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

And I loved how challenging the class was.  You had to read up ahead of time because he quizzed you every Friday.  And his final exam usually required more than one blue book.

I think I still have that monsterous textbook we used somewhere in my basement too.

[jficke13]

Thank you.  My favorite professor at MU was Christopher Wolfe and his constitutional law classes so I love hearing people's opinions about this stuff.

Take it for what it's worth, I am, after all, just some guy on the internet.

I expect to see some people who know much more about these issues than I opine over the next few days. Since I keep my eyes on these kinds of things, and am happy to engage with my obvious legal betters if everyone can keep this thread from getting locked, and if I see anything good on the issue, I'll post links when/if I see them.