Happy July 4th Y'all

[muwarrior69]

Proving yet again that stupid arguments never die...

The purpose of a vehicle is to transport people and things. The purpose of a gun is to send high velocity metal projectiles into people or things to destroy them. Sure, a vehicle *can* be used to intentionally kill people, but they are used in that way an infinitesimal amount of the time, just as a gun is used as a door jam or hammer an infinitesimal amount of the time.

And yet, to own and operate a car a person must:
* Pass both written and on road examinations that they can safely operate the vehicle
* Purchase an annual tag for the vehicle
* Have the vehicle examined yearly to ensure it is operating safely and efficiently
* Purchase liability insurance for the vehicle
* Renew their operating license on a regular basis

Comparing the two as killing machines is idiotic.

...and even if we treated guns like vehicles and had to go through all the steps above this kid would have still gotten his gun and still caused all that carnage because he had no criminal record.

[Uncle Rico]

The ruling has some far wider-reaching implications than that. It basically says the government's interest in reducing violence no longer matters when it comes to guns, and should no longer be considered when weighing the constitutionality of gun control laws. Instead, they wrote, "this Nation's historical tradition" is all that matters.
So yeah, the majority of the Supreme Court says protecting lives is less important than protecting guns. In this case, the ruling involved a conceal carry law, but the standard they set will apply to any gun control measure.
On the other hand, mass shootings are well on their way to becoming "this Nation's historical tradition," so maybe this ruling won't be so bad after all.

Quite frankly, the Supreme Court didn’t do enough to protect guns. 

[lawdog77]

The ruling has some far wider-reaching implications than that. It basically says the government's interest in reducing violence no longer matters when it comes to guns, and should no longer be considered when weighing the constitutionality of gun control laws. Instead, they wrote, "this Nation's historical tradition" is all that matters.
So yeah, the majority of the Supreme Court says protecting lives is less important than protecting guns. In this case, the ruling involved a conceal carry law, but the standard they set will apply to any gun control measure.
On the other hand, mass shootings are well on their way to becoming "this Nation's historical tradition," so maybe this ruling won't be so bad after all.

Well, you read it differently than I do, I read it as, once a person is able to obtain a gun legally, his should be able to have it in public.

Alito wrote that the court had decided “nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun” and nothing “about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.”

“Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves.” The Second Amendment, he said, “guarantees their right to do so.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.”

[Uncle Rico]

...and even if we treated guns like vehicles and had to go through all the steps above this kid would have still gotten his gun and still caused all that carnage because he had no criminal record.

Doesn’t the fault lie on the parade goers for not being armed themselves?  Also, it’s time for stronger protection from getting on roofs.  We have a right to bear arms, not be allowed on roofs

[tower912]

Locks on doors to roofs.

[brewcity77]

...and even if we treated guns like vehicles and had to go through all the steps above this kid would have still gotten his gun and still caused all that carnage because he had no criminal record.

Having more impediments wouldn't have hurt, but you do reveal that the real problem is the access to guns. And the obvious answer is to restrict access universally.

[Uncle Rico]

Locks on doors to roofs.

This probably belongs in the investing thread, but I’d buy stocks in lock companies

[cheebs09]

...and even if we treated guns like vehicles and had to go through all the steps above this kid would have still gotten his gun and still caused all that carnage because he had no criminal record.

So, what is your solution? I’m all ears because I know I’m not smart enough to solve it or have the answers. However, I hope you recognize that there’s an issue and something has to be done instead of saying, “that won’t stop every situation.”

[lawdog77]

Speaking of the 4th, how did I miss this?

https://twitter.com/JomboyMedia/status/1544008568461983744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1544008568461983744%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

[MUBurrow]

Speaking of the 4th, how did I miss this?

https://twitter.com/JomboyMedia/status/1544008568461983744?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1544008568461983744%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=

I thought the same thing. I was half-watching the damn thing and somehow didn't pick up on that???

[Pakuni]

Well, you read it differently than I do, I read it as, once a person is able to obtain a gun legally, his should be able to have it in public.

Alito wrote that the court had decided “nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun” and nothing “about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.”

“Today, unfortunately, many Americans have good reason to fear they will be victimized if they are unable to protect themselves.” The Second Amendment, he said, “guarantees their right to do so.”

Justice Brett Kavanaugh, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, noted the limits of the decision. States can still require people to get a license to carry a gun, Kavanaugh wrote, and condition that license on “fingerprinting, a background check, a mental health records check, and training in firearms handling and in laws regarding the use of force, among other possible requirements.”

Why didn't you bother to cite the majority ruling here? And, of course, nothing you've written here contradicts what I wrote.

Anyhow, from the majority ruling:
To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this
Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second  Amendment’s “unqualified command.”

So, and please tell me if I'm wrong, but the majority is saying here that public safety (i.e. "an important interest") is no longer legal justification for any imposition upon a Second Amendment right. Rather, if must be consistent with "historical tradition" of firearm regulation.
In other words Guns > People.
And, taken to its logical conclusion, the court is saying there can be no new regulations placed on guns, since any new regulation is, by definition, not part of the historical tradition.

[lawdog77]

Why didn't you bother to cite the majority ruling here? And, of course, nothing you've written here contradicts what I wrote.

Anyhow, from the majority ruling:
To justify its regulation, the government may not simply posit that the regulation promotes an important interest. Rather, the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with this Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation. Only if a firearm regulation is consistent with this
Nation’s historical tradition may a court conclude that the individual’s conduct falls outside the Second  Amendment’s “unqualified command.” There is a historical tradition of background checks, limits on type of weapons, etc. You seem to be taking their words of "historic tradition" to mean no laws, which is far from the case. This case has a pretty strict meaning, towards laws against those who have a right to have a gun. Saying there is "an important interest" is too vague. If that were OK, a state could just say, our interest is stopping shootings, so lets make a law to get rid of all guns. That won't work.

So, and please tell me if I'm wrong, but the majority is saying here that public safety (i.e. "an important interest") is no longer legal justification for any imposition upon a Second Amendment right. Rather, if must be consistent with "historical tradition" of firearm regulation.
In other words Guns > People.
And, taken to its logical conclusion, the court is saying there can be no new regulations placed on guns, since any new regulation is, by definition, not part of the historical tradition.

[Dickthedribbler]

Proving yet again that stupid arguments never die...

The purpose of a vehicle is to transport people and things. The purpose of a gun is to send high velocity metal projectiles into people or things to destroy them. Sure, a vehicle *can* be used to intentionally kill people, but they are used in that way an infinitesimal amount of the time, just as a gun is used as a door jam or hammer an infinitesimal amount of the time.

And yet, to own and operate a car a person must:
* Pass both written and on road examinations that they can safely operate the vehicle
* Purchase an annual tag for the vehicle
* Have the vehicle examined yearly to ensure it is operating safely and efficiently
* Purchase liability insurance for the vehicle
* Renew their operating license on a regular basis

Comparing the two as killing machines is idiotic.

Completely false.

You can own a vehicle and you can certainly operate a vehicle without doing any of those things. Do you think carjackers and others who committ crimes with vehicles buy liability insurance, renew their car tags and operators license faithfully every year, and have safety inspections.

Talk about what's idiotic.

[NCMUFan]

Gun + Evil Person + Bystanders = Tragedy

Have to remove at least one of the three.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

Completely false.

You can own a vehicle and you can certainly operate a vehicle without doing any of those things. Do you think carjackers and others who committ crimes with vehicles buy liability insurance, renew their car tags and operators license faithfully every year, and have safety inspections.

Talk about what's idiotic.

Are you unnatural carnal knowledgeing serious? Holy unnatural carnal knowledgeing crap, even roqqet wouldn't make that ridiculous argument.

[Pakuni]

You seem to be taking their words of "historic tradition" to mean no laws, which is far from the case. This case has a pretty strict meaning, towards laws against those who have a right to have a gun. Saying there is "an important interest" is too vague. If that were OK, a state could just say, our interest is stopping shootings, so lets make a law to get rid of all guns. That won't work.

That's not at all what I wrote. And no, your hypothetical is not a possibility.
Prior to last week's ruling, courts applied a two-prong test when evaluating gun control laws. The approach sought a constitutional balance between protecting historical Second Amendment rights and and the government's legitimate interest in public safety. Obviously, a law that says "No guns" would fail that test, as "No guns" would not protect historical Second Amendment rights.
But what the majority did here is eliminate the first prong of that test, ruling that public safety is not and cannot be a consideration. All that matters, according to them, is the Second Amendment right. And if that means more dead bodies, well them's the breaks.

You can cite Kavanaugh's concurrence until you're blue in the face, but we both know it doesn't matter. Kavanaugh's concurrence isn't the law of the land. The majority opinion is.

[JWags85]

Gun + Evil Person + Bystanders = Tragedy

Have to remove at least one of the three.

I wrote to my congressman pleading and insisting he spearhead common sense bystander legislation.  There are simply too many in modern American society.

[lawdog77]

That's not at all what I wrote.

Yes, it is. You literally wrote:
And, taken to its logical conclusion, the court is saying there can be no new regulations placed on guns, since any new regulation is, by definition, not part of the historical tradition.

And, I'll say it again, there is a historical tradition in who can get guns, what types of guns, etc. That will not stop laws from being passed (red flag, etc).

[Pakuni]

Yes, it is. You literally wrote:
And, taken to its logical conclusion, the court is saying there can be no new regulations placed on guns, since any new regulation is, by definition, not part of the historical tradition.

And, I'll say it again, there is a historical tradition in who can get guns, what types of guns, etc. That will not stop laws from being passed (red flag, etc).

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the word "new" in what I wrote. Why?
Rather than arguing with things I didn't write, do you have any comment/disagreement with what I did write?

[Uncle Rico]

I wrote to my congressman pleading and insisting he spearhead common sense bystander legislation.  There are simply too many in modern American society.

At least unarmed bystanders.  Those people are why we have gun violence

[NCMUFan]

I wrote to my congressman pleading and insisting he spearhead common sense bystander legislation.  There are simply too many in modern American society.

Sounds like you are on it.

[TSmith34, Inc.]

At least unarmed bystanders.  Those people are why we have gun violence

You guys are woefully underestimating Evil People. If we eliminate Evil People--for an example of this, Gov. Abbott in Texas has vowed to eliminate rapists in Texas, the 2nd rapiest state in the union, in what will be surely a successful effort that others will study for years--then guns will finally be able to live in peace.

[dgies9156]

Back to the serious discourse.

My general view is the shooter in HP was suffering some type of mental illness. Nobody does a shoot-em-up like that with a normal, healthy outlook toward themselves and society. Whether he fits the legal definition of mentally ill is another story. Already, our governor (who has no authority over prosecutions in Illinois) has pledged full retribution, which rather outlines the mindset of the state.

The big question is who and how to make a determination of a mentally or emotionally unstable person. Using internet posts and chat rooms leaves the owner of the chatroom open to liability if they tag a person as emotionally unstable. God forbid that the schools -- with the political pressure they face -- do it. The legal ramifications of getting it "wrong" are huge because emotionally unstable affects a persons in ways far broader than gun ownership.

If we used chatrooms and internet postings, half the people on Scoop would be considered emotionally unstable. Real Chili messes with your mind.

Look, for many of us, yesterday hit home harder than usual. Many of us have ties to the North Shore and felt differently. What I'd hope we do is think about getting high-powered assault rifles, such as AR-15s, out of civilian hands and ban manufacture of fragmentation bullets for all but military use.

[Merit Matters]

At least unarmed bystanders.  Those people are why we have gun violence

People like you who call for assassinations are one primary reason for violence. If anyone needs red flag laws activated, it would be Rico. Astonishing the mods haven’t banned this account for actively calling for the assassination of judges and presidents. His words, not mine.

[lawdog77]

You seem to be conveniently ignoring the word "new" in what I wrote. Why?
Rather than arguing with things I didn't write, do you have any comment/disagreement with what I did write?

I am. That is what I meant when I wrote my initial comment. You claim no new regulation can be enacted. So the laws we have now are it?  Congress is on the way to try to get some regulation passed.