Gun Politics

For discussion of religion and politics

Moderators: LawBeefaroni, $iljanus

Post Reply
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Gun Politics

Post by LawBeefaroni »

It's something, but barely.

Non-paywall version.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Gun Politics

Post by malchior »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:34 amIt's something, but barely.
True. It could give a false sense of functionality. It's sad that this little is seen as so much. Most of the bill involves incentives for states to develop support programs to reduce violence. The red states very well-heck probably-will ignore all of that.
User avatar
stessier
Posts: 29819
Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 12:30 pm
Location: SC

Re: Gun Politics

Post by stessier »

I'd like to see the pre-1800s history that shows background checks are part of our tradition and therefore constitutional.
I require a reminder as to why raining arcane destruction is not an appropriate response to all of life's indignities. - Vaarsuvius
Global Steam Wishmaslist Tracking
Running____2014: 1300.55 miles____2015: 2036.13 miles____2016: 1012.75 miles____2017: 1105.82 miles____2018: 1318.91 miles__2019: 2000.00 miles
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Gun Politics

Post by LawBeefaroni »

stessier wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:52 am I'd like to see the pre-1800s history that shows background checks are part of our tradition and therefore constitutional.
IIRC, towns could confiscate your guns upon entry. You'd get them back when you left.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Gun Politics

Post by malchior »

stessier wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:52 am I'd like to see the pre-1800s history that shows background checks are part of our tradition and therefore constitutional.
This has been a lively discussion this morning on social media. The court essentially directs lower courts to apply a historical test to gun law and in doing do they cobble together disparate facts from the briefings and amici. No experts, no witnesses, no cross examination needed. Just slap together a "history" and go with it. We got a hint that they did this in Dobbs too. The idea that we are in some legal straight jacket from 1790s era America is pants on head crazy but that's American jurisprudence in 2022. They've bent themselves into this ridiculous pretzel to justify their abuse of raw power.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Gun Politics

Post by malchior »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:43 am
stessier wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:52 am I'd like to see the pre-1800s history that shows background checks are part of our tradition and therefore constitutional.
IIRC, towns could confiscate your guns upon entry. You'd get them back when you left.
I think that was a late 1800s concept. Too new! Maybe we could bring back loyalty oaths instead? You couldn't bear arms unless you swore allegiance to the government during the revolutionary war.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43690
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Kraken »

malchior wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:38 am
LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:34 amIt's something, but barely.
True. It could give a false sense of functionality. It's sad that this little is seen as so much. Most of the bill involves incentives for states to develop support programs to reduce violence. The red states very well-heck probably-will ignore all of that.
I look forward to the next baby steps in 30+ years from now.
User avatar
YellowKing
Posts: 30126
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:02 pm

Re: Gun Politics

Post by YellowKing »

Kraken wrote:I look forward to the next baby steps in 30+ years from now.
Unfortunately a lot more babies will have to die in school shootings to get there.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Smoove_B »

Here you go, from NY:


NEW YORK STRIKES BACK

State legislature just passed law outlawing all guns (included permitted) in:
* Subways & buses
* Houses of worship
* Schools & day cares
* Parks
* Biz that serve alcohol
* Hospitals
* Sport/entertainment venues
* Gov't bldgs
* Poll sites
* Times Square(!)

Guns will also be outlawed in all businesses and private property, unless the owner expressly indicates that they are allowed.

The legislation will also require that applicants for gun permits undergo:
* 15 hours of in-person training at a firing range
* In-person interview
* Review of social media accounts

The bill also outlaws the sale of the type of body armor used by many mass shooters, including most recently in the Buffalo supermarket.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Isgrimnur »

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:23 pm The legislation will also require that applicants for gun permits undergo:
* Review of social media accounts
That's going to run up against first amendment protections.
Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Jun 21, 2021 1:41 pm As with all things, the real winners would be the lawyers.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
waitingtoconnect
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Gun Politics

Post by waitingtoconnect »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:43 am
stessier wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:52 am I'd like to see the pre-1800s history that shows background checks are part of our tradition and therefore constitutional.
IIRC, towns could confiscate your guns upon entry. You'd get them back when you left.
That sounds unconstitutional to me. Who knows how many mules you might offend requiring you to defend yourself against Clint Eastwood.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Gun Politics

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Smoove_B wrote: Fri Jul 01, 2022 9:23 pm Here you go, from NY:


NEW YORK STRIKES BACK

State legislature just passed law outlawing all guns (included permitted) in:
* Subways & buses
* Houses of worship
* Schools & day cares
* Parks
* Biz that serve alcohol
* Hospitals
* Sport/entertainment venues
* Gov't bldgs
* Poll sites
* Times Square(!)

Guns will also be outlawed in all businesses and private property, unless the owner expressly indicates that they are allowed.

The legislation will also require that applicants for gun permits undergo:
* 15 hours of in-person training at a firing range
* In-person interview
* Review of social media accounts

The bill also outlaws the sale of the type of body armor used by many mass shooters, including most recently in the Buffalo supermarket.
Starts out reasonable but then insists on forcing it to the SC. They do know that's not going to go well, right?


Illinois has similar rules, except for the in-person interview and social media review. In-person sounds suspiciously like may issue. Social media review won't pass the 1A test.

Most of the no-carry locations are fine. Times square is problematic. The businesses that serve alcohol one is an issue as well, normally there is a "tavern test" where if more than 50% of sales goes is alcohol you can't carry. Otherwise you can carry as long as you don't get drunk.

The biggest issue with locations is the opt-in requirement. Typically businesses have to opt-out with no carry signs rather than opt-in with can carry signs. Otherwise it won't stand up to Heller (at least that's my understanding with the Illinois law).
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Smoove_B »

Big news on a Friday night:
The House of Representatives voted Friday evening to ban assault-style weapons, sending the bill to the Senate where it's not expected to advance.
The final vote was 217-213.

Democrats Henry Cuellar of Texas, Jared Golden of Maine, Ron Kind of Wisconsin, Vicente Gonzalez of Texas and Kurt Schrader of Oregon voted against the ban. Republicans Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania and Chris Jacobs of New York voted for the bill.

While the legislation is not expected to amass the 60 votes needed to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, many Democrats in the House cited a string of recent mass shootings involving such firearms as a pressing reason to outlaw them.
Not really sure what to make of this:
Friday's vote came as progressives, moderates and members of the Congressional Black Caucus are divided on how to handle the policing funding component of a broader public safety package, which was not included in Friday's series of votes. While negotiations on that proposal are continuing, according to sources, the key negotiators were hoping to settle both issues in hopes of having a vote on both packages as soon as Friday.
Moderate and vulnerable Democrats had been pushing for a vote on the policing legislation before they leave town in an effort to rebut GOP attacks over defunding the police, but members of the CBC had concerns and have been pushing for accountability language.

The deal to try to combine both pieces of legislation came together late Thursday night, and was negotiated between Pelosi, Congressional Black Caucus Chairwoman Joyce Beatty of Ohio, and moderate Democratic Rep. Josh Gottheimer of New Jersey. But other members of the Congressional Black and Progressive caucuses were frustrated that they were kept out of the loop, which is ultimately why Democratic leadership decided to separate the bills.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Skinypupy
Posts: 20335
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2004 10:12 am
Location: Utah

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Skinypupy »

Yay, I guess...since I assume this is all just DOA in the Senate.
When darkness veils the world, four Warriors of Light shall come.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Smoove_B »

Skinypupy wrote: Fri Jul 29, 2022 10:27 pm Yay, I guess...since I assume this is all just DOA in the Senate.
100%

Once again, the greatest deliberative body - where (D) sponsored legislation goes to die.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Blackhawk »

It isn't about governing at this point, it's about metaphorical sound bites for the elections.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Isgrimnur »

Reuters
In Monday's preliminary injunction, Suddaby said New York officials could not compel people applying for a gun license to disclose the handles of their social media accounts or the names and contact details of everyone they live with, major provisions of the Concealed Carry Improvement Act which took effect on Sept. 1. Nor would applicants have to prove their "good moral character," Suddaby wrote in the 182-page order, a length he ascribed to the new law's "unprecedented constitutional violations."
...
another federal judge last month agreed to suspend a provision making it a felony to have a gun in a place of religious worship.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Gun Politics

Post by malchior »

Guess they need to find a historian to untangle this.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Isgrimnur »

Nothing is more constructionist than requiring one to give up one's noms de plume/guerre.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Gun Politics

Post by malchior »

So the boil down is that the government must give people conceal carry permits and the government apparently can't even conduct basic background checks in that process. It's a rubberstamp.
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Smoove_B »

SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

or something. The framers were pretty clear in their core desires that every American should have a gun and they should be able to carry them at all times. Multiple would be best.

America = guns. You were warned.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Isgrimnur »

Basic background checks don’t require you to list all your social media handles. Who do they think they are, ICE?
It's almost as if people are the problem.
malchior
Posts: 24794
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 pm

Re: Gun Politics

Post by malchior »

Isgrimnur wrote: Mon Nov 07, 2022 11:39 pm Basic background checks don’t require you to list all your social media handles. Who do they think they are, ICE?
Or an employer (yes this might be becoming a thing). :?

Dangerous behaviors in your social media might keep you away from gainful employment but not from your right to pack heat in houses of worship. Yeehaw!
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Isgrimnur »

The First Amendment is a hell of a drug.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Gun Politics

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Owning (and carrying) a firearm is a pretty big responsibility. If you can't restrain yourself on the socials, it's not a ringing endorsement that you're up to carrying. As long as there is transparency and a due process to appeal a rejection, this isn't a huge issue for me.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Smoove_B »

Not directly politics, but holy hell, how did this happen:
According to court filings and the press release from the U.S. Attorney's Office, Wendt used his position as police chief to obtain 10 machine guns for the official use of the police department, but later resold at least six of those weapons for "significant profit."

In addition, Wendt obtained 13 guns for his Denison- and Anita-based gun store, BW Outfitters, under the pretense they were to be used as demonstration models for potential future purchases by the department. A further 10 weapons were obtained in the same manner for Williams Contracting, a federally licensed firearms dealer business owned by Wendt's friend Robert Williams, who is also facing charges.

Prosecutors say Wendt sought to purchase or demonstrate approximately 90 machine guns between July 2018 and August 2022. Some of the weapons were used for public machine gun shoots, where Wendt and Williams charged customers money to be able to fire the weapons.

The indictment describes the firearms as fully automatic weapons not legally available to the public, including an M60 machine gun, a belt-fed weapon widely used by the U.S. military since the Vietnam war that was purportedly obtained for official use by the Adair Police Department.

Wendt instead had the M60 mounted on his personally owned armored Humvee.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43501
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Blackhawk »

The police department was going to do... what, exactly? with an M60?

Do the police lay down fields of suppressive fire now?
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Smoove_B »

Yeah, I don't quite understand any of it. Apparently that police chief was fired from another police job in a different city and then just resurfaced to take another police job. Seems reasonable.

In unrelated news, my state has passed new laws regarding C&C and the lawsuits were immediate:
Gov. Phil Murphy on Thursday signed a sweeping — and intensely debated — bill into law that will overhaul and strictly limit how and where you can legally carry a concealed handgun in New Jersey in the wake of a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision that effectively made it easier to get carry permits.

The legislation (A4769) will ban people from carrying firearms in a wide range of “sensitive places” in the state. That includes schools, courthouses, child care centers, nursing homes, polling places, government buildings, hospitals, bars and restaurants where alcohol is served, airports, parks, beaches, demonstrations, movie theaters, casinos, and other entertainment centers.

The measure will also bar carrying guns on private property unless the property owner allows it. That includes homes, shopping centers, supermarkets, and churches.

In addition, the law will raise the cost of owning a gun in the state, increasing various fees and requiring those seeking to get a carry permit to purchase liability insurance and take training courses.
More info:
The state Senate voted largely along party lines, 21-16, on Monday to pass the bill — the minimum number of votes needed for a measure to pass the chamber. The state Assembly voted narrowly along party lines, 42-29, last month to pass it.

No Republican lawmaker supported the legislation. One Democrat, Sen. Nicholas Sacco of Hudson County, voted no, saying he believes it’s unconstitutional.
Lawsuit #1:
The Association of New Jersey Rifle and Pistol Clubs filed a federal lawsuit Thursday seeking to stop the law and asked for a restraining order to halt it from taking effect as the case proceeds. The group argued the law “flagrantly and intentionally disrupts” both the Second Amendment and the Supreme Court’s ruling.
Lawsuit #2:
The Second Amendment Foundation filed a similar federal suit Thursday. SAF founder and executive vice president Alan Gottlieb said the law “literally criminalizes licensed concealed carry just about everywhere, making a mockery of the right to bear arms protected by the Second Amendment.”

“Despite clear directives as to a citizens’ right to bear arms, New Jersey continues to thumb its nose at the constitutional rights of its citizens in the name of ‘safety,’” Gottleib added.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Smoove_B
Posts: 54567
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:58 am
Location: Kaer Morhen

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Smoove_B »

San Jose now requires all gun owners to have proof of insurance:
In an effort to crack down on gun violence, San Jose gun owners will soon be required to have proof of insurance covering accidents involving their firearms.

The new ordinance goes into effect Jan. 1.

"This is simply about ensuring that gun ownership is safer," Mayor Sam Liccardo said.

Liccardo compared the gun ordinance to auto insurance, suggesting that insured gun owners would be more likely to have and use trigger locks or gun safes in their homes, cutting down on accidental shootings.

"We think that insurance is a particularly effective tool to reduce the harm that results from negligent or reckless use of guns in the same way that we've seen insurance be very effective in reducing auto-related deaths," Liccardo said.

All gun owners will also be required to pay an annual $25 fee to the city.
Maybe next year, maybe no go
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Kurth »

Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:00 pm San Jose now requires all gun owners to have proof of insurance:
In an effort to crack down on gun violence, San Jose gun owners will soon be required to have proof of insurance covering accidents involving their firearms.

The new ordinance goes into effect Jan. 1.

"This is simply about ensuring that gun ownership is safer," Mayor Sam Liccardo said.

Liccardo compared the gun ordinance to auto insurance, suggesting that insured gun owners would be more likely to have and use trigger locks or gun safes in their homes, cutting down on accidental shootings.

"We think that insurance is a particularly effective tool to reduce the harm that results from negligent or reckless use of guns in the same way that we've seen insurance be very effective in reducing auto-related deaths," Liccardo said.

All gun owners will also be required to pay an annual $25 fee to the city.
That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Can’t wait to see how the NRA attacks it . . .
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
waitingtoconnect
Posts: 960
Joined: Sun May 28, 2006 5:56 am

Re: Gun Politics

Post by waitingtoconnect »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:43 am
stessier wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:52 am I'd like to see the pre-1800s history that shows background checks are part of our tradition and therefore constitutional.
IIRC, towns could confiscate your guns upon entry. You'd get them back when you left.
But how will I defend the honour of my mule if someone laughs at it?

User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Gun Politics

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Kurth wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 1:46 pm
Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:00 pm San Jose now requires all gun owners to have proof of insurance:
In an effort to crack down on gun violence, San Jose gun owners will soon be required to have proof of insurance covering accidents involving their firearms.

The new ordinance goes into effect Jan. 1.

"This is simply about ensuring that gun ownership is safer," Mayor Sam Liccardo said.

Liccardo compared the gun ordinance to auto insurance, suggesting that insured gun owners would be more likely to have and use trigger locks or gun safes in their homes, cutting down on accidental shootings.

"We think that insurance is a particularly effective tool to reduce the harm that results from negligent or reckless use of guns in the same way that we've seen insurance be very effective in reducing auto-related deaths," Liccardo said.

All gun owners will also be required to pay an annual $25 fee to the city.
That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Can’t wait to see how the NRA attacks it . . .
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. All it does is ensure payouts to victims. It doesn't stop crime or deliberate acts. Insurance is after the fact.

If you want people to lock up their guns, make laws requiring it and prosecute when they don't. I'm not clear on how requiring insurance will stop accidental shootings. And it certainly won't stop intentional shootings.

I say this as someone who already pays, voluntarily, for legal retainer and insurance. So it's not like I'm opposed to the idea. I just don't see it as a solution to the problem of accidental shootings and crime. It will discourage some people who would have legally acquired firearms from doing so. People for whom the cost of insurance is a no-go. Other than that? Boon to insurance companies because only responsible legal gun owners will comply.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
Kurth
Posts: 5882
Joined: Tue Jan 04, 2005 1:19 am
Location: Portland

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Kurth »

LawBeefaroni wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 10:23 am
Kurth wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 1:46 pm
Smoove_B wrote: Sun Jan 01, 2023 12:00 pm San Jose now requires all gun owners to have proof of insurance:
In an effort to crack down on gun violence, San Jose gun owners will soon be required to have proof of insurance covering accidents involving their firearms.

The new ordinance goes into effect Jan. 1.

"This is simply about ensuring that gun ownership is safer," Mayor Sam Liccardo said.

Liccardo compared the gun ordinance to auto insurance, suggesting that insured gun owners would be more likely to have and use trigger locks or gun safes in their homes, cutting down on accidental shootings.

"We think that insurance is a particularly effective tool to reduce the harm that results from negligent or reckless use of guns in the same way that we've seen insurance be very effective in reducing auto-related deaths," Liccardo said.

All gun owners will also be required to pay an annual $25 fee to the city.
That makes a hell of a lot of sense. Can’t wait to see how the NRA attacks it . . .
It doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. All it does is ensure payouts to victims. It doesn't stop crime or deliberate acts. Insurance is after the fact.

If you want people to lock up their guns, make laws requiring it and prosecute when they don't. I'm not clear on how requiring insurance will stop accidental shootings. And it certainly won't stop intentional shootings.

I say this as someone who already pays, voluntarily, for legal retainer and insurance. So it's not like I'm opposed to the idea. I just don't see it as a solution to the problem of accidental shootings and crime. It will discourage some people who would have legally acquired firearms from doing so. People for whom the cost of insurance is a no-go. Other than that? Boon to insurance companies because only responsible legal gun owners will comply.
I don't disagree that laws directly requiring trigger locks or gun safes and criminalizing non-compliance would be better, but haven't those already been attempted and defeated by the gun lobby? My take on this was that this is trying to get at the problem indirectly in a way that would be harder for the gun lobby to attack - not that they won't, of course.
Just 'cause you feel it, doesn't mean it's there -- Radiohead
Do you believe me? Do you trust me? Do you like me? 😳
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Isgrimnur »

Making things more expensive just furthers economic inequality for those who wish to exercise their rights.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
coopasonic
Posts: 20969
Joined: Fri Mar 04, 2005 11:43 pm
Location: Dallas-ish

Re: Gun Politics

Post by coopasonic »

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 11:53 am Making things more expensive just furthers economic inequality for those who wish to exercise their rights.
Perhaps the well organized militia can pay for the insurance.
-Coop
Black Lives Matter
User avatar
LawBeefaroni
Forum Moderator
Posts: 55316
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 3:08 pm
Location: Urbs in Horto, outrageous taxes on everything

Re: Gun Politics

Post by LawBeefaroni »

Illinois "Assault Weapon" ban was signed by the Governor and it's a doozy.


In addition to banning "assault weapons":
10/22s are now illegal.
10 round max capacity for detachable rifle magazines.
15 round max capacity for pistol magazines.
Existing owners of banned firearms will have to register them firearms with state to keep them.

Don't think they will grandfather mags though. One lawmaker famously said that they don't need to because once you shoot them they'll be out of ammo and you won't be allowed to buy a new one.

A majority of state county sheriffs offices say they will not enforce.


Lawsuits are lined up and this will probably hit the higher courts. They really overshot and I think it will hurt whatever progress they could have had with a more incremental ban.
" Hey OP, listen to my advice alright." -Tha General
"No scientific discovery is named after its original discoverer." -Stigler's Law of Eponymy, discovered by Robert K. Merton

MYT
User avatar
hepcat
Posts: 51303
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:02 pm
Location: Chicago, IL Home of the triple homicide!

Re: Gun Politics

Post by hepcat »

Make assault weapons legal only for transvestites, I say.
Covfefe!
User avatar
Pyperkub
Posts: 23583
Joined: Mon Dec 13, 2004 5:07 pm
Location: NC- that's Northern California

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Pyperkub »

Isgrimnur wrote: Wed Jan 04, 2023 11:53 am Making things more expensive just furthers economic inequality for those who wish to exercise their rights.
If those who wished to exercise their rights were better at respecting the rights of others while doing so, this wouldn't be an issue.
Black Lives definitely Matter Lorini!

Also: There are three ways to not tell the truth: lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Isgrimnur »

I’ll be happy to review any statistics to show that it’s a significant portion of those who exercise it that are the problem.
It's almost as if people are the problem.
User avatar
Isgrimnur
Posts: 82094
Joined: Sun Oct 15, 2006 12:29 am
Location: Chookity pok
Contact:

Re: Gun Politics

Post by Isgrimnur »

Enlarge Image
Spoiler:
It's almost as if people are the problem.
Post Reply