Octopus Overlords

SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?!

If that's the precedent then we'll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets.

If TX can ban abortion and endanger lives, CA can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives.

Unagi wrote: ↑Sun Dec 12, 2021 9:35 am Where did I read it?

The Vagina just needs to be reclassified as a semi-automatic baby-launcher, and it will avoid all regulations.

California Gov. Gavin Newsom announced Saturday that his administration will push for a new measure, modeled after Texas’s controversial abortion ban, to limit the sale of assault weapons and “ghost guns” in the state.

The proposed bill, according to a press release from Newsom, would allow Californians to sue “anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon or ghost gun kit or parts” for damages — the same injunction-skirting mechanism Texas has used to ban all abortions after six weeks, which has so far been permitted by the Supreme Court.

“If that’s the precedent then we’ll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets,” Newsom said in a tweet Saturday. “If TX can ban abortion and endanger lives, CA can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives.”

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:39 am I dunno, I think the bill is a good idea, while also a sign of the ongoing decline of our constitutional structure. Newsom is right that if SCOTUS is going to allow this type of side-stepping of the constitution, then there's no reason to abandon the method so that it only gets used by Republicans. And by doing so it makes it more likely that SCOTUS eventually shuts the whole thing down (and/or more clearly exposes it to people as right wing hypocrisy if/when SCOTUS disallows it only when it's used against Republican policy preferences).

It is definitely not a great sign for the health of our institutions, but the logic behind doing the bill is pretty ironclad I think.

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Dec 13, 2021 10:39 am It is definitely not a great sign for the health of our institutions,

On Monday, a 54-year-old man with a concealed carry license shot a 32-year-old who he was involved in a physical altercation with outside a Jewel-Osco on Chicago’s Southwest Side.

Shortly after 5 p.m., police say the 54-year-old was leaving the grocery store in the 5300 block of S. Pulaski Rd. in the West Elsdon neighborhood when he became involved in a "physical altercation" with the 32-year-old.
...
Police said the 54-year-old has a valid FOID card and Concealed Carry License (CCL).

An employee of the Jewel, who asked not to be named, said he saw the two men fighting near the entrance to the store one fired multiple shots.

That man was then wounded, possibly by his own firearm. "Just shows he shouldn’t have a gun," the employee said.

At the scene, workers moved around the parking lot collecting carts but the store was to remain closed for the rest of the night. Shoppers continued to show up but were turned away.

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Sat Dec 11, 2021 11:36 pm And there you go. It's on.

SCOTUS is letting private citizens in Texas sue to stop abortion?!

If that's the precedent then we'll let Californians sue those who put ghost guns and assault weapons on our streets.

If TX can ban abortion and endanger lives, CA can ban deadly weapons of war and save lives.

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (PLCAA) is a United States law that protects firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable when crimes have been committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible in much the same manner that any U.S.-based manufacturer of consumer products is held responsible. They may also be held liable for negligent entrustment when they have reason to know a gun is intended for use in a crime.

The PLCAA is codified at 15 U.S.C. §§ 7901–7903.

Kyle Rittenhouse's friend, who bought him an assault-style rifle when he was only 17, has agreed to plead no contest to contributing to the delinquency of a minor, a non-criminal citation, and avoid convictions on the two felonies he'd been facing.

...

On Friday, Assistant District Attorney Thomas Binger filed a proposed plea agreement. It suggested Black would plead no contest to a pair of citations, and pay a $2,000 fine, and the felony counts would be dismissed. The proposed deal was first reported by kenoshacountyeye.com.

Judge Schroeder could reject the deal, or still just dismiss the original felony counts based on his ruling about the minors-with-firearms law in the Rittenhouse case.[/quote

https://news.yahoo.com/supplier-gun-use ... 41858.html

dbt1949 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:13 pm I don't understand how the 2nd amendment can be interpreted to mean many guns for everybody who wants them.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:32 pm

dbt1949 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:13 pm I don't understand how the 2nd amendment can be interpreted to mean many guns for everybody who wants them.

The NRA saw an opportunity to weaponize the 2A (no pun intended) to gain political power. It was sometime in the 70s IIRC. When the ILA was created.

dbt1949 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:13 pm That being said when I read the second amendment it sounds like it's talking about some kind of national guard or something. How that would be organized under the amendment I don't know.
When it was written they were talking about "real" citizen soldiers. Especially considering muskets compared to assault rifles.
I don't understand how the 2nd amendment can be interpreted to mean many guns for everybody who wants them.

Republican leadership just sent out a notice telling all House Republicans to vote against common-sense gun safety bills tonight because the NRA opposes them— they told them all to refer to the Protect Our Kids Act as the “Unconstitutional Gun Restrictions Act.”

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:32 pm

dbt1949 wrote: ↑Fri Jun 03, 2022 1:13 pm I don't understand how the 2nd amendment can be interpreted to mean many guns for everybody who wants them.

The NRA saw an opportunity to weaponize the 2A (no pun intended) to gain political power. It was sometime in the 70s IIRC. When the ILA was created.

Thomas Jefferson wrote: I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.

Rep. Katie Porter: ‘This is absurd. After *one* child died using a Peloton treadmill last year, the Consumer Product Safety Commission intervened & recalled the product. But when hundreds of children die using guns, there is no federal response!’

The House on Wednesday passed a sweeping gun bill that would raise the minimum age to purchase an assault rifle in the U.S. from 18 to 21, even though the legislation doesn't stand much of a chance in the Senate.

The bill, called the Protecting Our Kids Act, would also bar the sale of large-capacity magazines and institute new rules that dictate proper at-home gun storage.

The Democratic-held chamber approved the legislation in a 223-204 vote. It passed in a mostly party line vote: Five Republicans supported the measure, while two Democrats opposed it.

Two Democrats, Reps. Jared Golden (Maine) and Kurt Schrader (Ore.), bucked the party in opposing the measure. Five Republicans — Reps. Adam Kinzinger (Ill.), Anthony Gonzalez (Ohio), Brian Fitzpatrick (Pa.), Chris Jacobs (N.Y.) and Fred Upton (Mich.) — supported it.

The House approved a “red flag” bill Thursday that would allow families, police and others to ask federal courts to order the removal of firearms from people at extreme risk of harming themselves or others.

It’s the Democratic-controlled chamber’s latest response to U.S. mass shootings and likely stands little chance in the Senate.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia currently have such “red flag” laws. Under the House bill, a judge could issue an order to temporarily remove and store the firearms until a hearing can be held, up to two weeks later, to determine whether the firearms should be returned or kept for a specific period. The bill passed on a mostly party-line vote of 224-202.

Five Republican lawmakers voted for the bill: Reps. Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Anthony Gonzalez of Ohio, Chris Jacobs of New York, Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Fred Upton of Michigan. Only Fitzpatrick is seeking reelection. Rep. Jared Golden of Maine was the only Democratic member to vote no.

NEWS: We have a deal. Today a bipartisan group of 20 Senators (10 D and 10 R) is announcing a breakthrough agreement on gun violence - the first in 30 years - that will save lives.

I think you’ll be surprised at the scope of our framework.

Here’s what it includes:

Major funding to help states pass and implement crisis intervention orders (red flag laws) that will allow law enforcement to temporarily take dangerous weapons away from people who pose a danger to others or themselves.

Billions in new funding for mental health and school safety, including money for the national build out of community mental health clinics.

Close the “boyfriend loophole”, so that no domestic abuser - a spouse OR a serious dating partner - can buy a gun if they are convicted of abuse against their partner.

First ever federal law against gun trafficking and straw purchasing. This will be a difference making tool to stop the flow of illegal guns into cities.

Enhanced background check for under 21 gun buyers and a short pause to conduct the check. Young buyers can get the gun only after the enhanced check is completed.

Clarification of the laws regarding who needs to register as a licensed gun dealer, to make sure all truly commercial sellers are doing background checks.

Will this bill do everything we need to end our nation’s gun violence epidemic? No. But it’s real, meaningful progress. And it breaks a 30 year log jam, demonstrating that Democrats and Republicans can work together in a way that truly saves lives.

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:20 am Too bad we don't live in a functional democracy.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 11:14 am

malchior wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 10:20 am Too bad we don't live in a functional democracy.

Fairly certain that was intended by FOX to rile the minority against any "tyranny of the majority." Don't see anyone getting fired for that.

LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Mon Jun 20, 2022 11:14 am Fairly certain that was intended by FOX to rile the minority against any "tyranny of the majority." Don't see anyone getting fired for that.