Re: Gun Politics
Posted: Fri Jun 24, 2022 7:34 am
That is not dead which can eternal lie, and with strange aeons bring us some web forums whereupon we can gather
https://octopusoverlords.com/forum/
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.
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.
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.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:43 amIIRC, towns could confiscate your guns upon entry. You'd get them back when you left.
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.Kraken wrote:I look forward to the next baby steps in 30+ years from now.
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.
That's going to run up against first amendment protections.
That sounds unconstitutional to me. Who knows how many mules you might offend requiring you to defend yourself against Clint Eastwood.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:43 amIIRC, towns could confiscate your guns upon entry. You'd get them back when you left.
Starts out reasonable but then insists on forcing it to the SC. They do know that's not going to go well, right?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.
Not really sure what to make of this: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.
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.
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.
Or an employer (yes this might be becoming a thing).
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.
More info: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.
Lawsuit #1: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 #2: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.
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.
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 . . .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.
But how will I defend the honour of my mule if someone laughs at it?LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:43 amIIRC, towns could confiscate your guns upon entry. You'd get them back when you left.
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.Kurth wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 1:46 pmThat makes a hell of a lot of sense. Can’t wait to see how the NRA attacks it . . .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.
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.LawBeefaroni wrote: ↑Wed Jan 04, 2023 10:23 amIt 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.Kurth wrote: ↑Sun Jan 01, 2023 1:46 pmThat makes a hell of a lot of sense. Can’t wait to see how the NRA attacks it . . .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.
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.