America..why won't you just ban the fucking gun?

[elliseamos]

Looking at a law review for a better explanation than I've received so far it's incredibly frustrating how few 2nd Amendment cases have gone to the Supreme Court.

Current law exists based on the individual right and completely glosses over the "well regulated militia" statement. Breyer points this out in Heller (I think).

That seems like the a major "purpose" of the amendment and were enrollment in a state-regulated militia part of the process to keep ARs in home, I might be better persuaded. As is, the reading is saying the citizens have this individual right to protect themselves but then go completely unchecked beyond that.

And that is my problem with the current position. Yes, it is a right to have guns. It is not meant/intended to be unregulated.

You've come across Miller, I presume? That's kind of the extent of the relation between an individual right to keep and bear arms and the militia.

That's sort of my point.
1) Miller v US was 1939
2) The decision says (my words): only weapons that are militia-ready are free from regulation
3) It was 1939
4) Why wasn't every state then required to track ownership by state-militia membership?

[verb_to_trust]

You sound really desperate to be governed

Oooooh sick burn!

It wasn't meant as a burn, just a simple observation.

Riiiiiight

When was the last time you fired a gun?

You?

Idk, when I was like 12

Great!

...are you going to answer or?

... what different does it make or?

Im just curious. Thanks for posting with me.

I don't believe you

Question retracted. Have a nice night.

[simple schoolboy]

Looking at a law review for a better explanation than I've received so far it's incredibly frustrating how few 2nd Amendment cases have gone to the Supreme Court.

Current law exists based on the individual right and completely glosses over the "well regulated militia" statement. Breyer points this out in Heller (I think).

That seems like the a major "purpose" of the amendment and were enrollment in a state-regulated militia part of the process to keep ARs in home, I might be better persuaded. As is, the reading is saying the citizens have this individual right to protect themselves but then go completely unchecked beyond that.

And that is my problem with the current position. Yes, it is a right to have guns. It is not meant/intended to be unregulated.

You've come across Miller, I presume? That's kind of the extent of the relation between an individual right to keep and bear arms and the militia.

That's sort of my point.
1) Miller v US was 1939
2) The decision says (my words): only weapons that are militia-ready are free from regulation
3) It was 1939
4) Why wasn't every state then required to track ownership by state-militia membership?

The right exists separate from state requirements that you join the formal militia. Everyone in a certain age range (18-55?) Is in the informal militia. This might mean that we can disarm the young and the old, but that is not readily apparent.

If it weren't for that pesky 14th Amendment incorporating the bill of rights to the states they would have far more freedom in restricting firearms.

The CMP sells guns to individuals on the basis that they belong to a gun club that will vouch for them. I am half open to this concept except with the terrible downside that localities such as NY will not allow such entities to exist or will be newly incentivized to try to shut them down if this is a route of restriction.

There are other issues with generally white boomers (typical range masters) being the gate keepers, but they don't give a shit who you are as long as you follow their (sometimes arbitrary) rules. The demographics are changing of course, and if we really cared about AAPI hate crimes there would be federal grants for community outreach to train Asian grandparents how to safely carry.

[elliseamos]

The right exists separate from state requirements that you join the formal militia. Everyone in a certain age range (18-55?) Is in the informal militia. This might mean that we can disarm the young and the old, but that is not readily apparent.

That's my problem though, why specifically state "A well regulated militia," with riders or carve outs for "free State" and "to keep and bear arms" if we then turn around and say informal, unregulated is totally fine.

Seems to me that the sentence reads "a well-regulated militia shall not be infringed." With capital-S designating State protection to mean nation, not individual states. And that keeping and bearing arms being permissible if you're defending the State and part of the militia.

Like I've said. It's crazy to me that we've had like 3 SCOTUS cases about the 2A in 100 years (or something) and they just skip over the first part of the ammendment.

[BurtReynolds]

I don't think for a second that defending the State was the reason for 2As existence. Absolutely nothing about history or the founder's writings bear that out.

[elliseamos]

It seems odd to capitalize it otherwise.

I'm no scholar/historian, but sometimes people try too hard to over interpret things.

[Bi_3]

Hath hell frozen over or does maybe ignoring the proggles and MAGAts work?

https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/12/politics ... index.html

[elliseamos]

Massive heat wave, so hell on earth (could then freeze later)?

[Mickey]

Damn, it's really incredible how when you simply ignore "proggles" and "MAGAts" you can....start discussions on a bill to slightly expand background checks.

[Bi_3]

Ugh, CNN switched articles at that URL between the time I posted it and now.


It's mental health, more funding for Red Flag laws, background checks can include juvenile records, stricter straw buy penalties, and more funding for school security. IOW all very positives steps forward.

[Mickey]

Oh don't get me wrong, they're useful measures. But they're also really the bare minimum we should expect from Congress given recent events, and it hasn't even hit the Senate floor yet. So I wouldn't start going too nuts over the power of bipartisan compromise, especially given that centrist measures are *definitionally* all that's going to pass in the current Senate

[Bi_3]

Hate all you want Mickey, this is a good start (article changed again):

Notably, the announcement includes the support of 10 Republican senators, which would give the proposal enough support to overcome the Senate filibuster. The agreement is significant given how divided lawmakers have been over the gun issue, but the actual legislative text is not yet written.

The proposal includes support for state crisis intervention orders, funding for school safety resources, an enhanced review process for buyers under the age of 21 and penalties for straw purchasing.

Critically, the legislation includes a so-called red flag provision, with the government providing "resources to states and tribes to create and administer laws that help ensure deadly weapons are kept out of the hands of individuals whom a court has determined to be a significant danger to themselves or others," according to the release. The proposal would also include "major investments to increase access to mental health and suicide prevention programs; and other support services available in the community, including crisis and trauma intervention and recovery."

Additionally, the legislation would provide resources "to expand mental health and supportive services in schools, including: early identification and intervention programs and school based mental health and wrap-around services."

"Every journey begins with a single step." — Maya Angelou

[simple schoolboy]

The ATF and federal prosecutors have studiously avoided prosecuting straw purchasers. Why are they going to start now in an era of Equity? I don't think our progressive friends are going to like the demographics of those prosecuted for straw purchasing.

[McParadigm]

All ten Republicans who signed off on this deal are either retiring or are not facing re-election for another two years. Seems like the A/B isn’t MAGA/non-MAGA…it’s “will acting against gun violence be a personal political risk for me at all?”

[Bi_3]

All ten Republicans who signed off on this deal are either retiring or are not facing re-election for another two years. Seems like the A/B isn’t MAGA/non-MAGA…it’s “will acting against gun violence be a personal political risk for me at all?”

That windmill will never know what hit it

[Mickey]

Hate all you want Mickey, this is a good start

Oh don't get me wrong, they're useful measures.

But they haven't done shit yet. The text of the bill hasn't even been written, so who knows what happens to this little feel-good coalition. And you can support these useful steps without offering breathless hagiographies of centrist compromise. I love the idea of stricter enforcements for straw purchases, I think that will do a ton to help combat gun violence in my immediate community if it's successfully implemented. But it's not clear that any of these measures would have stopped the shootings in Uvalde or Buffalo, for just two recent examples. So I think you kinda deserve to be mocked for this goofy Maya Angelou "centrists get shit DONE" pablum that you're using to frame this legislation which, sure, maybe leads to positive change, and maybe just ends up as budget bloat that a lot of senators can point to and say "Well, we did all that we could."

[Rob]

Hate all you want Mickey, this is a good start

Oh don't get me wrong, they're useful measures.

But they haven't done shit yet. The text of the bill hasn't even been written, so who knows what happens to this little feel-good coalition. And you can support these useful steps without offering breathless hagiographies of centrist compromise. I love the idea of stricter enforcements for straw purchases, I think that will do a ton to help combat gun violence in my immediate community if it's successfully implemented. But it's not clear that any of these measures would have stopped the shootings in Uvalde or Buffalo, for just two recent examples. So I think you kinda deserve to be mocked for this goofy Maya Angelou "centrists get shit DONE" pablum that you're using to frame this legislation which, sure, maybe leads to positive change, and maybe just ends up as budget bloat that a lot of senators can point to and say "Well, we did all that we could."

Well it probably is true that this wouldn’t have stopped these shooters. Probably true that no law will. If we set this as the standard, we are going to fail. This isn’t Australia. My view has always been one where I can’t understand the gun side - they want to be in charge of gun laws, but don’t even support common sense shit that even their own constituents support. I don’t think we can legislate against gun culture, but let’s at least get to some common sense stuff. These steps may be small, but 10 fucking years after Sandy Hook, and this may be the first one. Who knows tho.

[Rob]

And I don’t think that’s a centrist view. It’s a view that you take what you can get whenever you can get it. That’s always been Bernie’s view, he’s no centrist.

[McParadigm]

I think that will do a ton to help combat gun violence in my immediate community if it's successfully implemented. But it's not clear that any of these measures would have stopped the shootings in Uvalde or Buffalo, for just two recent examples. So I think you kinda deserve to be mocked for this goofy Maya Angelou "centrists get shit DONE" pablum that you're using to frame this legislation which, sure, maybe leads to positive change, and maybe just ends up as budget bloat that a lot of senators can point to and say "Well, we did all that we could."

Well it probably is true that this wouldn’t have stopped these shooters. Probably true that no law will. If we set this as the standard, we are going to fail. …. I don’t think we can legislate against gun culture, but let’s at least get to some common sense stuff. These steps may be small, but 10 fucking years after Sandy Hook, and this may be the first one. Who knows tho.

I like these posts because they focus on desired outcomes. Assuming this bill passes, which it most likely will, the most important next step is to know how to evaluate its results. What measures we use, what success does and does not look like, and what our next steps should be from there.

Example hypothetical: three years from now, gun violence in the United States is down 10% due in part to components of this legislation. That’s not nothing, but it does still mean that instead of 44,000 people dying…40,000 people die. Instead of 5,000 children being shot to death, 4,500 children are shot to death.

Pretending that outcome, what would our best next steps be? Do we call that good enough? If not, what does the next legislation need to do?

[elliseamos]

A waiting period on all purchases would be nice. Not sure how that could exist at "gun shows".