In the end, it doesn't really matter what any state court thinks, you know it's going to the Supremes.
this post was submitted on 11 Aug 2023
211 points (94.1% liked)
politics
19241 readers
2767 users here now
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
You mean SCOTUS (Supreme Court of the United States). This is also a Supreme Court, but of a single state.
You mean SCROTUS
Yep and they will over turn it.
What would they do if someone they care about was gunned down? How many more shootings must there be until we find out?
Bold of you to think they care about anyone other than themselves
Honestly? They'd want to kill the murderer. For people with principled pro-gun stances the answer to the "how many x have to get shot" is all of them. All of x have to get shot. Because the argument is about a right to self defense and very few rights come without potential downsides or externalities of some sort.
Ive lost more people to car accidents sadly.
This is not a good argument.
Neither is acting like the USA is the wild West and that guns just magically cause people to kill each other
Comparing firearms to cars is a bad argument because cars are designed for transportation and guns are designed to kill. America tests and licenses drivers because driving is a privilege. Bearing arms is a right. Comparing guns to cars weakens your argument and makes all firearms owners (myself included) look bad because they are very different things.
I get where you're coming from. Traffic accidents and gun violence both cause death but comparing them does not help our cause.
Various specific restrictions on firearms and accessories have been found constitutional. I know we’re in the Calvinball version of SCOTUS right now, but this particular finding is at least in line with historical findings.
Their argument for this case was the the broad exceptions for police and jail guards violated the 14th:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall [...] deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Yeah, I’m just saying that arguing occupational differences being a class protected by the 14th is as bizarre an argument as I’ve heard, and I suspect it was done for the headlines. I’m shocked it was a close ruling, but then I was shocked by Roe being overturned.
bUt ThEn OnLy CrImInAls GeT gUNs
Fun fact, the vast majority of guns used in the commission of a crime, were legally purchased. Not always by the person who used it in a crime, but often resold on the gray market to that person. There are wholesalers who buy guns in bulk (often in Georgia) and then resell those guns on the gray market.
These gray market guns are often smuggled out of the country to arm drug cartels. It's a hell of a lot easier to get an American gun into Mexico, than it is to buy a gun legally in Mexico.
Uhh no...straw purchases are illegal...
They're illegal, but enforcement has always been shitty. It's getting better thanks to a law signed last year.
But more can still be done. There are still lots of loopholes in gun laws that let criminals buy guns legally.
If you are a felon you cannot own a gun. There are no loop holes. That's a myth repeated by the anti-gun groups.
Except for all the convicted felons who own guns.
There's also a very racist element to enforcement of that law.
Yeah they do so illegally, which is why they need to enforce the laws on the books not make up more feel good ones that don't do shit to help curb the violence.
You're wrong about new laws stopping violence. For example, preventing domestic abusers from having guns would drastically lower violence.
Banning gun show, or requiring all sellers to be able to run background checks, would also drastically lower the number of guns entering the hands of criminals. Several states already ban private sales without said sale being registered and run through a third party who can run a background check, but enforcement is spotty because 2a nuts hate anything that curbs the violence.
Domestic abusers already are not allowed to own firearms....gun shows are not a loop hole and you are required to get a bgc. Private sellers have been asking for decades to allow us access to the NCIS....straw purchases are the number one way for criminals getting firearms and they're not going after these people usually enough.
Of course, straw purchasing is already a crime. See this link I got from the ATF's website regarding straw purchasing, https://www.dontlie.org/
So is smuggling, of course.
Illegal, but due to 2nd amendment nuts, enforcement has been lax. So straw purchases are still a thing.
Enforcement is getting better, but still has a long way to go.
"2a nuts" have little to do with lax enforcement of existing laws, even if they oppose new laws on legal private sale/purchase. The issue regarding lax enforcement on already-illegal straw purchases is more to do with the law enforcers not enforcing those current laws.
2a nuts oppose any gun laws, and yes, that includes existing laws. And who said police officers couldn't also be 2a nuts?
While they may oppose existing laws, existing laws exist, and are still enforceable. As for police being 2A nuts themselves, some of them, but unsurprisingly most are "rules for thee not for me" types and are also the exact people who will "come and take it." They currently do enforce those laws, just not well, so I'd argue that proves they won't "not enforce" because they're "2a nuts." More likely they'd "selectively enforce" because they're "racist" which reflects the reality we see in America today.
Furthermore, Warren v DC, Castle Rock v Gonzales, and a few other cases have made it clear that they have no obligation to protect nor serve, and so we're left with having to protect ourselves. That and the spread out nature of our unwalkable cities puts the national average response time to emergencies at 11min (30+ for rural, about 5min for most cities, total avg is 11min), that is from the time you call, not from the time the crime starts and usually you can't say "hold on, violent person, let me just use this phone to call the authorities before we begin assaulting me" as they usually won't acquiesce that request, but you can learn the standard for self defense and hit him with the OC spray (if non-deadly force) or the 9mm (if deadly force) in "as quick as you can get it out." Sometimes if he has the drop on you you have to wait to surreptitiously draw, but that is still "in the moment" not after he gets away and pray for camera footage, if I'm even still breathing.
It's barely a 45 minute drive from Chicago to Indiana, just saying
I don't understand why this is supposed to be some "gun laws don't work" own instead of an argument for more gun laws.
It's an argument for more gun control, because the current system of doing nothing is not working.