Gun control discussion

All this gin and no tonic....

 

Florida bill would make it illegal for minors to post photos of firearms on social media. Eugene Volokh comments, "clearly unconstitutional."

This is an obvious First Amendment violation: The statute isn't limited to displays that constitute true threats of violence (there's a First Amendment exception for such true threats), or possession of guns by minors in violation of state law. Indeed, it would be a crime for a minor to post a photo of himself lawfully using a gun at a shooting range.

So would a minor's posting "a picture of a firearm" (not even a photograph of himself holding a firearm) as part of a pro-gun-rights -- or anti-gun-rights -- political post. So, for that matter, would be a minor's posting a photo of soldiers holding guns. But even if the bill were somehow limited to the minor's posting of photographs of himself holding guns (or BB guns or other perfectly lawful guns), it would still be an unconstitutional content-based restriction on speech.​

https://reason.com/volokh/2019/03/09/florida-bill-would-make-it-a-crime-for-m

 

I like -

Raising the ownership age to 21. Mass buyback programs (voluntary). Making ownership similar to cars- need to take a course - training & test (mental included) with a license/permit that needs to be renewed periodically. A ban on assault weapons / mandatory buyback programs. All these rules to be applied to gun transfers between family members as well.

I think it's also important to have a federal watch program for anybody who commits serious crimes or has been diagnosed with mental illnesses. Once this flag pops up it should be near impossible to legally buy guns, and the local authorities should have the right to come and confiscate any guns you have previously purchased if they find you to be a threat to the public.

Would these type of regulations be considered non-partisan and acceptable by most on both sides? I know there is extremism on both sides IE - ban all or no regulations.

 

Only thing is...if owning cars were a constitutional amendment, I'm sure it would be much easier to own and operate one...just like it is with guns. Being the 2nd amendment makes it 'Murican' culture to have a gun...the only way things would significantly change is if they were able to repeal the 2nd amendment...good luck with that...

 

Democrat Party Secretary in Maryland argues for doxing protestors at a gun control hearing:

Today firearm owners from across the state testified in Annapolis regarding multiple gun control bills currently being considered by the state legislature.

Many of those testifying arrived in shirts stating that they "will not comply" with new gun control laws.

This took a turn for the worst when the Maryland Democratic Party secretary, Robbie Leonard, threatened to "dox" those testifying today.

For those unaware, "doxing" is "the Internet-based practice of researching and broadcasting private or identifiable information about an individual or organization."

Additionally, doxing is illegal, and punishable by fines and/or jail time.

Quite often, doxing is also associated with "swatting", which is "the harassment tactic of deceiving an emergency service into sending a police and emergency service response team to another person's address. This is triggered by false reporting of a serious law enforcement emergency, such as a bomb threat, murder, hostage situation, or other alleged incident."

Further in the comments of his post, Leonard expanded on who he was accusing of being "homegrown terrorists".

​

http://content.washcochronicle.com/2019/02/maryland-gun-bill-day-turns-ugly-state.html?m=1

 

not sure I trust the gun controllers in Maryland. Who will control the gun controllers?

Gladstone, 51, allegedly delivered a fake gun to a crime scene on March 26, 2014, when Sgt. Wayne Jenkins, the leader of the department’s now-defunct Gun Trace Task Force, called him "in a panic" after running a man over with his vehicle, according to the indictment, which prosecutors unsealed Tuesday.

"W.J. was in a panic because he had just deliberately run over an arrestee, D.S. [Demetric Simon], in the front yard of a home in Northeast Baltimore," prosecutors said in a statement.​

https://abcnews.go.com/US/baltimore...berately-running-indictment/story?id=61498790

more info on the Gun Trace Task Force

 

Not needed and plenty of these will be taken down in court if passed because you can't limit an 18-year-old who is an adult his right to arms. Also a majority of gun violence comes from illegal owners anyway. Target illegal sales with hefty punishment if you want, but really more laws won't stop people who break the law already.

 

He has right to arms at 18 to sign up and possibly die to protect our freedoms only while they push for voting to 16.

 

Kids are easier to manipulate and trick. Thus the left pushing so hard for that. They are not even adults at that point nor have they finished a k12 education. The manipulative bastards know the youth buy emotional drivel. That and people whose brains never fully matured, so they get roped in by their nonsense.

 

It's nearly impossible to enforce. Regulating person to person gun sales will be like regulating person to person drug sales. Good luck.

If 2 dudes meet at a gun show and one guy is looking at a certain kind of gun and the other guy says hey man I have one of those and am willing to sell it to you. If they exchange cash for the gun in the parking lot how is that even possible to regulate/enforce? Only time it would be an issue is if the gun was used in a crime and was recovered by the police and they backtraced it to the dealer that sold it to the original owner.

Then they contact the original owner and he says yea I sold it long time ago. I can't remember the buyers name but I did it before that law you guys passed. As long as he purchased it before this new law is enacted you likely won't have any proof against him.

 

the large majority of Americans do not understand the issues at play here

Redfish's point, "Regulating person to person gun sales will be like regulating person to person drug sales," is exactly right. You can make it illegal to sell a firearm face to face, just as you can make it illegal to sell drugs face to face. "Reasonable" laws will fail to stop the problem of gun violence--assuming that's the problem you believe gun control is trying to address.

 

[

The large majority of American's really do not care.... they just don't want to be a crime victim.

 

Worth watching.

 

I think that's right. But arguments like @NewRoxFan 's that "the large majority of Americans want these reasonable (laws)" is simply another argumentative ad populum fallacy. Just because the majority of anything wants something doesn't necessarily make it a good idea.

The "majority" of Americans supposedly wanted Prohibition in the 1910s . . . well, they got what they wanted in 1920. The results were disastrous.

The majority I believe can be ill-informed or mistaken--as I think it is for the most part with recent calls for "reasonable gun laws." What deserves more attention is the tightening up of the enforcement of what we already have in terms of laws and regulations. @NewRoxFan 's statement that "Law enforcement leadership is calling for strengthened background checks" is misleading--what law enforcement is actually calling for is the strengthening of the background checks system that is already in place.