New York's Body Armor Ban May Be Stupidest Gun Legislation Yet Protective devices incapable of offensive use are now unavailable for legal purchase by New Yorkers. https://reason.com/2022/06/09/new-yorks-body-armor-ban-may-be-stupidest-gun-legislation-yet/ excerpt: Incidentally, New York and neighboring Connecticut both already have plenty of experience with performative and unenforceable laws seeking to restrict self-defense rights. When Connecticut in 2013 required the registration of military-looking semiautomatic rifles tagged as "assault weapons," compliance never got higher than about 15 percent. The next year, a similar law in New York scored about 5 percent compliance. It's obvious that many Americans aren't impressed by lawmakers and are unwilling to go along with their dictates. *** Note that there's absolutely nothing stopping New Yorkers from driving to Pennsylvania (or Connecticut, for that matter) and purchasing body armor. State residents might want to take advantage of that option, since criminals planning attacks are unlikely to be terribly observant of any inconvenient laws. Don't be surprised if New Yorkers worried about their safety once again refuse to comply with an astoundingly foolish law. more at the link
I'm a wannabe data scientist, so of course I don't think there's one singular causal variable like the TV pundits on Fox or CNN. Multi-variate analysis is one of the foundational concepts of serious and semi-serious policy analysts. My 2A/14A point was that even though historically, it's been about both the individual right and the collective right (with more weight in terms of constitutionality to the collective I would argue, but no biggie)....historically, that collective defense against tyranny is flawed and counter-productive, based one the one-time upset victory of colonists getting their guns and beating the British. Ever since then, the underdogs and their guns just get destroyed, often times violently massacred, when trying to stand up to the tyranny of the majority (State govt, Federal govt, or white mobs). So of course violence will always occur. I just think it's very reasonable to think gun irresponsibility, gun tech, gun accessibility, gun proliferation - all of that are inputs into the equation. So is mental health, inequality, security, violent video games etc. It's just really really difficult, constitutionally, to pass laws on the gun part when that protection is much more expansive from a "fight the power" lens vs a "self-defense" lens. Even if it's just the latter lens, I am damn sure not going to give up my high-capacity semi-auto, high capacity mass destruction semi-auto shotty, nor my body armor, unless I feel like my home and business is protected and that the illegal guns (ghost, stolen, criminally owned) are limited if not all gone. It's already a super difficult problem to solve without the foundational basis of 2A/14A. And ultimately, I don't want to be S. Africa or Israel or Brazil. I like the USA as an open society without security guards everywhere. I like a USA where the the poor aren't 3rd world poor. I like the US where there aren't giant gates and walls separating the haves from the have-nots. But we're not heading in that direction. Guns are only part of the equation, but I think it's an important part. And either way, I'll be fine, because I'm in the have category. In 3rd world USA, I'll have the guards, the big gates, the guns and the protected life, but that's not the vision of the future I want for us.
Yes, federal gun control is an abject failure. One of the big issues is personnel. There are only so many federal prosecutors, about two orders of magnitude fewer than state prosecutors. It just isn't practical for them to enforce single count cases of lying on a background check. I can't get my local US Attorney's office to look at a multijurisdictional, multi-million-dollar fraud case with hundreds of victims. It's pretty clear. The form says "Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, mar1juana or any stimulant, depressant, narcotic drug, or other controlled substance. He has admitted illegally used a controlled substance. Yes it is. A good bit of evidence that he knowingly lied is that he has admitted using controlled substances, and that he has sought treatment for addiction. I see it in almost directly the opposite way. I am not at all concerned that Hunter Biden has or had a firearm. He doesn't seem like a danger to illegally shoot people with it. Despite that, laws already exist that make it a crime for Hunter Biden and people like him to purchase or possess firearms and they are not enforced. Even in the report you linked, the reason given for not prosecuting these cases (not Hunter Biden specifically, it is pretty obvious why he is not being prosecuted) is lack of resources. They investigated only about 11% of the denials and prosecuted only about 0.1% of the cases investigated. It isn't that only 1 in 10,000 times that someone failed a background check and was denied a firearm that there was sufficient evidence to prosecute. So, we seem to have enough laws against firearms (so many we don't even bother enforcing them), and the laws we have don't serve any real purpose, because they don't keep the guns out of the hands of the killers anyway. Our focus should be on the people that are committing all the crime, not on the guns that are overwhelmingly in the hands of people that never use them to break the law. If you are a male (or a female and a member of the National Guard), between the ages of 17 and 45, and an American citizen (or expressed an intention to become an American citizen), you are a member of the militia. Congratulations. The first school shooting in (what is now) the United States for which I could find a record occurred in 1764 and resulted in the deaths of 11 people (though technically only the teacher was shot with a musket, the kids were clubbed about the head and scalped).
It isn't clear though. Even the NRA has discussed this before. He may well not have been an active user at the time he filled out the information. He may not have used for days, weeks or even months. The prosecution has the obligation to prove intent under the law. That isn't easy to do with the working and case law out there. There is no question that Hunter Biden has used controlled substances in the past, he was kicked out of the armed services for it in the past and he has failed drug tests years before he answered the questions. There isn't even a lot of questions about whether he has been addicted to substances or if he was using in 2018 when he filled out the information. The problem is the lack of definitions and the vagueness of the the wording of the question, the examples cited and the case law. That is especially the case when there is an affirmative obligation by the prosecutor to show that Biden knowingly lied. So no, it isn't clear cut at all.
Thai Man Receives Prison Sentence for Building a Subsistence Gun Made from Shovels The migrant worker was using the homemade gun to kill birds for food https://www.outdoorlife.com/hunting/taiwan-shovel-gun/
If I'm already a member of a militia, then that's proof that militia isn't "well regulated" This doesn't contradict the point I was making.
It isn't, because people keep trying to take guns away from Americans (at the time, well regulated largely meant provisioned). You and your neighbors may be called upon to defend the country in the event of invasion, and it is expected that you be armed and ready and that you will all decide on an officer corps and everything. Regardless, there is no requirement of the militia being well regulated in the 2nd Amendment. The prefatory clause (a well-regulated militia being necessary for the security of a free state) is a statement in support of the operative clause (the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed). The militia is not who has the right to keep and bear arms, the people are. The hope being that the armed people can more easily form a well-regulated militia (well-regulated at the time meaning armed, provisioned, etc., not with lots of rules and regulations). I think it does. The point you were making was there were no school shootings when they wrote the 2nd amendment (or robberies). I gave you an example of a contemporaneous school shooting. The idea that muskets were never used in robberies (of banks or otherwise) is absurd. Modern weapons have always been used in robbery, and will always be used in robbery. That is the nature of robbery. Did you think robbers in 1776 were limiting themselves to sword and buckler? The case law says a period of use with a temporal nexus to the gun possession (or presumably the filling out of the paperwork) for unlawful use. If he was using in 2018 when he filled out the form and he is an addict (which he was clearly aware of) there is no real question of vagueness as applied in his case. There have been multiple challenges for vagueness and in fact patterns just as you described for Biden, they have been upheld. US v. Purdy and US v. Ocegueda for examples. Reasonable minds can differ though, especially in matters of prosecutorial discretion.
I was a federal prosecutor for years before I went into private practice. Yes I agree that prosecutors can differ. If someone came to me and said they wanted to charge Hunter Biden under the circumstances I wouldn’t intervene or even raise an eyebrow. If they said it was a dead bang winner I would tell them I don’t agree but that is why we try them.
California animal shelter to require those adopting pets to support gun restrictions https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-brie...se-adopting-pets-to-support-gun-restrictions/
Why is it such a big deal to raise the gun purchasing age law to 21? Are there a bunch of NRA rednecks sitting around going, "I want my son to be able to buy his AR-15 at 18!"? Just raise the f-ing age already. If you can't even do that, then how are you ever going to get anything else done? It's three years. It's not the end of the world that Junior can't buy his AR-15 until he is 21.
I think their thought process is to not give an inch... because once you do... gun reform folks will come for the next inch... which is probably true but hey, I'm on team get rid of all the guns (or to be more specific because people are tiresome and nit picky, make only a certain type of gun available and make the process of acquiring one thorough, lengthy, expensive and difficult)
'Red Flag' Laws Require a Tricky Balance If Congress decides to encourage them, it should not overlook the importance of due process protections. https://reason.com/2022/06/15/red-flag-laws-require-a-tricky-balance/
Revoke the 2A, and rewrite it..... The founding fathers never intended what it is being used as today..... It was for State Militias to be support for the National army for any threats foreign or domestic. It was not so everyone could have a gun in their house or several guns.....or assault weapons..... Revoke it and rewrite it..... Ban Assault style weapons with a special renewable license for wild hogs etc. All guns must be licensed and pay a fee for them every single year. Background checks for EVERY purchase, no more gun show loop holes. DD
article on Hunter Biden's gun woes Hunter Biden raged at sister-in-law-turned-lover Hallie after she tossed his gun in trash: report https://nypost.com/2022/06/15/hunter-biden-raged-at-hallie-after-she-trashed-his-gun-report/
