-
Obama unveils sweeping gun control proposals
Some of this makes sense some of it doesn’t. Require background checks sounds great. I don’t see the point of the 10 round magazine thing. Seems like just an arbitrary number. Why not 15?
– requiring criminal background checks on all gun sales, including private sales
– banning “military-style” assault weapons
– limiting ammunition magazines to 10 rounds
– strengthening penalties for gun trafficking
-
59 Replies
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
Why not 15?
Prehaps because 10 is a compromise between 15 (what the hawks want) and 7 (what NY just enacted into law).
-
10 fingers. For 15 I have to take off a shoe to count.
-
I’m loving that a background check is now mandatory regardless of the sales venue.
I actually thought that would be that last thing we could expect to happen.
Now checks are needed at stores, trade shows, private sales, etc.
That’s an absolutely fantastic breakthrough, in my opinion.
-
Quote from Lux
I’m loving that a background check is now mandatory regardless of the sales venue.
I actually thought that would be that last thing we could expect to happen.
Now checks are needed at stores, trade shows, private sales, etc.
That’s an absolutely fantastic breakthrough, in my opinion.
Given that a comparison of ‘brady’ and ‘non-brady’ states during the 90s showed that the states with background checks performed worse, I am not sure it is a cause to cheer.-
Any bipartisan bill would have to consider and include the law/order aspect of gun violence. Federal law should be adopted to make mandatory minimum federal jail sentences of 10 years if committing a crime with gun. Its the only deterrent or adjustment on existing law mentioned by anybody that has tangible proof it would work (ie sharply declining rates of all violent crime in jurisdictions with mandatory jail sentencing). But, why do I have the feeling that the liberals will not accepted it, even in compromise.
-
One of the reasons New York is the safest big city in the nation is because we employ every tool available to us including legislation, litigation and enforcement to take illegal guns off our streets, said Bloomberg.
-
The People vs. Obama
There’s some old piece of paper in the National Archives in Washington DC that states:
… [i]the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, [b]shall not be infringed[/b].[/i]
[i] [/i]
Not much ambiguity there. How do you think this is going to end? I’m betting on the people. -
James Q. Wilson, deceased preeminent criminologist/social scientist :”the typical criminal commits from 12 to 16 crimes a year (not counting drug offenses)” . Years of studies “have shown that states that sent a higher fraction of convicts to prison had lower rates of crime, even after controlling for all of the other ways – poverty, urbanization, and the proportion of young men in the population – that the states differed. A high risk of punishment reduces crime. Deterrence works.” No doubt.
-
Everyone miss the elephant in the room? One of his executive orders was to provide incentives for schools to hire resource officers.
But overall, its a lot of feel-good noise (for the anti-gun folks) with no teeth. But I say keep it up, my stocks are doing very well, thank you.
-
-
Quote from Frumious
One of the reasons New York is the safest big city in the nation is because we employ every tool available to us including legislation, litigation and enforcement to take illegal guns off our streets, said Bloomberg.
No, they are only the 6th safest according to Forbes. By the way, gun crimes in NYC are up 23+% YTD, and 23+% over 2yr. average.
Historically, dictators first take away the people’s guns then the people’s freedom. Look at Hitler, Stalin, et.al.
-
[image]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_akLbxNKanGc/Se19fzTVJ9I/AAAAAAAACm4/Kk4XLWq9eKU/s400/godwincat.jpg[/image]
Godwin’s Law —- First guy to reference Hitler in a debate loses. 😉 -
Quote from Point Man
Historically, dictators first take away the people’s guns then the people’s freedom. Look at Hitler, Stalin, et.al.
You know, makes you wonder, if those Commies & Jews didn’t have to register their guns and were subsequently disarmed, there never would have been a Krystal Nacht, a Holocaust, WWII, Camps, Warsaw Ghetto. Or even Israel.
In America, is only the salves were armed, there would never have been slavery or a Constitution talking about 3/5s of a person. Or a Civil War.
Guns save.
It might help is you bothered to learn some facts for a change. The Weimar Republic established gun registration, not Hitler. The Brownshirts could give a damn about who owned guns, it was Communists and Jews they were after. Hitler was creating a militaristic society, the last thing he wanted to do was to get rid of guns. In fact, he ramped up manufacture of guns.
[link=http://www.law.uchicago.edu/files/files/67-harcourt.pdf]http://www.law.uchicago.e…/files/67-harcourt.pdf[/link]
-
always find interesting how pro gun, pro Constitution people always forget the first part of the Second Amendment
Maybe we should imitate Switzerland. One of the highest density of guns in any country, with some of the most aggressive, detailed and extensive rules regarding gun registration, background check, gun storage rules that exist. No one there seems to be complaining about following the rules-
There is fairly strong and recent precedent that SCOTUS clearly feels the 2nd ammendment can be legally infringed. Read the Heller decision.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Courts opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Millers holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those in common use at the time finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons”
-
“Lawful people own guns that hold more than 10 bulletts.”
…unless you make that illegal, then it is no longer lawful If the pro-NRA crowd would actually help craft sensible restrictions rather than complain, we might actually have some decent and reasonable laws
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I could ask why new york came up with 7. It still all seems really arbitrary and punishes lawful owners. I guess gun people will have to settle for pussified shooting intruments?
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
It still all seems really arbitrary and punishes lawful owners. I guess gun people will have to settle for pussified shooting intruments?
Now what the hell does that even mean?
And how on earth are owners “punished”?
I suppose you believe drivers were pussified when they were forced to wear seatbelts, too.
Personally, I think hunters look like pussies when they wear those orange bibs, but that’s no reason not to wear them!
Now you’re just whining.
-
Baghdad Lux sees only good in further regulations and the slow and nefarious erosion of the Bill of Rights. Who would have thunk? These executive orders are the equivalent of the camel’s nose in the tent. The Second Amendment is under direct attack and Lux serves as a tool for Dear Leader… again! There’s a lot of idol worship going on. That got the Germans into a lot of trouble in the 1930’s. A true libertarian would recognize this charade and never agree to giving up his rights and freedoms.
The authors of the Constitution were smart enough to know that you should never give up your weapon, unless you are willing to be subjugated.-
The founding fathers, Jefferson, Madison, Washington were anything but Libertarians. They established a government that many libertarians hate today & they used force to impose government & authority.
-
Perhapssome need a reminder of the response of the founding fathers to the Whiskey Rebellion as to what they might believe….
Meanwhile the right’s response to Obama today is once again completely unhinged
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/16/reagans-solicitor-general-scoffs-at-rights-fantasy-about-obama-tyranny/]http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2013/01/16/reagans-solicitor-general-scoffs-at-rights-fantasy-about-obama-tyranny/[/link]
These are either standard exercises of presidential power, or even more benignly, standard examples of the power of the president to exhort the public or state officials to be aware of certain problems and to address them, Charles Fried, who was Reagans solicitor general during his second term, told me today.
-
-
Quote from D M
Baghdad Lux sees only good in further regulations and the slow and nefarious erosion of the Bill of Rights. Who would have thunk? These executive orders are the equivalent of the camel’s nose in the tent. The Second Amendment is under direct attack and Lux serves as a tool for Dear Leader… again! There’s a lot of idol worship going on. That got the Germans into a lot of trouble in the 1930’s. A true libertarian would recognize this charade and never agree to giving up his rights and freedoms. The authors of the Constitution were smart enough to know that you should never give up your weapon, unless you are willing to be subjugated.
Boloney. If anyone is the traitor it’s you, not me. Go back and read the Second Amendment and tell me how the NRA is preaching anything about our patriotic obligation to ensure the Second Amendment is carried out within an environment of a “well regulated militia”. The NRA is preaching no such thing. It is an antipatriotic vigilante organization that is NOT working in the best interest of America.
Period.
-
Heh! The Obama sheeples are sure getting defensive about Dear Leader’s naked power grab. Why not just re-write the constitution and appoint him king?
-
[link=http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/]http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/milestones/whiskey/[/link]
On August 7, 1794, President Washington issued a proclamation, [b]calling out the militia[/b] and ordering the disaffected westerners to return to their homes. Washington’s order mobilized an army of approximately 13,000 as large as the one that had defeated the British under the command of General Harry Lee, the then-Governor of Virginia and father of Robert E. Lee. Washington himself, in a show of presidential authority, set out at the head of the troops to suppress the uprising.
This was the [b]first use of the Militia Law of 1792[/b] setting a precedent for the use of the militia to “execute the laws of the union, (and) suppress insurrections,” asserting the right of the national government to enforce order in one state with troops raised in other states. Even more importantly, it was the [b]first test of power of the new federal government[/b], establishing its primacy in disputes with individual states. In the end, a dozen or so men were arrested, sent to Philadelphia to trial and released after pardons by Washington.
By the way…there is that militia word that also appears in the second amendment being used as an arm OF the govt…but of course the tea party types would simply put Washington in the group with Hitler, Stalin etc. if he were alive today-
[link=http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm]http://www.constitution.org/mil/mil_act_1792.htm[/link]
A nice summary of the arms to be associated with a well regulated militia
That every citizen, so enrolled and notified, shall, within six months thereafter, provide himself with a good musket or firelock, a sufficient bayonet and belt, two spare flints, and a knapsack, a pouch, with a box therein, to contain not less than twenty four cartridges, suited to the bore of his musket or firelock, each cartridge to contain a proper quantity of powder and ball; or with a good rifle, knapsack, shot-pouch, and powder-horn, twenty balls suited to the bore of his rifle, and a quarter of a pound of powder; and shall appear so armed, accoutred and provided, when called out to exercise or into service, except, that when called out on company days to exercise only, he may appear without a knapsack
-
-
[b]”Why not just re-write the constitution and appoint him king?” [/b]
[b] [/b]
The problem is the lib lemmings voted the socialist into office and he uses that election to further circumvent the Constitution and try to make us a socialist state. When will the libs wake up and see their freedom eroding, and the Republicans get our heads out of our rears and say something.
-
Which of Obama’s 23 gun related directives make us less free?
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from Lux
Quote from DICOM_Dan
It still all seems really arbitrary and punishes lawful owners. I guess gun people will have to settle for pussified shooting intruments?
Now what the hell does that even mean?
And how on earth are owners “punished”?
I suppose you believe drivers were pussified when they were forced to wear seatbelts, too.
Personally, I think hunters look like pussies when they wear those orange bibs, but that’s no reason not to wear them!Now you’re just whining.
Lawful people own guns that hold more than 10 bulletts. People enjoy shooting sports. There’s whole class of competitions for AR15 which would be the “assault rifle”. As far as the seat belt thing. I wear one but if you don’t it’s not my business. I think it’s more common sense than a need for a law. I don’t see how wearing orange to hunt has anything to do with gun control laws. A hunter is walking into the woods where people are looking to shoot animals, so it’s a good idea to where orange. There’s even legit uses for high capacity weapons while your’re out hunting feral hogs.
-
Why? because the hogs are dangerous and might kill you if you dont have a load of bullets to nail em with? perhaps it would be more “sporting” if there was a real risk of you dying if you are a crappy shot. perhaps we should be leveling the playing field for the animals. Noone says you have to go hunt the hogs. its your choice.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
There’s even legit uses for high capacity weapons while your’re out hunting feral hogs.
Well gee whiz. Then I’m afraid some people will have to tolerate being “punished” because the lower magazine capacity will make it harder for them to hunt feral hogs.
But I thought making hunting harder only served to IMPROVE the sport.
Or do you consider shooting fish in a barrel the ultimate sport?!
Show me where any of that is a violation of the Second Amendment.
Show me where ANY hunting is protected by the Second Amendment.
Show me where PROHIBITING any hunting at all using a gun is a violation of the Second Amendment.
You gun-hawks are just making up stuff about what the Constitution says.
You better be careful what you wish for.
-
Love to see a socialist lib try to take my guns. Go down South sometime and tell those folks you want their guns and you might get a gun barrell shoved all the way to your pylorus. Now I don’t want any San Francisco libs volunteering to go to Mississippi and threaten to take their guns.
-
Quote from Point Man
Go down South sometime and tell those folks you want their guns and you might get a gun barrell shoved all the way to your pylorus.
…which is EXACTLY why we need to limit what kinds of guns people are allowed to own.
And there you go, making [i][u]more[/u][/i] stuff up! Who on earth is taking guns away from anyone? [i][b][u]NOBODY[/u][/b][/i]! But your (and aldadoc’s) insistence that this is what is going on simply proves my point that you have no concept of what the Second Amendment providers for, just as you have no concept of what’s actually being proposed in D.C. right now. And your arrogance makes you more of a laughing stock than does your ignorance.
-
Quote from Point Man
Go down South sometime and tell those folks you want their guns and you might get a gun barrell shoved all the way to your pylorus.
…which is EXACTLY why we need to limit what kinds of guns people are allowed to own.
Who on earth wants to take guns away from any law abiding citizen? [i][b][u]NOBODY[/u][/b][/i]! But your (and aldadoc’s) insistence that this is what is going on simply proves my point that you have no concept of what rights the Second Amendment actually protects, just as you have no concept of what’s actually being proposed in D.C. right now. And your arrogance makes you more of a laughing stock than does your ignorance.
-
There are no teeth in Obama’s EO’s, nor will there be any real action taken. In a few months everyone will have forgotten about this and we will be back to arguing about the basic “left vs. right” things we always argue about.
The mass hysteria is just that. With no real basis other than there seem to be a lot of people that have an irrational fear of Obama.-
Maybe. But public support is there, hopefully long enough to finish the job against crazy extremists like the NRA. And the NRA looks like it’s deeply worried about these extremely moderate proposals by getting hysterical and low with their attack on Sasha and Malia. For the 1st time in a long time the NRA is scared. They should stay scared & go back into their holes.
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/the-nras-diabolical-ad-about-obamas-children/2013/01/17/4b3f0bd2-60f8-11e2-9940-6fc488f3fecd_story.html]http://www.washingtonpost…fc488f3fecd_story.html[/link]
-
John Stewart is right on target.
[link]http://www.hulu.com/watch/446438[/link]
-
Very convenient diversion. Gun control is the latest diversion from the real issues. Unfortunately, the Sandy Hook disaster could happen no matter what legislation is proposed for gun control. You can’t legislate crazy. I am not a gun owner an frankly don’t care much about whether we are allowed to have automatic or semiautomatic guns. I have about 40 employees who came to me to complain that their first paycheck of the year was less than last year. I told them that their payroll tax was increased from last year. A few told me “bullshit, taxes were only raised on those making over 400K”. They accused me of paying them less. They say that Obama said that he is protecting the middle class and he would only raise taxes on the wealthy. What could I say? Sometimes people lie?
-
How can you tell if a politician is lying? Their mouth is moving!!
-
So let’s make a list of any single thing, whether proposed by NRA or gun control types to see if any single one will “solve” the gun violence and illegal guns issues?
Registering all mental patients? Besides questions of civil rights, that has shown it would not work. How many of the mass killers never had mental counseling? How many criminals?
Cops in schools? We’ve seen that did not prevent Columbine. There is also the issue of pay and cost, we’re already griping about teachers robbing us.
Long prison terms for gun violence? We already have that. Considering some killers commit suicide, how would that be a deterrent?
Any I’ve missed?
So I ask you, what SINGLE thing will work? -
the second amendment has nothing to do with jo blo having a gun for personal use. somehow nobody even tries to argue this point anymore, because that battle was already lost.
-
[b]”And the NRA looks like it’s deeply worried about these extremely moderate proposals by getting hysterical and low with their attack on Sasha and Malia.”[/b]
[b] [/b]
Which is worse telling the truth or the ‘bamer exploiting innocent children for political gain What he did makes me sick to my stomach. -
This addresses the different viewpoints between the urban and rural different realities on guns.
[link=http://www.politico.com/story/2013/01/bill-clinton-to-democrats-dont-trivialize-gun-culture-86443.html?hp=t1_3]http://www.politico.com/s…ure-86443.html?hp=t1_3[/link]
However that same appeal has a mirror image that NRA supporters need to accept themselves. Of course the rhetoric of ” jack- booted thugs” gets in the way of seeing the other side there too.
-
[h1]Americans Remain Largely Dissatisfied With Gun Laws[/h1] [link=https://news.gallup.com/poll/329723/americans-remain-largely-dissatisfied-gun-laws.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication]Gallup[/link]: Fifty-six percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with U.S. gun laws and policies, marking the ninth consecutive year of majority-level dissatisfaction since the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. At the same time, 42% of U.S. adults express satisfaction with U.S. gun laws.
[image]https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ojq1xpggzeq552pmol5bwq.png[/image]
-
There was a picture going around of Lori Booberts from Colorado yesterday. She was on a zoom or something and just had guns strewn around her book case. Like WTF. I’m fine with gun ownership. Store your guns safely. I get it’s just performance. Owning the libs by making yourself look like an idiot gun owner. not sure that’s good for the brand.
-
Some people like their background filled with pictures of people important to them or books they think important to represent their on-line image. So we now know that guns are the single most important thing for her if we did not know that before.
[attachment=0] -
Quote from dergon
[size=”0″]Americans Remain Largely Dissatisfied With Gun Laws[/size]
[link=https://news.gallup.com/poll/329723/americans-remain-largely-dissatisfied-gun-laws.aspx?utm_source=alert&utm_medium=email&utm_content=morelink&utm_campaign=syndication]Gallup[/link]: Fifty-six percent of Americans say they are dissatisfied with U.S. gun laws and policies, marking the ninth consecutive year of majority-level dissatisfaction since the 2012 mass shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. At the same time, 42% of U.S. adults express satisfaction with U.S. gun laws.[image]https://content.gallup.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/ojq1xpggzeq552pmol5bwq.png[/image]
If you ask it that way, you are going include those who are dissatisfied with the gun laws under the perspective of there being too many such laws.
-
Dissatisfaction With Gun Laws Rooted More in Call for Stricter Regulation
A follow-up question, asked only of those who said they were dissatisfied with current gun laws, explored what respondents would like to see happen to those laws. Given that dissatisfaction with gun laws is primarily seen among Democrats, it follows that people who are dissatisfied prefer stricter rather than more lenient laws.As Biden calls for stricter gun laws, 41% of the public is dissatisfied with current gun laws and wants them made stricter; 8% are dissatisfied and want them to be made less strict; and 7% are dissatisfied but want them to remain the same.
Line graph. Americans’ satisfaction with and preference for gun laws. Currently, 42% of Americans are satisfied, 41% are dissatisfied and want stricter laws, and 8% are dissatisfied and want less strict laws.
While 69% of Republicans say they are satisfied with U.S. gun laws, 68% of Democrats are dissatisfied and want them to be stricter.
Bottom Line
Americans continue to express more dissatisfaction than satisfaction with U.S. gun laws, and partisans remain sharply divided in their views. The public’s calls for more gun control have tended to be in reaction to mass shootings, as have lawmakers’ attempts to pass stricter gun laws.
-
BREAKING: President Biden has just called on Congress to ban assault weapons and high-capacity magazines and to close loopholes in the background check system after a gunman killed 10 people at a grocery store in Boulder, Colorado.
I dont need to wait another minute let alone an hour to take common sense steps that will save lives in the future and to urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to act, Biden said in remarks at the White House Tuesday afternoon.
-
Me in 2018 –
Quote from dergon
Start at the edges and work your way in. Do the things that have broad public support (background checks, high power weaponry, keeping out of hands of the mentally ill, allowing temporary removal for unstable people) first. Then you give that a little time to sink in and let the general public realize that the actions didn’t amount to government tyranny.
Then the next step … perhaps license and registration across the board. [b]Treat gun ownership like vehicle ownership. You have to hold insurance, a license, register the device. [/b]Any time it is sold that transaction has to be filed.
Then you give that one some time.
___
There is no politically viable solution that is going to be anything but incremental over a generation or more. You pick the low hanging policy fruit first then work your way up.[/QUOTE]
[link=https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/arts/television/stephen-colbert-boulder-shooting.html]https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/24/arts/television/stephen-colbert-boulder-shooting.html[/link]
[h1]Stephen Colbert Suggests Guns Be Regulated Like Cars and Alcohol[/h1] Colbert said guns should require a license, registration and insurance: If you move to a new state, you got to do the whole damn thing all over again. And you cant go out loaded.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Ban black guns and rifles, they are far more deadly than their stainless steel, chrome plated, FDE, bretheren.
10 rounds per magazine, period. Because modern guns make it next to impossible to rapidly reload after shooting them ten times. -
[link=https://www.wsaz.com/2021/03/23/manchin-says-he-doesnt-support-house-passed-background-check-bill/]https://www.wsaz.com/2021…background-check-bill/[/link]
[b]Manchin, Toomey oppose House background check bill
[/b]
Manchin and Republican Sen. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania have worked together for years to find compromise on background checks but have yet to win passage on any of their proposals.
Manchin said he opposes the House legislation, which would apply more broadly to gun sales and transfers in requiring background checks than the Manchin and Toomey proposals of the past. He did not say whether he would restart negotiations, only that were going to try to do the responsible, reasonable thing.
Toomey said he would like to find legislation that could pass, but that probably would require something thats a little bit different. So, well see if we can figure out how to thread that needle.
[/QUOTE]
-
how is there no support for universal background checks. I thought this was overwhelmingly popular even with gun owners. If you but a gun at a show you need to be background checked. Simple piece of legislation.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
how is there no support for universal background checks. I thought this was overwhelmingly popular even with gun owners. If you but a gun at a show you need to be background checked. Simple piece of legislation.
The nut in Colorado was background checked.
So was the nut who shot up VA Tech.
And the nut who shot Giffords and the judge.
But more laws will fix this. I am sure.-
If it stops one person Im fine with it. It should not be different at a gun store than at a gun show. This is why it has a lot of support. Its one common sense thing that can change. Low hanging fruit.
-
Im sure if you look back at the past 5 or so mass shootings you will see people on both sides of the debate saying the same thing
Nothing is being done
They keep happy
As a reasonably intelligent people we should see that something is not working
Might be time to consider doing something
-
The past to shooters purchased their weapons very recent to the shootings
The Georgia guy bought his the same frickin day
Something just isnt right
-
-
-
-
-
-
[b]9th Circuit Upholds Restrictions on Open Carry[/b][/h1]
[link=https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-03-24/9th-circuit-appeals-court-panel-rules-states-may-restrict-open-carry-guns]Los Angeles Times[/link]: In a 7-4 decision, an en banc panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a county law in Hawaii that has severely limited permits for open carrying of guns.
The decision is likely to help push the Supreme Court to review the issue.
Wrote Judge Jay Bybeea George W. Bush appointeefor the majority: The government may regulate, and even prohibit, in public places including government buildings, churches, schools, and markets the open carrying of small arms capable of being concealed, whether they are carried concealed or openly.-
I’m a gun owner and am fine with gun ownership to a point. I don’t think we should take away people ARs. The whole open carry thing is weird to me. I think it would be wise that it’s limited to concealed carry by permit. I saw a guy fishing at the park yesterday and he had a pistol strapped to his hip. Totally legal in OH. I’ve also seen people walk around with an AR strapped on. Some people even grab the grip and keep their finger near the trigger. You can see that in any number of prod boys or 3% photos. IMO it’s a hard decision to make as to who’s menacing. I’m waiting for the case where someone is walking around open carrying and get’s gunned down by someone else who’s open carrying (or even concealed carrying). Especially in stand your ground states. Seems like a legit defense to me. Well your honor he was walking toward me with an AR so I drew down and shot him in fear for my life.
-
-
[b]Americans Know What They Want Done on Guns[/b][/h1]
[link=https://news.gallup.com/opinion/polling-matters/343649/american-public-opinion-gun-violence.aspx?utm_source=tagrss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=syndication]Gallup[/link]: If it were up to Americans, what would they do? The immediate answer is straightforward. The data show strong public support for proposed legislative changes that would do such things as require background checks for all gun purchases, ban high-capacity ammunition magazines, require all privately owned guns to be registered with the police, and require a 30-day waiting period for all gun sales.-
[link=https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/552255-all-indianapolis-red-flag-cases-must-come-before-judge-after-fedex]All Indianapolis ‘red flag’ cases must come before judge after FedEx shooting
[/link]
Judge Amy Jones, who oversees red flag cases in Marion County, issued the new guidance this week with Indianapolis police now having 48 hours to submit their filings, after which two judges will decide in two weeks whether to hold a hearing.
[color=”#2b2c30″]…[/color]
Last week, Rick Snyder, president of the Indianapolis Fraternal Order of Police, [link=https://thehill.com/homenews/news/550134-indianapolis-police-union-leader-says-prosecutor-failed-to-do-his-part-to]criticized Marion County Prosecutor Ryan Mears,[/link] who he claimed had “failed to do his part” by not bringing Hole to court.
“Unfortunately, the lack of action by the Marion County prosecutor prevented a court hearing, which could have prohibited the suspect from owning any other firearms,” Snyder said. Why didnt the prosecutor seek the hearing that the statute requires? Why didnt the prosecutor use all the legal tools available? Why didnt the prosecutor try?”[/QUOTE]
-
