Author Topic: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )  (Read 801442 times)

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22814
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Why black Americans are buying more guns
« Reply #2250 on: June 10, 2022, 12:11:59 PM »
BLM has resulted in many more black people being murdered.

But some people got paid and lots of lefties got to virtue signal on social media.



Why Black Americans Are Buying More Guns
The people who bear the brunt of rising violent crime are taking steps to protect themselves.

By Jason L. RileyFollow
June 7, 2022 6:13 pm ET


“The issue we face is one of conscience and common sense.” So said Joe Biden last week in a prime-time plea for more Second Amendment restrictions. The president is right on both counts, just not in the way that he and other gun-control enthusiasts imagine.

Voters have noticed that cities where shootings occur almost daily also have some of the strictest gun laws. Using common sense, they’ve concluded that more gun-control legislation probably isn’t the solution because criminals by definition don’t respect laws. Many of the same people likewise find it unconscionable that elected officials would make it more difficult for law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods to arm themselves for protection.

Someone might remind Mr. Biden that the past two landmark Supreme Court rulings on gun control were fueled by black plaintiffs who simply wanted to defend their homes and their families. Moreover, they hailed from cities controlled by liberals who have done an extraordinarily bad job of protecting low-income minorities from criminals. In a 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court affirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right and that you don’t need to be part of a militia to exercise it. One of the initial plaintiffs was Shelly Parker, a black computer-software designer who decided to challenge the district’s handgun ban in court after a 7-foot-tall neighborhood drug dealer tried to break into her home one evening and threatened to kill her. “What I want is simply to be able to own a handgun in my home, in the confines of the walls of my home—nothing else,” she told National Public Radio.

Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the high court expanded on Heller. The lead plaintiff was Otis McDonald, a black Chicago retiree who wanted to own a handgun for protection from the gangs that terrorized his low-income neighborhood. Ruling in his favor, the court said that the Second Amendment applies with equal force to federal, state and local governments alike. When McDonald died in 2014, the Chicago Tribune obituary described him as “the man who brought down Chicago’s gun ban.”


It’s well known that gun sales have surged in recent years, but less well known is that blacks have led the trend. Retailers in an online survey conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, reported that they sold 58% more guns to black customers in the first half of 2020 than a year earlier, the highest increase for any ethnic group. Personal safety tops the list of why people decide to buy a firearm. In a 2021 Gallup survey, 88% of respondents said they own a gun “for protection against crime,” which is up from 67% in 2005.


Social conditions have convinced more Americans that they need a gun, yet the political left has spent little time reassessing woke policies that lead to such thinking. Violent crime has been rising. Homicides in major cities have reached levels not seen in three decades. Meanwhile, liberal policy makers treat criminals like victims and police officers like criminals. Antigun police units tasked with keeping illegal weapons off the streets have been disbanded. Felonies have been downgraded to misdemeanors, and misdemeanors go unpunished, which only emboldens miscreants. Low-income minorities feel the brunt of these so-called reforms because they are by far the most likely crime targets.

The same “defund the police” progressives who have spent most of the past decade undermining the ability of law enforcement to combat crime are now using sensational but statistically rare mass-shooting tragedies as a pretense for curtailing the ability of people in vulnerable communities to defend themselves. The president wants to ban “assault weapons,” raise the purchase age to 21, and expand background checks. There’s no evidence that any of this will address the day-in-day-out gun violence that has driven so many Americans to become first-time gun owners.

The question is whether more restrictions on ordinary Americans in a nation that already has more guns than people will reduce the number of lives lost. Most mass shooters in recent decades have been over 21. The assailants in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas, passed background checks and purchased their weapons legally. And from 1994 to 2004, we had a federal assault-weapons ban in place. The reality is that most gun crimes don’t involve such weapons, and a RAND Corp. assessment of these efforts found “inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.”

The source of the problem is the failure or inability of the government to protect us. Common sense dictates that we do what is necessary to protect ourselves in the meantime. Only a fool or an ideologue could believe that the best response to people who commit crimes with guns is launching a holy war against people who respect gun laws.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22814
    • View Profile
Re: WSJ: Why black Americans are buying more guns
« Reply #2251 on: June 10, 2022, 12:46:54 PM »
https://media.gab.com/system/media_attachments/files/108/499/166/original/28d0f813e9d71c38.jpeg



BLM has resulted in many more black people being murdered.

But some people got paid and lots of lefties got to virtue signal on social media.



Why Black Americans Are Buying More Guns
The people who bear the brunt of rising violent crime are taking steps to protect themselves.

By Jason L. RileyFollow
June 7, 2022 6:13 pm ET


“The issue we face is one of conscience and common sense.” So said Joe Biden last week in a prime-time plea for more Second Amendment restrictions. The president is right on both counts, just not in the way that he and other gun-control enthusiasts imagine.

Voters have noticed that cities where shootings occur almost daily also have some of the strictest gun laws. Using common sense, they’ve concluded that more gun-control legislation probably isn’t the solution because criminals by definition don’t respect laws. Many of the same people likewise find it unconscionable that elected officials would make it more difficult for law-abiding residents of high-crime neighborhoods to arm themselves for protection.

Someone might remind Mr. Biden that the past two landmark Supreme Court rulings on gun control were fueled by black plaintiffs who simply wanted to defend their homes and their families. Moreover, they hailed from cities controlled by liberals who have done an extraordinarily bad job of protecting low-income minorities from criminals. In a 2008 case, District of Columbia v. Heller, the court affirmed that the right to bear arms is an individual right and that you don’t need to be part of a militia to exercise it. One of the initial plaintiffs was Shelly Parker, a black computer-software designer who decided to challenge the district’s handgun ban in court after a 7-foot-tall neighborhood drug dealer tried to break into her home one evening and threatened to kill her. “What I want is simply to be able to own a handgun in my home, in the confines of the walls of my home—nothing else,” she told National Public Radio.

Two years later, in McDonald v. Chicago, the high court expanded on Heller. The lead plaintiff was Otis McDonald, a black Chicago retiree who wanted to own a handgun for protection from the gangs that terrorized his low-income neighborhood. Ruling in his favor, the court said that the Second Amendment applies with equal force to federal, state and local governments alike. When McDonald died in 2014, the Chicago Tribune obituary described him as “the man who brought down Chicago’s gun ban.”


It’s well known that gun sales have surged in recent years, but less well known is that blacks have led the trend. Retailers in an online survey conducted by the National Shooting Sports Foundation, a trade group, reported that they sold 58% more guns to black customers in the first half of 2020 than a year earlier, the highest increase for any ethnic group. Personal safety tops the list of why people decide to buy a firearm. In a 2021 Gallup survey, 88% of respondents said they own a gun “for protection against crime,” which is up from 67% in 2005.


Social conditions have convinced more Americans that they need a gun, yet the political left has spent little time reassessing woke policies that lead to such thinking. Violent crime has been rising. Homicides in major cities have reached levels not seen in three decades. Meanwhile, liberal policy makers treat criminals like victims and police officers like criminals. Antigun police units tasked with keeping illegal weapons off the streets have been disbanded. Felonies have been downgraded to misdemeanors, and misdemeanors go unpunished, which only emboldens miscreants. Low-income minorities feel the brunt of these so-called reforms because they are by far the most likely crime targets.

The same “defund the police” progressives who have spent most of the past decade undermining the ability of law enforcement to combat crime are now using sensational but statistically rare mass-shooting tragedies as a pretense for curtailing the ability of people in vulnerable communities to defend themselves. The president wants to ban “assault weapons,” raise the purchase age to 21, and expand background checks. There’s no evidence that any of this will address the day-in-day-out gun violence that has driven so many Americans to become first-time gun owners.

The question is whether more restrictions on ordinary Americans in a nation that already has more guns than people will reduce the number of lives lost. Most mass shooters in recent decades have been over 21. The assailants in Buffalo, N.Y., and Uvalde, Texas, passed background checks and purchased their weapons legally. And from 1994 to 2004, we had a federal assault-weapons ban in place. The reality is that most gun crimes don’t involve such weapons, and a RAND Corp. assessment of these efforts found “inconclusive evidence for the effect of assault weapon bans on mass shootings.”

The source of the problem is the failure or inability of the government to protect us. Common sense dictates that we do what is necessary to protect ourselves in the meantime. Only a fool or an ideologue could believe that the best response to people who commit crimes with guns is launching a holy war against people who respect gun laws.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59394
    • View Profile
Laws targeting mentally ill make red flag laws unnecessary
« Reply #2252 on: June 14, 2022, 09:07:38 AM »
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/13/laws-targeting-mentally-ill-make-red-flag-laws-unn/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=%2BKi08ztP88WaSaRvW5uV67cOhtLH8D0v9NyMmcEDM7Js0LM9LGkLC%2FOPGNh3m%2BOT&bt_ts=1655201357441

Gun rights advocates say so-called red flag laws that aim to stop mass shootings aren’t needed because states already have laws that allow mentally ill people to be confined against their will and lose the right of firearm ownership for life.

Florida has the Baker Act, which allows the hospitalization of people against their will for mental health evaluations. California and other states have similar laws that allow institutionalization for up to 72 hours for evaluation.

In California, a person who has been involuntarily committed would be prevented from possessing or purchasing a firearm for five years. In Florida, an involuntarily committed individual could lose the right to purchase firearms after confinement.

Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, said federal law bans mentally ill people from owning guns.

“People who are disqualified for being what is legally known as ‘mental defective,’ they receive a lifetime gun ban when Congress never contemplated they would receive a lifetime gun ban. That’s a problem for Gun Owners of America,” Mr. Johnston said.


“We are early in the life of these policies to really be able to say with rigorous research methods what the effects of these laws are,” said Shannon Frattaroli, a professor and core faculty member of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “We certainly have descriptive studies that [extreme risk protection orders] are being used to intervene when someone is identified as being at risk of committing a mass shooting, committing a suicide.”

A bipartisan Senate deal on gun control calls for giving states incentives to enact red flag laws, among other provisions. The agreement, reached Sunday, resolves a decades-long impasse on gun policy.

Red flag laws, or extreme risk protection orders, vary from state to state. Police, family, coworkers, neighbors or friends typically can petition a judge to have someone’s gun taken away when they feel the person is at high risk of hurting themselves or others. Depending on the particular law, the person can lose a firearm for a few days to as long as a year.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws, and the majority of them were enacted from 2018 to 2020 after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

In 2020, red flag laws were used about 5,000 times to temporarily confiscate firearms. Florida is the state that used its red flag law the most, according to a Wall Street Journal report last year.

It’s unclear how many people have their firearms returned.

An NBC affiliate TV station in Denver reported that 146 guns had been confiscated under Colorado’s red flag law since it took effect in 2020 and 116 eventually got their firearms back.

John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said he is unaware of national data about how frequently firearms are returned to their owners but noted that about one-third of protection orders are overturned once a hearing is held.

“The rate should actually be much higher because few people who go through the hearing process actually have legal counsel,” Mr. Lott said. “The taking of the guns is also usually just temporary, but there is no real national data on how long those takings last.”

He said red flag laws run afoul of due process.

He noted that mentally ill people can be involuntarily committed to hospitals and have their guns confiscated — sometimes for life — under state laws.

“People who truly pose a clear danger to themselves or others should be confined to a mental health facility or be required to seek treatment. Laws used to confiscate guns are typically enforced when dealing with suicidal people,” Mr. Lott said. “However, if someone is suicidal, there are many other ways they may choose to kill themselves. Simply taking away a gun isn’t the answer.”

Ms. Frattaroli said red flag laws aren’t about mental health but instead focus on behavior or words that indicate someone might do harm.

“From all that we know about violence, the best predictors of [violence] are past violent behavior and threats of violence,” she said. “Mental health isn’t a good predictor of future violence. It’s a very different sort of set of criteria.”

She suggested that states and localities that use the laws have more consistency and awareness.

“What’s really important is that attention and resources be paid to implementation,” Ms. Frattaroli said. “When we look across the states, there is tremendous variation across states and within states with regard to how frequently they are being used.”

Last week, the House passed the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would allow courts to take guns from people deemed dangerous and bar them from purchasing firearms.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.
« Last Edit: June 14, 2022, 09:09:20 AM by Crafty_Dog »

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22814
    • View Profile
Re: Laws targeting mentally ill make red flag laws unnecessary
« Reply #2253 on: June 14, 2022, 10:00:15 AM »
Red flag laws aren’t about protecting the public, they are about disarming dissidents.



https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2022/jun/13/laws-targeting-mentally-ill-make-red-flag-laws-unn/?utm_source=Boomtrain&utm_medium=subscriber&utm_campaign=newsalert&utm_content=newsalert&utm_term=newsalert&bt_ee=%2BKi08ztP88WaSaRvW5uV67cOhtLH8D0v9NyMmcEDM7Js0LM9LGkLC%2FOPGNh3m%2BOT&bt_ts=1655201357441

Gun rights advocates say so-called red flag laws that aim to stop mass shootings aren’t needed because states already have laws that allow mentally ill people to be confined against their will and lose the right of firearm ownership for life.

Florida has the Baker Act, which allows the hospitalization of people against their will for mental health evaluations. California and other states have similar laws that allow institutionalization for up to 72 hours for evaluation.

In California, a person who has been involuntarily committed would be prevented from possessing or purchasing a firearm for five years. In Florida, an involuntarily committed individual could lose the right to purchase firearms after confinement.

Aidan Johnston, director of federal affairs for Gun Owners of America, said federal law bans mentally ill people from owning guns.

“People who are disqualified for being what is legally known as ‘mental defective,’ they receive a lifetime gun ban when Congress never contemplated they would receive a lifetime gun ban. That’s a problem for Gun Owners of America,” Mr. Johnston said.


“We are early in the life of these policies to really be able to say with rigorous research methods what the effects of these laws are,” said Shannon Frattaroli, a professor and core faculty member of the Center for Gun Violence Solutions at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health. “We certainly have descriptive studies that [extreme risk protection orders] are being used to intervene when someone is identified as being at risk of committing a mass shooting, committing a suicide.”

A bipartisan Senate deal on gun control calls for giving states incentives to enact red flag laws, among other provisions. The agreement, reached Sunday, resolves a decades-long impasse on gun policy.

Red flag laws, or extreme risk protection orders, vary from state to state. Police, family, coworkers, neighbors or friends typically can petition a judge to have someone’s gun taken away when they feel the person is at high risk of hurting themselves or others. Depending on the particular law, the person can lose a firearm for a few days to as long as a year.

Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have red flag laws, and the majority of them were enacted from 2018 to 2020 after the mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

In 2020, red flag laws were used about 5,000 times to temporarily confiscate firearms. Florida is the state that used its red flag law the most, according to a Wall Street Journal report last year.

It’s unclear how many people have their firearms returned.

An NBC affiliate TV station in Denver reported that 146 guns had been confiscated under Colorado’s red flag law since it took effect in 2020 and 116 eventually got their firearms back.

John R. Lott Jr., president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, said he is unaware of national data about how frequently firearms are returned to their owners but noted that about one-third of protection orders are overturned once a hearing is held.

“The rate should actually be much higher because few people who go through the hearing process actually have legal counsel,” Mr. Lott said. “The taking of the guns is also usually just temporary, but there is no real national data on how long those takings last.”

He said red flag laws run afoul of due process.

He noted that mentally ill people can be involuntarily committed to hospitals and have their guns confiscated — sometimes for life — under state laws.

“People who truly pose a clear danger to themselves or others should be confined to a mental health facility or be required to seek treatment. Laws used to confiscate guns are typically enforced when dealing with suicidal people,” Mr. Lott said. “However, if someone is suicidal, there are many other ways they may choose to kill themselves. Simply taking away a gun isn’t the answer.”

Ms. Frattaroli said red flag laws aren’t about mental health but instead focus on behavior or words that indicate someone might do harm.

“From all that we know about violence, the best predictors of [violence] are past violent behavior and threats of violence,” she said. “Mental health isn’t a good predictor of future violence. It’s a very different sort of set of criteria.”

She suggested that states and localities that use the laws have more consistency and awareness.

“What’s really important is that attention and resources be paid to implementation,” Ms. Frattaroli said. “When we look across the states, there is tremendous variation across states and within states with regard to how frequently they are being used.”

Last week, the House passed the Federal Extreme Risk Protection Order Act, which would allow courts to take guns from people deemed dangerous and bar them from purchasing firearms.

• Alex Swoyer can be reached at aswoyer@washingtontimes.com.

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59394
    • View Profile
WT: What a fustercluck looks like
« Reply #2254 on: June 16, 2022, 02:14:27 AM »
Republicans consider paring down gun control deal

GOP backers have concerns about key provisions

BY HARIS ALIC THE WASHINGTON TIMES

Republicans are getting antsy about Congress’ bipartisan gun deal, with GOP supporters expressing reservations about the package’s key provisions.

Sen. John Cornyn, Texas Republican, said negotiators had encountered obstacles when translating the deal’s framework into legislation.

“I’m starting to get a little concerned, though, that there are a couple of issues that need to be settled before we can reach an agreement,” said Mr. Cornyn, a lead GOP negotiator.

Fault lines have emerged over the proposal’s incentives for states to adopt “red flag” laws and its broadening of restrictions on gun ownership for people accused or convicted of domestic violence.

Republicans say that since some states will choose not to adopt red flag laws, which allow courts to prohibit people deemed threats from buying or possessing guns, the deal should take that into account. They note that states without red flag laws often have crisis intervention and mental health programs that should be eligible to receive funding under the deal.

“I just don’t think anything that funds 19 states for their programs, but ignores other states that have chosen not to have a red flag law but have other ways to address the same problem, is going to fly,” said Mr. Cornyn.

GOP lawmakers are also concerned about the proposed new restrictions on gun ownership by those accused of domestic violence. Federal law already prohibits individuals from owning or purchasing guns if they have been convicted of domestic violence against a spouse or someone they lived with or had a child.

The law does not cover individuals convicted of domestic violence against people with whom they were engaged in romantic relationships.

Republicans say that they support closing the so-called “boyfriend loophole,” but worry about how to properly define non-married relationships under law.

“We have to come up with a good definition of what that actually means,” said Mr. Cornyn. “It’s got to be clear and it’s got to be something that can be actually applied because we’re talking about pretty serious consequences.”

The impasse comes as the Senate races to finalize a gun deal before departing Washington next week for the July 4 recess.

At the moment, more than 20 lawmakers have signed on to support a framework agreement that would boost funding for school security and mental health, subsidize state red flag laws, close the “boyfriend loophole” and include juvenile records in background checks for gun purchases.

While at least 11 Republicans are backing the agreement in principle — an important number since most legislation requires at least 60 votes to pass the evenly split Senate — their support is tenuous.

Negotiators fret that if they cannot properly craft the legislation to keep GOP support on board, then they will have to be forced to cut out provisions or risk tanking the whole deal.

“At some point, if we can’t get to 60 then we’re going to have to pare some of this, some of it down,” said Mr. Cornyn.

Democratic supporters say, however, that there is still time to find a compromise.

“The problems and issues are fixable,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal, Connecticut Democrat. “The timeline is tight, but it is achievable.”

===========================
===========================

Red-flag laws raise red flags

They would not be necessary if existing legislation were fairly enforced

By David Keene

Analysis of the gun control “deal” Senate Republicans and Democrats struck last week will focus on the so-called red-flag laws that have become flavor of the week favorites of politicians and gun control activists.

Red-flag laws sound good in concept. Who would disagree with the wisdom of disarming those in the midst of a psychic break or mentally unhinged as to represent an immediate threat to themselves or others? As always, however, the devil lurks in the details. What about due process? What sort of threat justifies suspending one’s rights even temporarily?

Who gets to determine whether an individual is dangerous enough? Red-flag laws can be easily abused by those who get to decide who represents a real danger. How will this law avoid the fact that laws such as these will almost inevitably cast a wider and more dangerous net than originally intended? What remedies exist to avoid or at least minimize such abuse? What happens when the crisis triggering the “temporary” seizure of one’s firearms has passed?

When such proposals were first gaining popularity, I was asked as an NRA officer if there were any circumstances where the NRA or other pro-Second Amendment organizations could support such a law. A proposal designed narrowly enough to accomplish its goal and incapable of being abused by those administering it might well win approval, but I warned that the concerns above had to be addressed satisfactorily and any such law would have to include real due process protection.

The advocates of these various proposals since have since largely ignored these fundamental questions. During the Obama years, some states including Maryland considered adopting red flag laws that would allow virtually anyone to call police on someone they considered a “danger” and empower the police to confiscate the accused’s guns without anything resembling due process. Nineteen states and the District of Columbia have since enacted red-flag laws, or what they call “Gun Violence Restraining Orders.” Some are better than others, but none are perfect. Too many people under many of these laws can force police action, although most local authorities seem to have acted with restraint thus far.

Laws adopted by individual states from California to Florida to Indiana are enforced at the state and local levels. President Biden and Congressional Democrats want a federal one-size-fits-all law enforceable in the federal courts and executed by federal law enforcement officials. Fortunately, Senate Republicans forced Democrats to abandon this approach or even a nationwide mandate requiring states to pass such laws in favor of financial incentives to “encourage” them to do so. A few more states might, but many of those who don’t have them now aren’t likely to do so.

What’s more, even though 20 senators have signed on to “a framework,” the legislative language on which the Senate will eventually have to vote has yet to be written. A top Senate aide told Politico, “One of these principles could be dropped if text is not agreed to.” Gun owners, Second Amendment supporters and those who represent them must insist that any “text” that is agreed to must answer the questions above in an acceptable way. If not, the text and the framework should be scuttled.

Most states can already temporarily detain or disarm anyone deemed dangerous. As in so many instances, new laws would not be necessary if existing laws already on the books were fairly and uniformly enforced. The same can be said about the “framework” agreement to toughen laws against “straw purchasers” buying firearms for others. This is already illegal and is one of the least enforced of all firearms laws; enhancing it will do little other than allow politicians to say they’ve done “something.”

Democrats also wanted to outlaw anyone under 21 from buying a gun. That is off the table and the compromise “framework” would instead somehow allow background checks to include sealed mental health and juvenile criminal records for younger potential purchasers. This may make some sense as most school shooters fall into this category, and a few may have been prohibited from legally acquiring a gun if this could be done now. Getting the states to agree to allow access to these records, however, is likely to be far more difficult than anyone suspects. Not only do state requirements limiting access to such information vary widely, but the proposal will stir up juvenile rights advocates and mental health advocates along with their elected allies.

Still, the belated recognition by Congress of the importance of enhanced school security and the way in which a flawed mental health system has allowed those who even under existing law shouldn’t have access to firearms is good news. Senate Republicans didn’t do badly in getting Democrats to take some really bad ideas off the table and the substance of what they agreed to in principle isn’t all that bad, but slippery slopes are dangerous places to be and opening the door to far worse restrictions if a package based on the agreement makes it to the floor could prove disastrous.

These Senators have not “sold out” gun owners — yet — but they have put them in real danger. They will be judged by millions of gun-friendly voters on whether what makes it to the Senate floor meets the concerns of gun owners and whether they make it clear that they will oppose any additional restrictions. If they don’t, they will have abandoned their principles to stand before the cameras with their anti-gun colleagues to claim they’ve “done something.”

David Keene is editor-at-large at The Washington Times.
« Last Edit: June 16, 2022, 02:19:21 AM by Crafty_Dog »


ccp

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 14265
    • View Profile
American College of (Partisan) Physicians
« Reply #2256 on: June 17, 2022, 09:45:24 AM »
https://www.acponline.org/advocacy/acp-advocate/archive/june-17-2022/acp-strengthens-advocacy-to-prevent-firearm-violence-amid-recurrence-of-mass-shootings?utm_campaign=FY21-22_NEWS_ACPADVOCATE_061722_EML&utm_medium=email&utm_source=Eloqua

funny . I don't recall them making a stink about all the inner city gang violence .

wonder why that is.

just like I never in 38 yrs heard anything that would be construed as pro LIFE [corrected]
or unborn baby rights.
« Last Edit: June 17, 2022, 03:01:31 PM by ccp »


Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59394
    • View Profile
Mercola: 98%
« Reply #2258 on: June 18, 2022, 12:25:36 PM »


G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22814
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59394
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2261 on: June 23, 2022, 10:05:42 PM »
Was on the road for 12 hours today.  Heard we won on the SCOTUS Second Amendment case.  Anyone have the citation for the case?

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22814
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2262 on: June 23, 2022, 10:09:30 PM »
Was on the road for 12 hours today.  Heard we won on the SCOTUS Second Amendment case.  Anyone have the citation for the case?

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/historic-win-gun-rights-scotus-rules-ny-draconian-restrictions-are-unconstitutional

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59394
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59394
    • View Profile
NRO on Bruen
« Reply #2264 on: June 23, 2022, 11:40:28 PM »
This is shorter than the decision haha

The Supreme Court Strikes a Historic Blow for Second Amendment Rights

Justice Clarence Thomas speaks at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C., October 21, 2021. (Drew Angerer/Getty Images)
Share
631 Comments
Listen to article
By CHARLES C. W. COOKE
June 23, 2022 2:19 PM
In New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen, the Court affirmed that gun rights are due the same protection as all other constitutional rights.
Today’s Supreme Court decision in New York State Rifle and Pistol Association v. Bruen is not only the most important Second Amendment ruling since D.C. v. Heller, it is potentially the most important Second Amendment ruling in American history.

For all the brouhaha, the question at hand in Bruen was rather straightforward: Can the state of New York require that applicants for gun-carry permits “demonstrate a special need for self-protection distinguishable from that of the general community,” or is New York obliged by the Constitution to offer a “shall issue” regime of the sort that 43 of the other 49 states have adopted? By a 6–3 vote, the justices decided that the latter approach is required. In the United States, Clarence Thomas’s majority opinion concluded, “authorities must issue concealed-carry licenses whenever applicants satisfy certain threshold requirements, without granting licensing officials discretion to deny licenses based on a perceived lack of need or suitability.” Moreover, while there is nothing illegal about America’s existing state-level permitting systems, those systems may not be mere smokescreens for outright prohibition, unequal protection, or unacceptable delay. “We do not rule out,” Thomas added in a footnote, any “constitutional challenges to shall-issue regimes where, for example, lengthy wait times in processing license applications or exorbitant fees deny ordinary citizens their right to public carry.”

As Justice Alito was keen to note, this “holding decides nothing about who may lawfully possess a firearm or the requirements that must be met to buy a gun. Nor does it decide anything about the kinds of weapons that people may possess.” It concludes solely that:

The exercise of other constitutional rights does not require individuals to demonstrate to government officers some special need. The Second Amendment right to carry arms in public for self-defense is no different. New York’s proper-cause requirement violates the Fourteenth Amendment by preventing law-abiding citizens with ordinary self-defense needs from exercising their right to keep and bear arms in public.

Bottom line: New York is allowed to exclude carry-permit applications on a categorical basis (e.g., the applicant has a felony conviction), but not on a subjective one (e.g., the applicant doesn’t “need” a gun in the view of the determining officer).

To get there, the majority first determined that “nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms.” Indeed, “to confine the right to ‘bear’ arms to the home,” the majority observed, “would nullify half of the Second Amendment’s operative protections.” This, Thomas explained, would not do, because “the constitutional right to bear arms in public for self-defense is not ‘a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees.’”

Next, the majority examined the relevant history. In its brief, the state of New York offered up three objections to the claim that broad gun-carry rights have a long historical pedigree in the United States: the existence of “common-law offenses” prior to the Second Amendment’s ratification; the existence of “statutory prohibitions” before, during, and after the late 18th century; and the existence of “surety statutes” that required Americans who carried guns in public to post bond before doing so. As in Heller, the majority made short work of all three contentions.

The “common law” in question is primarily the Statute of Northampton, an English law that was passed in the 14th century and adopted by many American colonies in the 17th century. But, as Thomas noted in what is a thorough and much-deserved fisking, even if one believed that the meaning of the Statute of Northampton (1328) could somehow limit the meaning of the Second Amendment (1791), the interpretation presented by the plaintiffs would still be wrong. (And probably deliberately so: During oral arguments, Justice Alito chided one of the state’s lawyers for cutting out some of the Statute’s key words.) By its plain text, the Statute of Northampton prohibited the carrying of arms in order to terrify others or to breach the peace; it did not prohibit the carrying of arms per se. That being so, the Court concluded that there is “no evidence indicating that these common-law limitations impaired the right of the general population to peaceable public carry.”

The same problem pertained to the “surety statutes” that were offered up in New York’s defense. As Thomas noted, such laws did indeed require people who “could not prove a special need for self-defense, to post a bond before publicly carrying a firearm,” but — and this is crucial — only in such cases as those people were deemed “reasonably likely to ‘breach the peace.’” To explain this, Thomas cited William Rawle, who explained at the time of the Constitution’s ratification that the carrying of arms was “sufficient cause to require [the carrier] to give surety of the peace” only when it was “attended with circumstances giving just reason to fear that he purposes to make an unlawful use of them.”

The final area of inquiry was into the various statutory prohibitions and limits on carry that have been in force throughout American history. This area of the law is a little more complex — especially given that, under Thomas’s judicial approach, “historical evidence that long predates or postdates” the passage of the Second Amendment and the 14th Amendment “may not illuminate the scope of the right” — but, on balance, Thomas was correct to note that, historically, “concealed-carry prohibitions” have been “constitutional only if they did not similarly prohibit open carry.” Or to put it another way: Even if one believes that statutes regulating carry are important to ascertaining the original public meaning of the Second Amendment, one has to reckon with the fact that New York prohibits open carry completely, that it refuses to permit concealed carry on an equal basis, and that it is therefore in violation of the plain meaning of the “bear arms” provision within the Second Amendment as incorporated via the 14th.

Summing up his approach, Thomas submitted that “when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation.” In so doing, he clarified many of Heller’s loose ends, and took a great stride toward ensuring that recalcitrant lower-court judges are unable to wiggle out of its terms. “Since Heller and McDonald,” Thomas noted, “the Courts of Appeals have developed a ‘two-step’ framework for analyzing Second Amendment challenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court rejects that two-part approach as having one step too many.” Heller, Thomas confirmed, “did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny.” Message: Going forward, those courts must stop playing games.

This clarification evidently infuriated Justice Breyer, who began his dissent by recording that “in 2020, 45,222 Americans were killed by firearms,” and then insisted that, “when courts interpret the Second Amendment, it is constitutionally proper, indeed often necessary, for them to consider the serious dangers and consequences of gun violence that lead States to regulate firearms.” “In my view,” Breyer wrote, “the question of firearm regulation presents a complex problem—one that should be solved by legislatures rather than courts.” A few paragraphs later, however, he gave the game away. By defending New York’s law on the basis that “there is nothing unusual about broad statutory language that can be given more specific content by judicial interpretation,” he made it clear exactly why Thomas is so committed to the idea that, while “historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced . . . reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to ‘make difficult empirical judgments’ about ‘the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,’ especially given their ‘lack [of] expertise’ in the field.”

“Much of the dissent,” Justice Alito wrote in concurrence, “seems designed to obscure the specific question that the Court has decided.” And, indeed, it does. At various points, Breyer lists mass shootings, shares suicide statistics, and discusses domestic violence, as if the Court were a legislature, as if the Second Amendment didn’t exist, and as if the presence of evil in American life magically negated the law. But it doesn’t, as Thomas was keen to point out. “That,” he wrote, “is not how the First Amendment works when it comes to unpopular speech or the free exercise of religion. It is not how the Sixth Amendment works when it comes to a defendant’s right to confront the witnesses against him. And it is not how the Second Amendment works when it comes to public carry for self-defense,” either.

DougMacG

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 15733
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2265 on: June 24, 2022, 05:17:14 AM »
One point on the so called compromise bill, the Left and Democrats are completely open about the slippery slope tactic.  'We will get all we can get now, in pieces and pieces, and keep coming back until we get all of what we want', which is presumably no guns whatsoever in the hands of law abiding citizens.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22814
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2266 on: June 24, 2022, 06:45:15 AM »
One point on the so called compromise bill, the Left and Democrats are completely open about the slippery slope tactic.  'We will get all we can get now, in pieces and pieces, and keep coming back until we get all of what we want', which is presumably no guns whatsoever in the hands of law abiding citizens.

Hard to put armed people into camps.

G M

  • Power User
  • ***
  • Posts: 22814
    • View Profile

Crafty_Dog

  • Administrator
  • Power User
  • *****
  • Posts: 59394
    • View Profile
Re: We the Well-armed People (gun and knife rights stuff )
« Reply #2268 on: June 24, 2022, 12:56:16 PM »
Pithy.