Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[No State Here]

Random crosspost

“What reason can there be for anyone to own more guns than a small country’s military?”

You don’t need a reason, it’s your right

[Pax Nerdvana]

A Federal Judge denied California's motion to dismiss an ongoing case against the Assault Weapons Ban.

If the Supreme Court seat pans out there's a lot of reason for hope here.

In other news the derp continues.
A BB gun was seen in a Harvey fourth grader's bedroom during virtual class. Now, he's suspended.

This story just makes me mad.

[Grinning Dragon]

In other news the derp continues.
A BB gun was seen in a Harvey fourth grader's bedroom during virtual class. Now, he's suspended.

This story just makes me mad.

Yeah. It wasn't as if the kid was waving it around. I'm just at a loss of words at how much bullshit the suspension is. I hope the parents are able to file a lawsuit.

Barrett: Nonviolent Offenders Should Not Lose Their Second Amendment Rights

The categorical ban on gun possession by people with felony records is therefore “wildly overinclusive,” Barrett noted, quoting UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “It includes everything from Kanter’s offense, mail fraud, to selling pigs without a license in Massachusetts, redeeming large quantities of out-of-state bottle deposits in Michigan, and countless other state and federal offenses,” she wrote.

The ban is also underinclusive, she added, since people may reasonably be deemed dangerous even when they have not been convicted of a felony—for example, when they commit certain violent misdemeanors (another disqualification under federal law).

Given the poor fit between the ban’s scope and its ostensible purpose, Barrett said, it is not “substantially related to an important government interest”—the test under the “intermediate scrutiny” that the majority said it was applying in this case. “Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe,” she wrote.

“Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment.”

I agree with this line of thinking as another poster said:

Anyone who is safe and stable enough to be out of prison and in normal society should have all of their rights restored. If they can’t be trusted with weapons then they should still be locked up.

- The Crimson Pirate

[Novus America]

This story just makes me mad.

Yeah. It wasn't as if the kid was waving it around. I'm just at a loss of words at how much bullshit the suspension is. I hope the parents are able to file a lawsuit.

Barrett: Nonviolent Offenders Should Not Lose Their Second Amendment Rights

The categorical ban on gun possession by people with felony records is therefore “wildly overinclusive,” Barrett noted, quoting UCLA law professor Adam Winkler. “It includes everything from Kanter’s offense, mail fraud, to selling pigs without a license in Massachusetts, redeeming large quantities of out-of-state bottle deposits in Michigan, and countless other state and federal offenses,” she wrote.

The ban is also underinclusive, she added, since people may reasonably be deemed dangerous even when they have not been convicted of a felony—for example, when they commit certain violent misdemeanors (another disqualification under federal law).

Given the poor fit between the ban’s scope and its ostensible purpose, Barrett said, it is not “substantially related to an important government interest”—the test under the “intermediate scrutiny” that the majority said it was applying in this case. “Neither Wisconsin nor the United States has introduced data sufficient to show that disarming all nonviolent felons substantially advances its interest in keeping the public safe,” she wrote.

“Nor have they otherwise demonstrated that Kanter himself shows a proclivity for violence. Absent evidence that he either belongs to a dangerous category or bears individual markers of risk, permanently disqualifying Kanter from possessing a gun violates the Second Amendment.”

I agree with this line of thinking as another poster said:

Anyone who is safe and stable enough to be out of prison and in normal society should have all of their rights restored. If they can’t be trusted with weapons then they should still be locked up.

- The Crimson Pirate

That is a good point, although parole should be taken into account, as during parole you are under heavier observation and not fully in normal society. But I do agree, if you are fully out, not on parole, then you should be able to apply to have your rights restored.

What we really need is much harsher sentences for violent crimes. Letting them out, with no gun rights (when most crimes are committed with illegal guns) really does not fix much.

[Grinning Dragon]

Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.

Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.

Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns

[Telconi]

Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.

Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.

Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns

"Mandatory buyback" is an asinine turn of phrase, and gun confiscation is shitty.

[The Chuck]

Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.

Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.

Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns

Bullshit. Fuck him and his buy back idiocy. Arm everyone and let freedom ping.

[Novus America]

Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.

Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns

Bullshit. Fuck him and his buy back idiocy. Arm everyone and let freedom ping.

Although he at least showed his true colors. This completely undermines the “we will not take your guns” argument gun seizure advocates try to to claim. Him and Beto show it really is about seizing our guns by force.

[The Chuck]

Bullshit. Fuck him and his buy back idiocy. Arm everyone and let freedom ping.

Although he at least showed his true colors. This completely undermines the “we will not take your guns” argument gun seizure advocates try to to claim. Him and Beto show it really is about seizing our guns by force.

Call me a nut job but I'll be strumming a guitar and loading an AR if that day ever comes.

[West Leas Oros 2]

Although he at least showed his true colors. This completely undermines the “we will not take your guns” argument gun seizure advocates try to to claim. Him and Beto show it really is about seizing our guns by force.

Call me a nut job but I'll be strumming a guitar and loading an AR if that day ever comes.

*loads Kalashnikov*
What part of “under no pretext” don’t they understand?

[The Chuck]

Call me a nut job but I'll be strumming a guitar and loading an AR if that day ever comes.

*loads Kalashnikov*
What part of “under no pretext” don’t they understand?

More like, what part of "Shall Not Be Infringed" do they not understand?

The 2nd Amendment applies to Commies and Capitalists. Liberals and conservatives. Heterosexuals, Homosexuals, etc. It does not discriminate with who has the right to bear arms.

[The Two Jerseys]

Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.

Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.

Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns

I think we have too many politicians, we need mandatory resignations.

[Dresderstan]

Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.

Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.

Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns

How about instead of forcing people to take away citizens guns he tries to do it himself and see what happens?

[Gig em Aggies]

Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.

Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns

How about instead of forcing people to take away citizens guns he tries to do it himself and see what happens?

You know all this talk of mandatory gun buyback has reminded me of this https://youtu.be/WCXKdtj6mXM?t=669

[Pax Nerdvana]

Calling it mandatory buy back doesn't change the fact that it's an unconstitutional confiscation.

Illinois Representative Sean Casten feels deeply that “we have too many guns.” His innovative solution to this pressing problem: a buyback. But not just any ol’ buyback.

Illinois Rep. Sean Casten: We Need an Australia-Style Mandatory ‘Buyback’ Because America Has Too Many Guns

If he wants 'em so bad, why doesn't he come and take them himself? Something like that would turn very violent very quickly.
For your progun playlist:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYSLNsb2brI

[Grinning Dragon]

It appears that ny state the largest healthcare provider is sticking their nose further under the tent where it doesn't belong.
A New York Hospital System is Building a Gun Owner Registry One Patient At a Time
In the below is an example. I myself have only encountered this once and that was in iowa. I left the section blank as those questions have ZERO bearing on why I was seeking medical care. Lying is also acceptable or checking both yes and no boxes.
Hmm, seems hot linking of images isn't allowed. I'll type it out.

Do you wear seatbelts in the car? __No __Yes
Do you have smoke detectors at home? __No __Yes
Do you have carbon monoxide detectors? __No __Yes
Do you have firearms at home? __No __Yes If yes, is it locked up? __No __Yes

[The Chuck]

It appears that ny state the largest healthcare provider is sticking their nose further under the tent where it doesn't belong.
A New York Hospital System is Building a Gun Owner Registry One Patient At a Time
In the image below is an example. I myself have only encountered this once and that was in iowa. I left the section blank as those questions have ZERO bearing on why I was seeking medical care. Lying is also acceptable or checking both yes and no boxes.

(Image)

What a crock of bullshit.

[The Two Jerseys]

It appears that ny state the largest healthcare provider is sticking their nose further under the tent where it doesn't belong.
A New York Hospital System is Building a Gun Owner Registry One Patient At a Time
In the image below is an example. I myself have only encountered this once and that was in iowa. I left the section blank as those questions have ZERO bearing on why I was seeking medical care. Lying is also acceptable or checking both yes and no boxes.

(Image)

Shit like this is why I always lie on medical questionnaires.

[Telconi]

It appears that ny state the largest healthcare provider is sticking their nose further under the tent where it doesn't belong.
A New York Hospital System is Building a Gun Owner Registry One Patient At a Time
In the image below is an example. I myself have only encountered this once and that was in iowa. I left the section blank as those questions have ZERO bearing on why I was seeking medical care. Lying is also acceptable or checking both yes and no boxes.

(Image)

Shit like this is why I always lie on medical questionnaires.

Image ain't working, but yes. Always and forever deny gun ownership on any sort of nonsense form. They asked if I had guns at the dambed Medicaid office when I lost my job.

[The Two Jerseys]

Shit like this is why I always lie on medical questionnaires.

Image ain't working, but yes. Always and forever deny gun ownership on any sort of nonsense form. They asked if I had guns at the dambed Medicaid office when I lost my job.

Back when I actually went for annual physicals they'd ask shit like "do you hang out with your friends regularly". Of course I'd always say yes, I can spot a trap when I see one.

[Telconi]

Image ain't working, but yes. Always and forever deny gun ownership on any sort of nonsense form. They asked if I had guns at the dambed Medicaid office when I lost my job.

Back when I actually went for annual physicals they'd ask shit like "do you hang out with your friends regularly". Of course I'd always say yes, I can spot a trap when I see one.

I just told my doctor to skip the mental health stuff. We had to get a physical every six months when I was working, but the company only cared that you were able to do your job.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Rupp v Becerra (dealing with the CA assault weapons ban) is moving forward and getting viewed by three judges, two of whom are Trump appointees. With Barrett getting on the bench next month this is looking better and better.

[Grinning Dragon]

Rupp v Becerra (dealing with the CA assault weapons ban) is moving forward and getting viewed by three judges, two of whom are Trump appointees. With Barrett getting on the bench next month this is looking better and better.

It is my fervent wish that all awb are struck down, then on to striking down hughes and the nfa.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Rupp v Becerra (dealing with the CA assault weapons ban) is moving forward and getting viewed by three judges, two of whom are Trump appointees. With Barrett getting on the bench next month this is looking better and better.

It is my fervent wish that all awb are struck down, then on to striking down hughes and the nfa.

NFA will never be struck down in court. It's before all else a matter of taxation and everyone sans Thomas would uphold it on that because that new precedent would go against everything SCOTUS has done since the 30's.

Hughes, however, is very plausible. Miller says the 2A explicitly protects the right to own military weaponry, Heller says the 2A protects individual ownership of weapons, McDonald says this right also applies to the state, Caetano says the 2A applies to all bearable arms no matter how modern they are. A simple reading and upholding of this leads Hughes to be unconstitutional on all counts.

[Novus America]

It is my fervent wish that all awb are struck down, then on to striking down hughes and the nfa.

NFA will never be struck down in court. It's before all else a matter of taxation and everyone sans Thomas would uphold it on that because that new precedent would go against everything SCOTUS has done since the 30's.

Hughes, however, is very plausible. Miller says the 2A explicitly protects the right to own military weaponry, Heller says the 2A protects individual ownership of weapons, McDonald says this right also applies to the state, Caetano says the 2A applies to all bearable arms no matter how modern they are. A simple reading and upholding of this leads Hughes to be unconstitutional on all counts.

Also the NFA is not a ban, you can still buy said weapons, just with extra cost, and a lot of paperwork. There is no way the courts will ban all gun regulations.
They have always ruled some regulations are permissible, although thankfully many are striking bans on ownership of certain guns and “may issue” laws.

I think it will be “you can regulate but cannot ban”. That seems to be the general theme of these cases.
So the NFA, especially the tax will probably remain, as well as most state concealed carry licenses (the conservative judges go for shall issue over constitutional carry).

But hopefully “may issue” and AWBs will be a thing of the past.

Hughes seems to straddle the line, as technically a regulation over an outright ban, but a regulation that makes it absurdly hard to get certain guns such that it is an almost ban for most people.

So I agree, even if Hughes is struck down, the NFA regulations will probably remain.
But that is not so bad, the NFA rules, annoying as the are, are not insurmountable, and inflation means $200 is not as unaffordable.