The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[Sommerswerd]

Well, yes. But the hunting is for management purposes. No tax more efficient than convincing the citizenry to pay for a permit to do work the government is tasked with performing!

It's probably competing entertainment options more than anything, but it's in a sort of weird cultural space, isn't it? Or is my read off?

Well yes, legalized "hard" drugs and/or prostitution while we're at it... would at a minimum... create options.

 

[IglooDame]

Well yes, legalized "hard" drugs and/or prostitution while we're at it... would at a minimum... create options.

Spoken like a real libertarian!!

 

[Farm Boy]

Let's go full Kennedy, combine all those options!

 

[Birdjaguar]

When the GOP took control of Congress and the Presidency in 2017, the first substantive act they passed was to make it easier for those with mental problems to buy guns.

 

[Estebonrober]

When the GOP took control of Congress and the Presidency in 2017, the first substantive act they passed was to make it easier for those with mental problems to buy guns.

USA USA USA!

 

[Farm Boy]

Mental problems.

Of course.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Let's go full Kennedy, combine all those options!

The old hits NSFW:

TL;DR - "Child killers, corpse *******, drug zombies and full blown whack-a-loons... wandering the landscape, in search of truth and fun... just like now!... everyone will have guns, everyone will have drugs, and no one will be in charge... just like now!... but at least we'll have a balanced budget."

-George Carlin, 1996

 

[Farm Boy]

Heheh. My sister walked out of one of his shows once around 96. I think I actually dislike him. Did make a good Mr. Conductor, tho!

 

[Sommerswerd]

He's dead... so... past tense. But he did narrate the trains pretty well, strangely enough.

 

[EgonSpengler]

So the U.S. Supreme Court went ahead and struck down New York's 1913 law prohibiting the carrying of a concealed handgun without a license. The law required the license applicant to show good cause why they needed to carry a concealed handgun. The two claimants whose applications were rejected cited a (too-)broad need for "self defense." I presume the state legislatures can draft new laws requiring a license for concealed carry, without the requirement to show a need for the gun, but I'm not 100% sure that's true. I haven't read the SCOTUS decision, so I don't know if it's specifically about that requirement to show a need for a gun. The NY law also required the applicant to be "of good moral character", whatever the heck that means. I think several other states, including the one where I live, have similar laws that I suppose are now also unconstitutional.

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

So the U.S. Supreme Court went ahead and struck down New York's 1913 law prohibiting the carrying of a concealed handgun without a license. The law required the license applicant to show good cause why they needed to carry a concealed handgun. The two claimants whose applications were rejected cited a (too-)broad need for "self defense." I presume the state legislatures can draft new laws requiring a license for concealed carry, without the requirement to show a need for the gun, but I'm not 100% sure that's true. I haven't read the SCOTUS decision, so I don't know if it's specifically about that requirement to show a need for a gun. The NY law also required the applicant to be "of good moral character", whatever the heck that means. I think several other states, including the one where I live, have similar laws that I suppose are now also unconstitutional.

The ruling says “empiricism/data” cannot be used as the only basis for any gun restrictions going forward, but that they instead have to be “rooted in the historical record” which is an incredibly difficult standard to achieve, especially given the current makeup of the courts. And that everyone has a constitutional right to concealed carry essentially anywhere outside the home. An incredible amount of gun control was just rendered illegal.

Edit: It’s the largest expansion of gun access in a long time, and throws the current bipartisan reform bill into question. Not only that, but it absolutely and very clearly lays the future groundwork for rendering every single example of gun restrictions unconstitutional. It absolutely blew past the example at hand.

 

[MaryKB]

I like this quote I read about how buying a gun should face the same restrictions as getting an abortion:

"I want any young men who buy a gun to be treated like young women who seek an abortion. Think about it: a mandatory 48-hours waiting period, written permission from a parent or a judge, a note from a doctor proving that he understands what he is about to do, time spent watching a video on individual and mass murders, traveling hundreds of miles at his own expense to the nearest gun shop, and walking through protestors holding photos of loved ones killed by guns, protestor who call him a murderer. After all, it makes more sense to do this for young men seeking guns than for young women seeking an abortion. No young woman needing reproductive freedom has ever murdered a roomful of strangers."

 

[GoodEnoughForMe]

Well the awesome news on that is that one week after SCOTUS basically said states can’t restrict gun access, SCOTUS is also going to say that states can absolutely restrict abortion rights. Really glad for all the liberals who wrote fawning portrayals of Gorsuch and Kavanaugh and Barrett right now. Hope they’re happy!

 

[EgonSpengler]

I like this quote I read about how buying a gun should face the same restrictions as getting an abortion:

"I want any young men who buy a gun to be treated like young women who seek an abortion. Think about it: a mandatory 48-hours waiting period, written permission from a parent or a judge, a note from a doctor proving that he understands what he is about to do, time spent watching a video on individual and mass murders, traveling hundreds of miles at his own expense to the nearest gun shop, and walking through protestors holding photos of loved ones killed by guns, protestor who call him a murderer. After all, it makes more sense to do this for young men seeking guns than for young women seeking an abortion. No young woman needing reproductive freedom has ever murdered a roomful of strangers."

Hard disagree. I don't think a woman seeking an abortion should have to do any of those things, besides consulting a doctor.

 

[MaryKB]

Hard disagree. I don't think a woman seeking an abortion should have to do any of those things, besides consulting a doctor.

Of course not, but generally the people who are in favor of unrestricted access to weapons feel that women should have no access to reproductive freedom.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I presume the state legislatures can draft new laws[...].

A reporter on the radio just noted that the New York legislature has already called a special session in response to the SCOTUS ruling.

 

[El_Machinae]

Did they just strike down that you need to provide a reason? They can still have minimum competence qualifications, right?

 

[IglooDame]

Did they just strike down that you need to provide a reason? They can still have minimum competence qualifications, right?

That's my understanding of it. "May Issue" is dead, presumably kicking those nine (yellow on the map gif) states over to "Shall Issue". Competence qualifications are still valid.

 

[Spidernova]

I'm not the biggest fan of may issue anyway. If it's easier for someone like Donald Trump to "prove need" for a concealed weapon than a taxi driver or delivery person, something has gone very wrong. Or right, depending on perspective I guess.

Did they just strike down that you need to provide a reason? They can still have minimum competence qualifications, right?

Yes. Past those qualifications, the burden falls on the state to prove that the individual is unqualified. There are still plenty of hoops, fees, and obstructions that the state can throw up. NY probably can still keep the 450$ fee to apply, but its going to be a lot harder to deny people and still take their money.

 

[IglooDame]

I'm not the biggest fan of may issue anyway. If it's easier for someone like Donald Trump to "prove need" for a concealed weapon than a taxi driver or delivery person, something has gone very wrong. Or right, depending on perspective I guess.

Yes. Past those qualifications, the burden falls on the state to prove that the individual is unqualified. There are still plenty of hoops, fees, and obstructions that the state can throw up. NY probably can still keep the 450$ fee to apply, but its going to be a lot harder to deny people and still take their money.

“But the plans were on display…”
“On display? I eventually had to go down to the cellar to find them.”
“That’s the display department.”
“With a flashlight.”
“Ah, well, the lights had probably gone.”
“So had the stairs.”
“But look, you found the notice, didn’t you?”
“Yes,” said Arthur, “yes I did. It was on display in the bottom of a locked filing cabinet stuck in a disused lavatory with a sign on the door saying ‘Beware of the Leopard.”

At one point this was not far off of where one would need to go in NYC to apply for a permit to own a pistol.

And in some areas in some states it recently seems to describe where one goes to vote. *grumble*