The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[amadeus]

Okay, and what would prevent Newsom from writing the same bill re: handguns? If the dire warning is a bill meant to not pass constitutional muster, take some action that would actually address the issue and not pussyfoot around. Newsom’s not playing hardball, he’s bunting a wiffle ball with a Nerf bat.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Aside from the constitutionality issue, are “assault” weapons and ghost guns (not really sure what that is) the biggest source of gun crime? I mean, from everything I see the biggest threat to public safety is handguns in the hands of young men.

"Ghost guns" are a blanket term for guns that can't be traced, because they are not made by proper gun manufacturers and therefore don't have the required serial numbers. But there are numerous different types/subcategories, just a few of which are 1) guns that are made from stolen/duplicated molds in black market "factories", which are sometimes little more than old school blacksmith shops in the middle of the jungle, or some abandoned building 2) guns that are made on 3D printers out of plastic, using independently created mold programs, then assembled by the users, 3) guns made using "kits" whereby people purchase gun-parts from private sellers who don't sell fully made guns, just some of the parts needed to make them to avoid be regulated as a gun manufacturer/seller.

I used to think that these types of guns had to be a minute fraction of the actual illegal gun market and so not really worth worrying about, but I have since come to understand that these guns actually do comprise a significant enough portion of the guns today to be too large a share to be ignored or dismissed out of hand.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Okay, and what would prevent Newsom from writing the same bill re: handguns? If the dire warning is a bill meant to not pass constitutional muster, take some action that would actually address the issue and not pussyfoot around. Newsom’s not playing hardball, he’s bunting a wiffle ball with a Nerf bat.

IIRC the constitution says "bear arms" without any further distinction. If a state defines that as only meaning long guns, then it could sanction citizens to report those with unregisteredor registered handguns and collect bounties for each gun. Informing on someone would trigger an investigation and search warrants and heaps of legal bills tp be reimbursed for as soon as the person is shown to have a gun.

The TX abortion law choose any/all abortions after a heart beat. CA could choose: ghost guns; handguns, unregistered handguns, long guns, assault rifles, shot guns, etc. choosing a subset of "guns" would not violate the constitution since the other guns could be owned.

 

[João III]

IIRC the constitution says "bear arms" without any further distinction. If a state defines that as only meaning long guns, then it could sanction citizens to report those with unregisteredor registered handguns and collect bounties for each gun. Informing on someone would trigger an investigation and search warrants and heaps of legal bills tp be reimbursed for as soon as the person is shown to have a gun.

The TX abortion law choose any/all abortions after a heart beat. CA could choose: ghost guns; handguns, unregistered handguns, long guns, assault rifles, shot guns, etc. choosing a subset of "guns" would not violate the constitution since the other guns could be owned.

I actually see that wording as making Newsom's proposal more difficult. From what I know, the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" clause has been more explicitly interpreted by the Supreme Court, whereas abortion is something of an implicit right. Just my thoughts on how these may be different

 

[Birdjaguar]

I actually see that wording as making Newsom's proposal more difficult. From what I know, the "right to bear arms shall not be infringed" clause has been more explicitly interpreted by the Supreme Court, whereas abortion is something of an implicit right. Just my thoughts on how these may be different

But if you write a state law that redefines "bear arms" and that law cannot be challenged effectively, then SCOTUS is out of luck. The power of the TX law is that it makes challenging it exceeding difficult. If it can't be overturned in court, it is thereby in place.

 

[João III]

But if you write a state law that redefines "bear arms" and that law cannot be challenged effectively, then SCOTUS is out of luck. The power of the TX law is that it makes challenging it exceeding difficult. If it can't be overturned in court, it is thereby in place.

I do understand that difficulty with the TX law is how it's essentially enforced by citizens as opposed to the state. However, I could see a state's attempt to redefine the 2nd Amendment being challenged as opposed to bounty aspect of the law. I do not know if the TX has been challenged in a similar fashion. I feel like a lot of it would have to depend on precisely how the gun law would be written. Presumably Newsom has some lawyers/consultants working overtime to make something airtight

Edit: Also I believe the TX law targets abortion clinics as opposed to individual people. So I don't know how that may differ if there's a gun law targeting individual gun owners vs. gun sellers.

 

[Birdjaguar]

I do understand that difficulty with the TX law is how it's essentially enforced by citizens as opposed to the state. However, I could see a state's attempt to redefine the 2nd Amendment being challenged as opposed to bounty aspect of the law. I do not know if the TX has been challenged in a similar fashion. I feel like a lot of it would have to depend on precisely how the gun law would be written. Presumably Newsom has some lawyers/consultants working overtime to make something airtight

Edit: Also I believe the TX law targets abortion clinics as opposed to individual people. So I don't know how that may differ if there's a gun law targeting individual gun owners vs. gun sellers.

Yes the TX law does target any and everyone who aids and abets a women whot get an abortion after a heartbeat can be heard. I would think that a CA law could do the same: stores, ammo sellers, citizens who sell guns to friends, gun show sellers, etc. I think there are ways to parallel the abortion law. The heartbeat threshold is is arbitrary and was set to make getting an abortion near impossible.

A law might say: handguns are deadly and kill and injure many thousands of people; they encourage crime, they encourage suicide and schools shooting. Therefore.... and go on from to allow citizens to identify people who aid others in possessing them or providing ammo for them to be charged blah blah blah.

 

[Farm Boy]

You'd have better luck hoping for a law fashioned after Texas's abortion law if it specifically targets guns used in self-defense killings instead of ownership in general. That way, instead of breaking off an curtailing an expressly granted constitutional right, they would both instead target an implicitly interpreted right to kill in self-interest.

 

[Samson]

I would have thought the obvious thing to legislate is the commercial transfer of weapons. Allow any entities involved in the chain of custody of a weapon to be sued for any harm that comes from the use of said weapon. It clearly does not infringe on the right to KEEP and BEAR arms, but does impact those who provide them to those who use them illegitimately. The state should provide a way to dispose of weapons you no longer want that absolves you of the responsibility, and provide for unlimited damages if your gun finds its way into the hands of criminals in the US or outside it. This would allow for a well regulated Militia to function (assuming that well run includes responsible sourcing and disposal of weapons), but make it financially non-viable to provide guns to those who are not well regulated.

 

[João III]

A law might say: handguns are deadly and kill and injure many thousands of people; they encourage crime, they encourage suicide and schools shooting. Therefore.... and go on from to allow citizens to identify people who aid others in possessing them or providing ammo for them to be charged blah blah blah.

This may save some discussion:

Newsom said people who sue could win up to $10,000 per violation plus other costs and attorneys fees against "anyone who manufactures, distributes, or sells an assault weapon" in California.

I'm not really sure what qualifies as an "assault weapon". Also not sure I'm convinced this would be particularly effective as aren't most gun crimes committed with handguns? Starting to think this is more about political theatre, at least with Newsom.

On a somewhat related note, I wonder if gun rights groups maybe respond by marketing themselves as "pro-choice"? Maybe they would have better messaging by spinning gun rights as "the right to choose to bear arms"

 

[Farm Boy]

I would have thought the obvious thing to legislate is the commercial transfer of weapons. Allow any entities involved in the chain of custody of a weapon to be sued for any harm that comes from the use of said weapon. It clearly does not infringe on the right to KEEP and BEAR arms, but does impact those who provide them to those who use them illegitimately. The state should provide a way to dispose of weapons you no longer want that absolves you of the responsibility, and provide for unlimited damages if your gun finds its way into the hands of criminals in the US or outside it. This would allow for a well regulated Militia to function (assuming that well run includes responsible sourcing and disposal of weapons), but make it financially non-viable to provide guns to those who are not well regulated.

Yes, but the problem is you are allowed to use something that is specifically, explicitly, intentionally, a weapon. It's supposed to be dangerous and that is exactly why the right to own it is protected. People will want to take others' protected weapons away. Those who use a firearm inappropriately are already liable. Those who transfer a firearm or negligently or knowingly transfer a firearm in such a way that they could have predicted an illegal use of the gun are already liable. You have the system in place you're asking for, but you don't have a blanket ban that works around the explicitly enumerated right, which is what ya'll seem to want. And that is different. You'd have a better shot of going after the currently legitimate uses of lethal force that are killings of self defense if you think the Texas law of punishing long legitimized uses of lethal self-interest is a model we should replicate.

I'm not really sure what qualifies as an "assault weapon"

That's because how it's defined is arbitrary and variable. And you're right, the vast majority of firearm killings are handguns. But long rifles are typically owned by political opponents. That's 100%(maybe as low as ~98-99) of the reasoning.

 

[Samson]

Yes, but the problem is you are allowed to use something that is specifically, explicitly, intentionally, a weapon. It's supposed to be dangerous and that is exactly why the right to own it is protected. People will want to take others' protected weapons away. Those who use a firearm inappropriately are already liable. Those who transfer a firearm or negligently or knowingly transfer a firearm in such a way that they could have predicted an illegal use of the gun are already liable.

Do note it is only the transfer that I am talking about legislating. I do not actually know the rules for making a transfer legal, but it seems clear that it does not stop guns moving from the legal realm to the illegal in a way that is not the case for cars. It would be practically possible to make this change through criminal law, as I guess is the case with cars, but it seems politically impossible. We have seen a practically successful application of civil law to a domain that has been politically impossible with the Texas law, and so people are speculating on using a similar instrument in this case.

There is no mention of taking guns away from people, or stopping legitimate uses, just making them responsible for those they already have and those they create. The Texas law specifically excludes suing the patient, instead focusing on those who facilitate the abortion. I would imagine a similar approach would work even better here, going after those who profited form the creation and supply of these weapons not their use.

You have the system in place you're asking for, but you don't have a blanket ban that works around the explicitly enumerated right, which is what ya'll seem to want. And that is different. You'd have a better shot of going after the currently legitimate uses of lethal force that are killings of self defense if you think the Texas law of punishing long legitimized uses of lethal self-interest is a model we should replicate.

As far as what I want, about the one aspect of this countries governance that I do not complain about is gun law. People who need them can get them, and it is hard enough for everyone else to get them that terrorists tend to use knives or cars. That seems like a success to me.

I would support a more criminal law focus to get the US to someplace a bit more sensible, but that seems politically impossible and has been for decades at least. Therefore a civil law approach is perhaps a way to try.

 

[Farm Boy]

Cars are big, guns are small. Negligent use and storage, negligent sale, is already civilly liable regardless of what we're just talking about.

I don't know what the difference would be, other than to dream up, whole cloth, some liability for manufacturers or previous owners that acted responsibly in accordance with law provided that later events beyond thier control or knowledge, by future and different actors, should be stipulated liable because.

 

[Samson]

Cars are big, guns are small. Negligent use and storage, negligent sale, is already civilly liable regardless of what we're just talking about.

I don't know what the difference would be, other than to dream up, whole cloth, some liability for manufacturers or previous owners that acted responsibly in accordance with law provided that later events beyond thier control or knowledge, by future and different actors, should be stipulated liable because.

I guess that is it. Much like the Texas law dreamt up some liability for helping someone get an abortion, this would dream up a liability for a weapon you supply to someone else. It seems to have a lot more basis, in that if you had not supplied the weapon then that exact harm would not occur, in a way that you cannot from driving someone to an abortion clinic to any harm of a third person in Texas.

I guess the critical difference is the balance of probability. To show negligence beyond reasonable doubt is hard, to show that a weapon was supplied and it caused the harm to a balance of probabilities level is easy(er).

 

[El_Machinae]

If ghost guns are the problem, then shouldn't it be much easier to mirror the Texas law? I guess just the outright danger is vastly higher. But make people capable of suing anybody who creates, distribute, or owns a ghost gun.

Actually, in retrospect, that's a terrible idea. But the legal difficulty to create it would be low.

 

[Farm Boy]

I guess that is it. Much like the Texas law dreamt up some liability for helping someone get an abortion, this would dream up a liability for a weapon you supply to someone else. It seems to have a lot more basis, in that if you had not supplied the weapon then that exact harm would not occur, in a way that you cannot from driving someone to an abortion clinic to any harm of a third person in Texas.

I guess the critical difference is the balance of probability. To show negligence beyond reasonable doubt is hard, to show that a weapon was supplied and it caused the harm to a balance of probabilities level is easy(er).

Knowingly.

That's one of those critical hinge concepts? Does it matter here? And it would be of much lesser import if TX had not also drastically curtailed the timeframe of legal abortion.

 

[Samson]

Knowingly.

That's one of those critical hinge concepts? Does it matter here? And it would be of much lesser import if TX had not also drastically curtailed the timeframe of legal abortion.

If I lived over there I would thin what matters is the chance of me getting shot, so if this worked then that would be what matters here. What makes he Texas law important is that it works, and the supreme court will not intervene to stop it working. As far as this goes, if it stops one person getting a gun that would be used against another person then it will have "worked".

 

[Farm Boy]

If I lived over there I would thin what matters is the chance of me getting shot, so if this worked then that would be what matters here. What makes he Texas law important is that it works, and the supreme court will not intervene to stop it working. As far as this goes, if it stops one person getting a gun that would be used against another person then it will have "worked".

Yes. Which is why we're now back to post #3608. I figure people a lot of a type of person doesn't care about the rationale so long as it pursues at least in theory a desired result. But the court will, and it will be significantly more likely to protect an explicitly enumerated right in near totality as opposed to an implied-right in partiality when faced with this... enforcement conundrum... of dirty pool Texas came up with.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Guns are a menace in the US today and their once useful purpose is far overshadowed by their current newsworthiness and use on our streets and in our schools. Their unnecessary proliferation for both criminal and political reasons is beyond imagining and far beyond the whatever concept the founders would have thought.

While a huge part of the CA move and the others that may follow is "tit for tat, take that GOP", the gun laws in the US need reforming and enforcement.

 

[Farm Boy]

Menace:

1) A show of intention to inflict harm.
2) One that represents a threat.

Guns certainly can and do perform the first when wielded by the second. And then there are the examples of the second that like to hide thier instances of the first. And we do get very angry when our number ones, there, are made explicit along with thier intent.