The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[TheMeInTeam]

If armed robbers tried to take someone's property out of their house and were capped full of lead for doing so, I would happily acquit that person in trial. The only challenge would be surviving the armed robbers, which might be difficult when the armed robbers have APCs. But anybody who survived that? Free to go.

I feel the same way if someone were to refuse to hand over $6,000 to bandits on the roadside, and the bandits attempted to use force to retrieve it. I don't care what clothing those bandits were wearing or who employed them before they attempted the banditry. I don't blame people for giving in to bandits out of (well-placed) fear for their lives or long-term livelihood, but if ever someone decides to defend himself/herself they don't deserve to be punished for it.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Kyle Rittenhouse's situation was a little different from that... would you agree?

Oh and Merry Christmas @TheMeInTeam ... and all CFC pals BTW...In my traditional holiday toast...

I hope you got got all of what you needed, some of what you wanted, and none of what you deserved.

 

[Birdjaguar]

California lawmakers unveil plan to hold gunmakers liable for shootings

BY HANNAH WILEY
LOS ANGELES TIMES

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to target the gun industry through private lawsuits is coming together in legislation unveiled Tuesday that would allow gun violence survivors and other citizens to sue firearm manufacturers and dealers. In December, the governor called on the Legislature and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to model legislation after a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks and gives private people the ability to sue providers and clinics as a tool to help enforce it. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to block the law, and Newsom responded by pledging to implement the the same legislative prototype in California to go after firearms.

Assembly Bill 1594 would hand the state, local governments, gun violence survivors and victims’ families the power to pursue legal action against “irresponsible, reckless or negligent gun manufacturers, importers and dealers,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco, one of three Democrats pushing the plan.

The proposal predates the Texas bill and replicates a 2021 New York gun control law that targets manufacturers, Ting said, but still “gets at the spirit of what the governor called for.”

“The governor was asking for the ability to sue the gun manufactures, the gun industry, and we believe this achieves that,” Ting said. “This puts the power back in the hands of people.”

The bill would leverage a loophole in federal law that largely shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when their products are involved in a crime, Ting said. He noted that companies and sellers are still liable under state regulations, and AB 1594 aims to hold them accountable to those in California such as required rigorous background checks and a ban on sales to people prohibited from owning firearms.

 

[EgonSpengler]

California lawmakers unveil plan to hold gunmakers liable for shootings

BY HANNAH WILEY
LOS ANGELES TIMES

SACRAMENTO, Calif. — Gov. Gavin Newsom’s plan to target the gun industry through private lawsuits is coming together in legislation unveiled Tuesday that would allow gun violence survivors and other citizens to sue firearm manufacturers and dealers. In December, the governor called on the Legislature and Atty. Gen. Rob Bonta to model legislation after a Texas law that bans most abortions after six weeks and gives private people the ability to sue providers and clinics as a tool to help enforce it. The U.S. Supreme Court declined to block the law, and Newsom responded by pledging to implement the the same legislative prototype in California to go after firearms.

Assembly Bill 1594 would hand the state, local governments, gun violence survivors and victims’ families the power to pursue legal action against “irresponsible, reckless or negligent gun manufacturers, importers and dealers,” said Assemblyman Phil Ting of San Francisco, one of three Democrats pushing the plan.

The proposal predates the Texas bill and replicates a 2021 New York gun control law that targets manufacturers, Ting said, but still “gets at the spirit of what the governor called for.”

“The governor was asking for the ability to sue the gun manufactures, the gun industry, and we believe this achieves that,” Ting said. “This puts the power back in the hands of people.”

The bill would leverage a loophole in federal law that largely shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when their products are involved in a crime, Ting said. He noted that companies and sellers are still liable under state regulations, and AB 1594 aims to hold them accountable to those in California such as required rigorous background checks and a ban on sales to people prohibited from owning firearms.

I'm on the fence about whether I think the Left should just stop [screwing] around and drop the gloves, and use some of the same tactics the Right uses. I also don't know what the implications or consequences might be of using civil suits to deal with social issues like this, and I think there are times when holding businesses accountable for when customers misuse their product would make me itchy. Nevertheless, industries like the tobacco companies, opioids manufacturers and gun manufacturers clearly know what they're doing, are getting unbelievably wealthy on people's suffering, and don't even lose any sleep over it. And in the case of tobacco and guns, people die when their products are used correctly. So with the obvious caveat that I reserve my right to change my mind later, I think this at least sounds like a good idea.

 

[Birdjaguar]

The only thing left out now is how to hold gun owners responsible for misuse of their weapons by others: suing owners who allow their guns to be used by less responsible people to do harm.

 

[EgonSpengler]

The only thing left out now is how to hold gun owners responsible for misuse of their weapons by others: suing owners who allow their guns to be used by less responsible people to do harm.

The parents of that kid in Michigan were arrested, on criminal charges, I think. I'm not sure what the charge was, or what the potential penalty is if they're convicted.

 

[Farm Boy]

That's not a change though. We already do that. We have been doing that. There's just a subset that is dumb enough, or intellectually bankrupt enough, to try and claim a properly manufactured weapon would not be a weapon.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The bill would leverage a loophole in federal law that largely shields gun manufacturers and dealers from liability when their products are involved in a crime

Requiring a direct intentional/causal link is not a "loophole".

If a truck of peace mows down 10 people, why should the dealer or manufacturer be responsible for it? If you don't think they should be, there's no basis for affixing this law on guns, either. Unconstitutional on its face.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Requiring a direct intentional/causal link is not a "loophole".

If a truck of peace mows down 10 people, why should the dealer or manufacturer be responsible for it? If you don't think they should be, there's no basis for affixing this law on guns, either. Unconstitutional on its face.

Trucks are not guns. The laws around them will be different. If I own guns and do not secure them properly so only I have access to them, then if my child or another takes those guns and does harm with them, I should be help to some level of culpability.

SCOTUS seems to think that the TX abortion law is just fine even though abortion is a legal right in the US. The CA gun law will provide an opportunity to see whether or not such legal work arounds will become common ways to get around many other laws. just think of such laws as a quick, risk free, way to get money from those with whom you disagree politically. What fun. Thank you TX!

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Trucks are not guns. The laws around them will be different. If I own guns and do not secure them properly so only I have access to them, then if my child or another takes those guns and does harm with them, I should be help to some level of culpability.

People can take trucks and do harm with them too, so logic dictates a similar degree of culpability to owners and manufacturers.

SCOTUS seems to think that the TX abortion law is just fine even though abortion is a legal right in the US.

Where does the US constitution/federal law create a "right to abortion"? That's never been a thing. Though I agree that TX abortion law is bad law, in that it similarly attributes false cause in some of its applications. It creates bad precedent while dancing around defining the issue/important standard, the usual "where you draw the line for when does a person becomes a person".

Killing someone is already illegal. Killing not someone (usually) isn't, or is less penalized depending on what is killed. That's where TX should be defining its terms, not doing bs false causal attributions. It's bad there and it's bad in California because it's bad reasoning. Even if SCOTUS decides to bend over for that bad reasoning, it's not the first or last time SCOTUS does such a thing.

 

[Birdjaguar]

People can take trucks and do harm with them too, so logic dictates a similar degree of culpability to owners and manufacturers.

Where does the US constitution/federal law create a "right to abortion"? That's never been a thing. Though I agree that TX abortion law is bad law, in that it similarly attributes false cause in some of its applications. It creates bad precedent while dancing around defining the issue/important standard, the usual "where you draw the line for when does a person becomes a person".

Killing someone is already illegal. Killing not someone (usually) isn't, or is less penalized depending on what is killed. That's where TX should be defining its terms, not doing bs false causal attributions. It's bad there and it's bad in California because it's bad reasoning. Even if SCOTUS decides to bend over for that bad reasoning, it's not the first or last time SCOTUS does such a thing.

Trucks, hammers, rocks, chairs, and many other implements are not guns. The same rules do not apply. Guns have one single use: shoot things and when aimed at living things, kill them. Trucks have registration and licensing requirements. Do you think those should apply to guns too?

SCOTUS adjudicates federal law and decides if things are constitutional. In 1974 Abortion became a citizens right in the US under the constitution. The clean water requirements for cities and towns are not in the constitution, but they are the law and constitutional. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not i the constitution, etc. Most laws are not in the constitution; it just says that Congress can make laws as necessary. The Bill of Rights was an addition to the constitution and clarifies things not written into the original document.

The issue of personhood is not defined anywhere. We all get to chose what that means at a personal level. In law, atm, post birth babies and corporations are people in the US. Chimps and dogs are next in line I think. BTW, neither the Bible nor the Koran nor the Gita are legal texts in the US.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Trucks, hammers, rocks, chairs, and many other implements are not guns. The same rules do not apply.

Spacecraft aren't guns either. None of this mental gymnastics adequately explains why causal relations need to disappear in one case only.

Trucks have registration and licensing requirements. Do you think those should apply to guns too?

Guns also require hoops to acquire legally.

In 1974 Abortion became a citizens right in the US under the constitution.

That's not even kind of true. It's grossly disjointed from how our legislature works. It also misrepresents exactly what ruling/basis was made in 1974.

The clean water requirements for cities and towns are not in the constitution, but they are the law

Yes, because for these things, laws were passed. Not fabricated by the judicial branch, but formally codified and passed.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is not i the constitution

Again, with an important property inconsistent with what abortions have. When did congress pass a right to abortions? If that existed, why is congress fighting over creating law related to it recently?

In case you don't recall, Roe v Wade was settled on a "right to privacy", which made it awkward even at the moment of decision. The crucial question then and now is the same: when does a human become human? If you are killing a human, you don't have a "right to privacy" which provides for legally killing that human. If you aren't killing a human, then there is some basis for privacy in medicine, but it doesn't really matter to the legality of performing the procedure in the first place.

Even if you are pro-choice (as I am for most contexts), Roe v Wade was and remains bad case history because it was decided on non-sequitur rationale. This is not a question of "privacy", it's a question of personhood. A question the court declined to answer, reasonably so because it doesn't know and passing laws isn't its job.

Most laws are not in the constitution; it just says that Congress can make laws as necessary.

Which for abortion, they did not. SCOTUS struck down one application of abortion law, but that is not the same thing as creating law. The judicial branch does not create law.

The issue of personhood is not defined anywhere. We all get to chose what that means at a personal level.

No. People can define personhood whenever they want, but whether we formally define it or not, the state has and uses a definition. Pills man on the street doesn't get to decide you're not a person and legally spray you with an MP5. That is murder, because it would kill a person. Not just according to you or me, but also according to the state.

If we want law to be fair, we must define personhood for laws where personhood matters, period.

BTW, neither the Bible nor the Koran nor the Gita are legal texts in the US.

Correct. The law needs to pick something, but I don't see a reason it should use religious books any more than it should use a twitch streamer's opinion.

 

[Birdjaguar]

When the SCOTUS upholds a law or overturns a law, the decision becomes constitutionally protected. SCOTUS doesn't make up laws. They respond to cases about existing laws. A TX law said abortion was illegal in TX and the court said no, Guided by the 14th amendment, they said it was a woman's right in every state. States have been testing the decision to narrow that right with new cases ever since. The CA gun law is just a test case to try and narrow the Courts decision about allowing laws structured that way to circumvent the constitution.

Roe v. Wade

was a landmark legal decision issued on January 22, 1973, in which the U.S. Supreme Court struck down a Texas statute banning abortion, effectively legalizing the procedure across the United States. The court held that a woman’s right to an abortion was implicit in the right to privacy protected by the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. Prior to Roe v. Wade, abortion had been illegal throughout much of the country since the late 19th century.

If I make my guns freely available to my son and he kills someone, I am responsible. Owners need to lock their guns where others cannot get them. Pretty simple really. It's negligence and that is the basis for other crimes too. Should be a felony with jail time.

 

[EgonSpengler]

I did some Googling.

The text of the bill:

Existing law defines a public nuisance and provides that a public nuisance may be remedied by an indictment or information, a civil action, or abatement. Existing law also regulates the manufacture, sale, and marketing of firearms.
This bill would specify that a gun industry member has created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.

PART 2.5. Civil Suits Relating to Firearms
3450. A gun industry member shall have created or maintained a public nuisance, as defined in Section 3480, if their failure to follow federal, state, or local law caused injury or death or if the gun industry member engaged in unfair business practices.

And the existing Section 3480 of the California civil code:

Section Thirty-four Hundred and Eighty. A public nuisance is one which affects at the same time an entire community or neighborhood, or any considerable number of persons, although the extent of the annoyance or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal.

So if I understand this correctly, this enables enforcement of existing laws by way of lawsuits, it doesn't by itself change the laws regarding the manufacture or distribution of guns. It does seem to open the conversation on whether guns are a 'public nuisance', but I think that's a conversation that probably needs to be had, anyway.

 

[bernie14]

......The issue of personhood is not defined anywhere.

True, if personhood is equated to human (regarding legal rights), your next statement is nonsensical

We all get to chose what that means at a personal level.

In law, atm, post birth babies and corporations are people in the US. Chimps and dogs are next in line I think. BTW, neither the Bible nor the Koran nor the Gita are legal texts in the US.

Now, you know this is not true

 

[TheMeInTeam]

When the SCOTUS upholds a law or overturns a law, the decision becomes constitutionally protected.

It makes a law unenforceable. It does not create a right to said thing. That's what laws are for.

Guided by the 14th amendment, they said it was a woman's right in every state.

Which was bad case law. Tethering a question of abortion to "privacy" when the critical issue is personhood was dishonest. Again, privacy is not relevant to murder/killing, and absent murder/killing there was no case. It's one or the other. SCOTUS chose to hide from that issue and instead use non-sequitur/chewbacca rationale to issue a ruling. Complete nonsense.

If I make my guns freely available to my son and he kills someone, I am responsible.

If your son is a minor, then yes. Otherwise, only somewhat (whatever licensing/transfer provisions you violated).

It's negligence and that is the basis for other crimes too. Should be a felony with jail time.

Sorry, but no. People are responsible for their own actions. It's not that hard. Using property in a crime is the responsibility of the perpetrator first and foremost. Unless you're acting in conspiracy to commit that crime, it is completely ludicrous to assign a felony to someone for how someone else uses their property. Screw that, zero respect for that position.

It does seem to open the conversation on whether guns are a 'public nuisance', but I think that's a conversation that probably needs to be had, anyway.

Or, we could simply punish crimes and otherwise not unduly burden property because reasons.

 

[AmazonQueen]

True, if personhood is equated to human (regarding legal rights), your next statement is nonsensical



Now, you know this is not true

Or rather only partially true.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

 

[Birdjaguar]

True, if personhood is equated to human (regarding legal rights), your next statement is nonsensical

Now, you know this is not true

Corporations have enough personhood rights to have a major influence, if not the largest, influence on voting in America. In addition, their personhood can live "forever" without the natural death turnover actual people go through providing demographic refreshment.

The great apes should be on the top of the list for next personhood. The most important additions would cows and pigs to "kill" the usefulness of "personhood" to the meat industry corporations.

In your view what does personhood status confer on a thing?

 

[bernie14]

Corporations have enough personhood rights to have a major influence, if not the largest, influence on voting in America. In addition, their personhood can live "forever" without the natural death turnover actual people go through providing demographic refreshment.

The great apes should be on the top of the list for next personhood. The most important additions would cows and pigs to "kill" the usefulness of "personhood" to the meat industry corporations.

In your view what does personhood status confer on a thing?

Rights

 

[Birdjaguar]

Rights

So a woman has the right to choose whether or not to carry a pregnancy to term? "Rights" is a pretty meaningless answer without elaboration. Is a child conceived in the US a citizen then from the moment of conception? Or are the rights you speak about not the rights of USians?