Repeal the Second Amendment

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/11583034/story.html?__lsa=ac17-42c5

this vigilante law enforcement shit is why I fear gun ownership. this lady's response to being sentenced is gross too.

guns are for self-defense, not vigilante law enforcement!

guns are for shooting people

well, yes, and I guess that's the problem. giving itchy-triggered finger civilians the right to decide when shooting at people is appropriate.

buns are for pooting people.

farts, not guns

Saying "Guns are for self-defense" is like saying "Landmines around my house are for self-defense", in that it requires a very narrow construal of self-defense, & a willingness to regard the unintended harmful consequences of one's choices as unforseeable & unavoidable accidents, rather than predictable probabilities to whose weights should be factored into the process of making decisions about the best way to protect oneself & one's family, community, etc

I'm anti-gun btw. was just pointing out that she was irresponsible in using the gun in that scenario in that she was shooting at criminals that didn't put her in harm's way in an attempt to 'help' somebody that didn't ask for it, in a scenario that was solved without her help days later anyway.

the claim that they didn't know civilians were in the area is kinda hilarious. they tend to be in shopping centers, that's how commerce works.

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/11583034/story.html?__lsa=ac17-42c5

this vigilante law enforcement shit is why I fear gun ownership. this lady's response to being sentenced is gross too.

guns are for self-defense, not vigilante law enforcement!

― Neanderthal, Monday, December 14, 2015 8:54 AM (2 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

this person should go to prison for attempted murder IMO

promising development: http://www.sfgate.com/local/article/Sandy-Hook-suit-against-gunmakers-lives-7248610.php

I kind of hate Newsom but stopped clock etc.

http://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Strict-state-gun-control-measure-close-to-making-7382147.php

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) -- A federal appeals court says people do not have a right to carry concealed weapons in public under the 2nd Amendment.

An 11-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals issued the ruling Thursday.

The panel says law enforcement officials can require applicants for a concealed weapons permit to show they are in immediate danger or otherwise have a good reason for a permit beyond self-defense.

The decision overturned a 2014 ruling by a smaller 9th Circuit panel.

Opinion here as a PDF: http://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/general/2016/06/09/10-56971%206-9%20EB%20opinion%20plus%20webcites.pdf

oh wow

damn straight

what are the ramifications of this (assuming it is upheld on appeal)?

NRA kills everyone

Only appeal is to SCOTUS. We all know how the SCOTUS stands these days, with 8 justices, frequent 4-4 splits and the next president to fill the vacant seat. Odds are mighty good atm that any appeal would not overturn!

Hard to say. The opinion notes that the 2A may or may not protect a general right to carry openly in public but that that wasn't the question before them and that Heller did not go that far.

that was an xp to Mordy.

what are the ramifications of this (assuming it is upheld on appeal)?

― Mordy, Thursday, June 9, 2016 1:23 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

I don't think they're that significant, necessarily, except in the sense of maybe halting or slowing a further progression toward expanded gun rights.

But first of all Supreme Court appeals are not as of right, they have to take cert (i.e. you have to petition them to take the case and they have to decide to hear it). When they don't hear a case, the decision stands as the law within that circuit but doesn't bind other circuits.

If the Supreme Court takes cert and holds that the decision is broadly correct, it looks like that would simply mean that things remain as they are, i.e. states are permitted to have laws restricting or banning concealed carry of firearms. There's only a real change in the state of things if (1) the Supreme Court takes cert AND (2) the Supreme Court reverses and holds that concealed carry bans or restrictions somehow violate the second amendment (or that they do in certain circumstances).

I think that's correct, anyway, I didn't do a careful read of the opinion or survey other recent cases.

Are there circuits that have held that concealed carry restrictions are unconstitutional? There's usually a much greater chance of cert being taken if there is a "circuit split," i.e. a conflict in the interpretation of law between two circuits.

yeah this is good but I'm not sure it's a big deal

xps There are dozens of states that would never dream of limiting concealed carry, or letting cities within that state limit cc either. Still, it is a rare loss for the NRA.

Of course there are, but this decision has no impact on those states. The NRA only "lost" inasmuch as it didn't gain.

I guess it's good inasmuch as *maybe* it will discourage challenges in other circuits. But I doubt it, especially since the 9th is on the liberal end.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2016/06/11/the-voice-singer-christina-grimmie-is-critical-condition-after-gunmans-attack/?utm_term=.cc82559be512

article limits are why people don't bother to read news outside of facebook anymore

Ugh, sorry about that. Heard about this from my daughter. Some finalist from some season of the Voice reportedly shot dead at a fan meet and greet by a dude packing multiple weapons.

not blaming you, just the dying media

hurry up on this imo

Bump

nra terrorists kill another fifty. fuck guns so much.

Or, you know, you could just do what Bernie Sanders doesn't want to do and put the industry out of business

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-gun-control_us_56dcea34e4b0000de405063a

shut the fuck up

eat my ass

But don't let me stop you from trying to accomplish something that will never happen in the alternative to something that could

Stay classy, gun owners of Facebook...

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/13442118_1060458774037036_5720019541464103867_n.jpg?oh=30dd73984cae0c6f686c7c33bfa22b88&oe=57CABD48

that is genuinely fucking sickening

no more sickening than "gun rights" themselves, but yeah.

might be time to institute a reading comprehension test in order to vote. our "conservative" friends can never seem to understand that "well-regulated militia" part of the second amendment, even though it starts the whole thing, no matter what anyone tells them

that's a really dumb idea, and it wouldn't work the way you want it to anyway

you might also google this thing called "jim crow"

This may have been posted previously but I just saw it today and it seems like a pertinent thing: http://www.thenation.com/article/how-the-roberts-court-undermined-sensible-gun-control/

Or, you know, you could just do what Bernie Sanders doesn't want to do and put the industry out of business

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-gun-control_us_56dcea34e4b0000de405063a

― normcore strengthening exercises (benbbag), Sunday, June 12, 2016 1:01 PM (8 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

you realize that merely getting rid of an immunity provision would not mean that anyone would actually succeed in these lawsuits, right? I'm sure you actually do understand that if you graduated from an accredited law school.

it was the one that advertised in the back of TV Guide

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CkzE0-pWEAE26zj.jpg:large

RT h/t to lagoon

best-case scenario out of recent tragedy imo is some hugely wealthy LGBT political activists start bankrolling legal challenges to shitty gun laws, challenge the NRA etc.

lookin at you Peter Thiel

(lol not really)

they should be bankrolling legal scholars and judges who can revise the reigning interpretation of the 2nd amendment, that is ultimately the strongest hope for long-term change on this.

yup

Electing a Democrat in November who will nominate judges and justices will help.