Supreme Court Weighs Second Amendment Showdown After Mass Shootings

[CSM]

youre wrong in your thoughs CSM because what that ruling says essentially is cops can't say "I reasonably assumed that person carrying a firearm was going to commit a crime so I stopped them"

BUT if the law says "It is illegal to carry a long gun in the city" just as an example, then that ruling is really a moot point because it only deals with the question of using what is not illegal as suspicion of something that is illegal.

Take that to inside the gun free part of the airport , for example. The government actually DID have to make illegal to carry a gun inside that area of the airport because prior to that courts were telling them "no you can't just stop everyone who has a gun because you suspect they might be planning on committing a crime" but when it came to saying "okay in THIS area , no guns allowed" that was ruled Constitutional.

I get , and agree with, your concerns. As I said the law shouldn't apply to concealed carry permit holders with concealed hand guns. Nor should it apply to people are merely transporting said weapons. But I'm sorry an asshole who carries an AR15 into a fucking airport, or just through town is an asshole who needs to spend some time behind bars for being an asshole.

We KNOW for fact that people panic , and reasonably so , when they see such things, it's only a matter of time before someone is killed during the panic one of these morons causes. And as the law currently stands that person would not be hold criminally liable for that death. Carrying the AR15 in the first place would have to be ILLEGAL for that person to be criminally liable for any deaths .


Again, I don't argue that the law is a slipper5y slope, nor do I disagree with the notion that the government can't be trusted . BUT sometimes you have to weigh the consequences and say "we need to do this and just keep an eye on the government to make sure they aren't abusing the law" really the same concept as say the FISA courts, the government fucked Trump and his team and broke the law doing it, whomever took part should be held criminally responsible, BUT the system itself saves lives. We just need to better protect against abuses.

I would point out that there is no law yet that prohibits one from being an "asshole".

Once again, my point in all this was that the idea of detaining anyone with no questions asked is absolutely horrifying on it's face. I surely hope that laws which are enacted going forward will be scrutinized by those ensuring the constitutionality of such. What gun laws are presented going forward are included.

I am of the opinion that no law actually PREVENTS criminal acts but rather provides a means for punishment for those who disobey said laws. That is why none of the current laws and measures in place seem to work. I never underestimate the insanity of people are capable of.

[STTAB]

I would point out that there is no law yet that prohibits one from being an "asshole".

Once again, my point in all this was that the idea of detaining anyone with no questions asked is absolutely horrifying on it's face. I surely hope that laws which are enacted going forward will be scrutinized by those ensuring the constitutionality of such. What gun laws are presented going forward are included.

I am of the opinion that no law actually PREVENTS criminal acts but rather provides a means for punishment for those who disobey said laws. That is why none of the current laws and measures in place seem to work. I never underestimate the insanity of people are capable of.

That's my point exactly CSM , there currently is no law that prevents THIS particular form of being an asshole. I would change that.

Which is far more likely to prevent gun crime CSM? Targeting actual assholes with guns of course. Taxing the fuck out of you or me or requiring us to do a background check on the other if we decide to sell a pistol to one or the other... Worthless because A) we're not dong anything illegal or being assholes simply by buying and selling guns and B) it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce anyway.

Pretty easy to enforce a law that makes it illegal to carry an AR15 or other long arm through town like you're fucking Rambo.

I might even could be convinced to join in the argument that anyone who would do such obviously has mental issues and thus shouldn't have a gun to begin with.

The point is this CSM, in order to protect legal law abiding gun owners and their rights, we have to turn on those who are assholes and abuse those rights. And I don't feel that way just about guns either bro. I feel the same way towards say these people who are going to other people's houses and spending all night in a group yelling and cursing and shit. I think THAT should be illegal, and I think the left is going to have to turn on those people

You should NOT be allowed to terrorize people and then hide behind your rights.

[CSM]

That's my point exactly CSM , there currently is no law that prevents THIS particular form of being an asshole. I would change that.

Which is far more likely to prevent gun crime CSM? Targeting actual assholes with guns of course. Taxing the fuck out of you or me or requiring us to do a background check on the other if we decide to sell a pistol to one or the other... Worthless because A) we're not dong anything illegal or being assholes simply by buying and selling guns and B) it would be IMPOSSIBLE to enforce anyway.

Pretty easy to enforce a law that makes it illegal to carry an AR15 or other long arm through town like you're fucking Rambo.

I might even could be convinced to join in the argument that anyone who would do such obviously has mental issues and thus shouldn't have a gun to begin with.

The point is this CSM, in order to protect legal law abiding gun owners and their rights, we have to turn on those who are assholes and abuse those rights. And I don't feel that way just about guns either bro. I feel the same way towards say these people who are going to other people's houses and spending all night in a group yelling and cursing and shit. I think THAT should be illegal, and I think the left is going to have to turn on those people

You should NOT be allowed to terrorize people and then hide behind your rights.

LOL.... I submit that until it becomes, in fact, illegal, it is not abuse per say. Unethical, stupid, provocative and such.... most certainly. I agree that those who push the limits may have some issues but that does not mean they are criminals; at least until their actions are declared by law as being criminal.

All that being said, I do believe there are measures that would help in the long run. Requiring roof of training in the use and safety of firearms for those wishing to exercise their right to bear arms would seem to be a reasonable course of action. Background checks seem reasonable IF they are impartial rather than subjective and based on the premise of innocent until proven guilty, etc.

[STTAB]

LOL.... I submit that until it becomes, in fact, illegal, it is not abuse per say. Unethical, stupid, provocative and such.... most certainly. I agree that those who push the limits may have some issues but that does not mean they are criminals; at least until their actions are declared by law as being criminal.

All that being said, I do believe there are measures that would help in the long run. Requiring roof of training in the use and safety of firearms for those wishing to exercise their right to bear arms would seem to be a reasonable course of action. Background checks seem reasonable IF they are impartial rather than subjective and based on the premise of innocent until proven guilty, etc.

Interesting. So let me ask you this

How do you feel about the people who are abusing our law to get into this country legally ? Do you disagree with my use of the word abuse in that sense?

Oh and you yourself just admitted that they "probably have issues" meaning mental issues, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagrees with you , because it IS illegal for a mentally ill person to own or possess a firearm, but they certainly ruled that police can't use the fact that they are carrying a firearm in public as probable cause to stop them to see if they are for example a mentally ill person is possession of a firearm, which is illegal.

See, this is not as simple an issue as saying "nope you can't touch my 2nd Amendment right"

As for background checks, New Jersey has THE toughest background checks in the nation, bar none, and the last 4 mass shooters in this country all would have passed their background check to legally purchase an AR15 along with the ammo and such in that state.

NOTHING in their backgrounds precluded them from being able to buy a gun. (Now obviously that is a failure of the system, but that itself proves background checks don't work)

[CSM]

Interesting. So let me ask you this

How do you feel about the people who are abusing our law to get into this country legally ? Do you disagree with my use of the word abuse in that sense?

Oh and you yourself just admitted that they "probably have issues" meaning mental issues, which the Pennsylvania Supreme Court disagrees with you , because it IS illegal for a mentally ill person to own or possess a firearm, but they certainly ruled that police can't use the fact that they are carrying a firearm in public as probable cause to stop them to see if they are for example a mentally ill person is possession of a firearm, which is illegal.

See, this is not as simple an issue as saying "nope you can't touch my 2nd Amendment right"

As for background checks, New Jersey has THE toughest background checks in the nation, bar none, and the last 4 mass shooters in this country all would have passed their background check to legally purchase an AR15 along with the ammo and such in that state.

NOTHING in their backgrounds precluded them from being able to buy a gun. (Now obviously that is a failure of the system, but that itself proves background checks don't work)

It is indeed a complex issue.

Do I believe mentally ill folks should posses firearms? Depends on the diagnosis. Yes, the system failed in some cases (gun free zones don't always work either). There are many cases I am certain where background checks do work. As for the PA law regarding the legality of a mentally ill person possessing or owning a firearm, I will presume the state must PROVE they are mentally ill before bringing criminal charges. Case in point, there are those who swear I am insane though no medical diagnosis has been presented proving such.

I am not suggesting that we NOT at least try to remedy the situation, I am merely stating that we are VERY careful when we do so.

Abuse of immigration laws is another discussion altogether. However, abuse does not necessarily indicate illegality. Want to address abuses? Refine the law and address the loop holes which allow abuse.

We both know there is no such thing as perfection (something to strive for?) in our laws or even in social interaction. Human beings are imperfect things indeed!

[Kathianne]

It is indeed a complex issue.

Do I believe mentally ill folks should posses firearms? Depends on the diagnosis. Yes, the system failed in some cases (gun free zones don't always work either). There are many cases I am certain where background checks do work. As for the PA law regarding the legality of a mentally ill person possessing or owning a firearm, I will presume the state must PROVE they are mentally ill before bringing criminal charges. Case in point, there are those who swear I am insane though no medical diagnosis has been presented proving such.

I am not suggesting that we NOT at least try to remedy the situation, I am merely stating that we are VERY careful when we do so.

Abuse of immigration laws is another discussion altogether. However, abuse does not necessarily indicate illegality. Want to address abuses? Refine the law and address the loop holes which allow abuse.

We both know there is no such thing as perfection (something to strive for?) in our laws or even in social interaction. Human beings are imperfect things indeed!

Yeah, like the President of the United States saying, 'Very angry, out of control. Nutty. No gun for you!'

Think of divorce and accusations of abuse against spouse or kids. Due process isn't something to screw around with.

[CSM]

Yeah, like the President of the United States saying, 'Very angry, out of control. Nutty. No gun for you!'

Think of divorce and accusations of abuse against spouse or kids. Due process isn't something to screw around with.

Exactly. Heck, some people just like screwing with other people (for whatever reason) and go way out of their way to do it. Unfounded accusations, often with made with no consequences, abound!

[STTAB]

Yeah, like the President of the United States saying, 'Very angry, out of control. Nutty. No gun for you!'

Think of divorce and accusations of abuse against spouse or kids. Due process isn't something to screw around with.

Trump should in no way be an arbiter of who is nutty and who isn't LOL

I'm pretty sure the defense of his tweet would be "hey I'm just asking the question......." but I feel it's an inappropriate question for the POTUS to be asking given his authority over the Justice Dept.

[STTAB]

It is indeed a complex issue.

Do I believe mentally ill folks should posses firearms? Depends on the diagnosis. Yes, the system failed in some cases (gun free zones don't always work either). There are many cases I am certain where background checks do work. As for the PA law regarding the legality of a mentally ill person possessing or owning a firearm, I will presume the state must PROVE they are mentally ill before bringing criminal charges. Case in point, there are those who swear I am insane though no medical diagnosis has been presented proving such.

I am not suggesting that we NOT at least try to remedy the situation, I am merely stating that we are VERY careful when we do so.

Abuse of immigration laws is another discussion altogether. However, abuse does not necessarily indicate illegality. Want to address abuses? Refine the law and address the loop holes which allow abuse.

We both know there is no such thing as perfection (something to strive for?) in our laws or even in social interaction. Human beings are imperfect things indeed!

RE: Immigration laws. That's exactly my point , there ARE people abusing our laws, and thus our laws need to be changed. Same thing here, there ARE people abusing our gun laws. So it's time to change the laws.

As for gun free zones, they obviously DO work, but you really have to maintain a perimeter. Haven't seen any mass shootings in the White House have you? For example.

That's actually a good example of changing our laws because people were abusing the current law CSM. I'm currently on the school board of the same school I graduated from. When I was a student at this school. Our parking lots were completely open and we had at any given time no less than 20 pickups with loaded hunting rifles hanging in rear window in both the student and teacher parking lots. Absolutely no one ever thought anything of it. Most of those vehicles were probably unlocked. No one would ever have dreamed of a fight (and we had lots of fights) escalating into someone going out and getting one of those rifles and shooting someone. Most of the guys carried pocket knives to school. Yes , we're country bumpkins at heart LOL.

Today ? We have three campuses and each of them are surrounded by 20 foot tall chain link fences. We have an on duty city police officer at each campus at any time that students are on campus. All parking lots are electronically monitored. There are two gates to each campus, and you can only enter from one of them, and every car is visually checked as it comes on campus.

That's just the perimeter. And yes, we still have kids that hunt before school, but they aren't allowed to bring their guns on campus. They get one "oops I forgot" where we collect the gun and have the police deliver it to their home that evening. Second time is a 10 day suspension. We've never had a third offense.

Visitors are ALL checked onto campus and escorted into the building. No more just driving up and wandering in as you please.

Everyone enters through the main doors, which have embedded metal detectors. Same deal as with the guns outside, you get one free pass. Last year we gave a teacher a 10 day suspension without pay because twice he had his pocket knife on him. Rules are rules.

ALL hallways, classrooms, study areas, teacher lounges and other areas are monitored via video (excluding bathrooms and locker rooms of course)

Think we liked having to do that? Of course not, but the safety of our students comes first, well before some douches right to be an asshole and carry a gun on a school campus.

[icansayit]

Short, and Sweet. Politicians (all of them), know. Removing a citizen's right to BEAR ARMS makes it very easy for GOVERNMENT to control every person....AT THE POINT OF A GUN!

Giving Government more power over 'WE THE PEOPLE' by removing any of our Constitutional Rights. Gives up our rights, across the board, ONE, BY ONE. Until...as the Radical Socialist, Democrats would like...DESTROY the America we all know, and love. To allow Politicians to gain the POWER they need.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

LOL.... I submit that until it becomes, in fact, illegal, it is not abuse per say. Unethical, stupid, provocative and such.... most certainly. I agree that those who push the limits may have some issues but that does not mean they are criminals; at least until their actions are declared by law as being criminal.

All that being said, I do believe there are measures that would help in the long run. Requiring roof of training in the use and safety of firearms for those wishing to exercise their right to bear arms would seem to be a reasonable course of action. Background checks seem reasonable IF they are impartial rather than subjective and based on the premise of innocent until proven guilty, etc.

I'll bet my entire estate, that anyone that endorses background checks for ALL firearm sales, even PRIVATE, will never be elected president. Well... any REPUBLICAN, because they'll never have enough support to beat a democrat. Then watch out, because once the democrats have control again, kiss your guns goodbye. Then the real fun starts. The dems WILL push to take ALL GUNS. Then states secede, tell the feds to go pound sand, they won't enforce the laws, etc, because if states can tell the feds to go pound sand on immigration and have sanctuary cities, and STATES, they'll defy the feds on draconian gun laws as well.

[Mr. P]

The point is this CSM, in order to protect legal law abiding gun owners and their rights, we have to turn on those who are assholes and abuse those rights. And I don't feel that way just about guns either bro. I feel the same way towards say these people who are going to other people's houses and spending all night in a group yelling and cursing and shit. I think THAT should be illegal, and I think the left is going to have to turn on those people

You should NOT be allowed to terrorize people and then hide behind your rights.

Bottom line here is...We don't need to turn on anyone. We need to strengthen and enforce the existing laws and prosecute swiftly. Problem solved. Then again there will always be assholes just fewer.

My wife is also an attorney and a Judge. Gets me nowhere really, but it does give me a closer look at the legal system and process than most folks get. Just sayin

[STTAB]

Bottom line here is...We don't need to turn on anyone. We need to strengthen and enforce the existing laws and prosecute swiftly. Problem solved. Then again there will always be assholes just fewer.

My wife is also an attorney and a Judge. Gets me nowhere really, but it does give me a closer look at the legal system and process than most folks get. Just sayin

I disagree, respectfully.

Using the last two shooters as examples, there are ZERO existing laws that would have prevented those shootings. Now, none of the new laws proposed by Democrats would either. But that doesn't mean we can't do anything, nor is this is even a 2nd Amendment fight. It's a "people who have threat4ened to kill people shouldn't have legal access to guns" fight.

So, you can turn against those who think we shouldn't even do anything to take away guns from people who have threatened to commit murder , or you can risk the entire 2nd Amendment.

This is much like the crazies on the left who want criminals who are in prison to be able to vote. Voting is a right, same as gun ownership. Both protected IN the COTUS. However, I'm pretty sure you have zero problem taking the vote away from felons, and rightly so. That's not an issue of voter rights, it's an issue of "felons don't have rights"