Supreme Court Weighs Second Amendment Showdown After Mass Shootings

[STTAB]

Fear can make people do some very strange things....

If it is proven that the fireman (that asshole!) detained an innocent civilian who was not doing anything illegal, should he not be prosecuted? Interestingly, as a former military member yourself, you well know we don't get to enforce only the "standards" (or laws) we agree with but are charged with enforcing ALL those in effect. Granted, some of those standards (laws) are seemingly stupid BUT just remember that someone thought those stupid standards or laws were a good idea....

Yes , under the current law if the fireman did something wrong I believe he should be prosecuted. I have warned about that on this and other message boards for YEARS when people start talking about citizen's arrests. You have to be VERY careful that you understand the law and your specific rights when doing so . To me it looks like the fireman obviously didn't realize he couldn't detain this guy just because......

Now, just because I agree he should be prosecuted IF he broke the law, doesn't mean I don't empathize with him, nor does it mean I agree with the law. The law needs to be changed.

[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.

[CSM]

Yes , under the current law if the fireman did something wrong I believe he should be prosecuted. I have warned about that on this and other message boards for YEARS when people start talking about citizen's arrests. You have to be VERY careful that you understand the law and your specific rights when doing so . To me it looks like the fireman obviously didn't realize he couldn't detain this guy just because......

Now, just because I agree he should be prosecuted IF he broke the law, doesn't mean I don't empathize with him, nor does it mean I agree with the law. The law needs to be changed.

In that we can agree. If we don't like the law, CHANGE IT! There are processes in place to do so, including for amending the COTUS. I too understand and empathize with the fireman. He was trying to do the right thing. However, as has been said before, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

[High_Plains_Drifter]

I think it's going to matter what they put together as 'controls.'

https://bearingarms.com/tom-k/2019/0...ond-amendment/

Yep... like I said... Trump is playing with fire here. Rush has been railing on it for awhile now. Say's you don't give the democrats anything, because their ultimate goal is to totally disarm everyone, to repeal the second amendment. Give them an inch and they'll take a mile, and to them, compromise means just give them what they want, and you get nothing in return. That's what compromise always means to democrats. Take it all, give nothing in return.

[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)

[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.

[STTAB]

In that we can agree. If we don't like the law, CHANGE IT! There are processes in place to do so, including for amending the COTUS. I too understand and empathize with the fireman. He was trying to do the right thing. However, as has been said before, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

And we've came full circle, because that's what I said from the start. If I were Trump that would be my sole concession to the left. NOTHING the left proposes to do would prevent shootings. THIS would if not prevent at least weed out legal gun owners , or at least most of them. Sure a few stubborn assholes would end up being arrested and charged but the vast majority of people who just carry firearms in public to make a point would not do so if it were outright illegal , allowing the police to further narrow down their attention to those who truly intend to do harm, rather than wasting time on poeple who are simply carrying AR15s around because they are assholes.

[STTAB]

Ask yourself this question CSM

How come none of the "name" Democrats have suggested making it a federal crime to carry a long gun in public?

There's a reason for that.

[Kathianne]

In that we can agree. If we don't like the law, CHANGE IT! There are processes in place to do so, including for amending the COTUS. I too understand and empathize with the fireman. He was trying to do the right thing. However, as has been said before, the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

I can agree that charges CAN be arrested if a cop wants to follow the law to the letter. I do doubt that he'd be brought to court on charges though. Discretion by either the police or DA would kick in. Indeed, he'd get a pat on the back.

The nutter might not have been doing anything illegal per se, but that incident actually was more effective than any 'Red flag' as his mom and sister already had TOLD HIM it was a stupid idea. They never did call the police or the store though.

[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!

[STTAB]

I can agree that charges CAN be arrested if a cop wants to follow the law to the letter. I do doubt that he'd be brought to court on charges though. Discretion by either the police or DA would kick in. Indeed, he'd get a pat on the back.

The nutter might not have been doing anything illegal per se, but that incident actually was more effective than any 'Red flag' as his mom and sister already had TOLD HIM it was a stupid idea. They never did call the police or the store though.

Thus my argument he should go to jail. A year is plenty, out in six months with good behavior, but for God sakes. And like I said , it's only a matter of time before someone is killed in the mass panic caused by one of these people, and it's very unlikely that they would be charged with a crime for that either as the law stands because all they have to say is " I did nothing illegal"

As for the fireman, I've often noted that citizens do NOT have quite the authority that police do, and many simply don't understand that. A cop WOULD have the authority to detain that kid even if ultimately it turns out he didn't do anything illegal. A citizen does not. A police officer will never be charged with kidnapping when they are acting in good faith, even if no charges are brought. A citizen, could be. If the nutter insists , oh and I know as in personally know the Attorney General of the Western District of Missouri, I would not be surprised if he brings charges against the fireman.

[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!

[Kathianne]

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!

Yep, look at 'swatting' which was a rage for awhile. Then someone got killed.

[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.