• Supreme Court rejects gun rights appeal
    101 replies, posted
[quote]WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court is rejecting yet another call to decide whether Americans have a constitutional right to carry guns with them outside their homes. The justices on Monday left in place an appeals court ruling that upheld the San Diego sheriff's strict limits on issuing permits for concealed weapons. The high court decided in 2008 that the Constitution guarantees the right to a gun, at least for self-defense at home. But the justices have refused repeated pleas to spell out the extent of gun rights in the United States, allowing permit restrictions and assault weapons bans to remain in effect in some cities and states. More than 40 states already broadly allow gun owners to be armed in public. Justices Clarence Thomas and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have reviewed the appellate ruling. Thomas said the decision not to hear the case "reflects a distressing trend: the treatment of the Second Amendment as a disfavored right."[/quote] [url]https://www.yahoo.com/news/supreme-court-rejects-gun-rights-appeal-133833522--politics.html[/url]
assault weapons bans are useless trash bills that inconvenience and obstruct law abiding citizens and stop nothing.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52403862]assault weapons bans are useless trash bills that inconvenience and obstruct law abiding citizens and stop nothing.[/QUOTE] Exactly. I think this rejection might be because of the current court makeup. Kennedy is a very unpredictable justice, and it might be best to wait for Ginsburg to be replaced with a pro-2a judge to ensure victory as supreme court verdicts are pretty much final.
Can we fucking stop with the whole "Gun Rights" shit. The Democrat Voter Base could probably be a lot larger if the Democrats didn't go full HAM on gun laws.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52403862]assault weapons bans are useless trash bills that inconvenience and obstruct law abiding citizens and stop nothing.[/QUOTE] True but completely irrelevant, because this is a restriction on concealed-carry permits. The article namedrops AWBs, but I think the author either doesn't know much about gun laws, or just wants to rile up gun nuts. It's written so badly I can't tell. That bad writing extends to making it hard to find further details (would it kill them to include a case name?), but it phrases it as though San Diego were a very restrictive may-issue jurisdiction, which the plaintiffs argued was unconstitutionally over-restrictive. I know California is a may-issue state - you cannot just "get" a concealed-carry permit, you must show "good cause", and it depends on the local police to determine whether your cause is good enough. If San Diego is so restrictive as to effectively [I]be[/I] a no-issue jurisdiction, one could make a case that that's unconstitutional under DC v. Heller. The article also referenced a suit to overturn laws preventing certain criminals from possessing firearms. No sane court would find that unconstitutional in ipse - it is entirely reasonable to bar a convicted murderer from owning guns - but you could possibly find such laws overly harsh - it is entirely unreasonable to take someone's gun rights away for a parking ticket. The Supreme Court usually doesn't like to get involved in such trivia, though. But, again, this is not an assault weapon ban.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52403862]assault weapons bans are useless trash bills that inconvenience and obstruct law abiding citizens and stop nothing.[/QUOTE] Most of the time yeah. California's rifle restrictions and regulations are extremely absurd since the one part that is required on a file, the bullet button, is easily replaced if someone wanted to. The rules for what constitutes a rifle is usually unnecessary as well since someone could easily make their rifle shorter with an upper they built, but never put on a lower. This also doesn't stop third-party purchases most of the time as well. But rifles are mainly used by most law-abiding citizens for hobby or hunting, which I partake in the hobby part. A good solution would be reduction of fear from firearms and proper education along with updated ways for regulating and tracking minimum requirements to own certain firearms and also better data collection of firearms for tracking. Much like a driver's license and car registration I suppose, with the difference being a right to own, not a privilege to drive.
[QUOTE=Uber22;52403919]Can we fucking stop with the whole "Gun Rights" shit. The Democrat Voter Base could probably be a lot larger if the Democrats didn't go full HAM on gun laws.[/QUOTE] Agreed. Their "Ban everything" approach is actually the EXACT reason why I'm a republican/right winger. I agree with some of their ideals (legalization of certain recreational drugs, gay marriage) but it was the things like "Common Sense" gun control (AKA ban just about everything) that pushed me to the other party as the independents/third parties will never, ever, ever hold a major position in office unfortunately.
[QUOTE=Ninja Gnome;52403862]assault weapons bans are useless trash bills that inconvenience and obstruct law abiding citizens and stop nothing.[/QUOTE] Too bad this is about concealed carry rights and whether or not non-violent criminals can own firearms.
[QUOTE=Uber22;52403919]Can we fucking stop with the whole "Gun Rights" shit. The Democrat Voter Base could probably be a lot larger if the Democrats didn't go full HAM on gun laws.[/QUOTE] This. Gun control is a bandaid issue. What we really need is criminal justice and mental health care reform, as well as responsible gun education.
[QUOTE=Uber22;52403919]Can we fucking stop with the whole "Gun Rights" shit. The Democrat Voter Base could probably be a lot larger if the Democrats didn't go full HAM on gun laws.[/QUOTE] Pretty much this. I'd of voted for Sanders in the last election if he wasn't pro-gun control. Also if my state had actually held an election.
I will be the first to admit that Democrat-led gun control is often rubbish with little basis in reality, but you have to admit, Republicans aren't much better. They insist gun violence isn't a problem, or talk about "more guns" as a [I]solution[/I]... and then they fail to change any of the bad legislation, like the restrictions on suppressors. They couldn't even repeal the AWB early. Both sides need to get their shit together and fix the situation.
[QUOTE=gman003-main;52404044]I will be the first to admit that Democrat-led gun control is often rubbish with little basis in reality, but you have to admit, Republicans aren't much better. They insist gun violence isn't a problem, or talk about "more guns" as a [I]solution[/I]... and then they fail to change any of the bad legislation, like the restrictions on suppressors. They couldn't even repeal the AWB early. Both sides need to get their shit together and fix the situation.[/QUOTE] What both sides need to realize is that its not a gun issue at all. Its a mental health issue...and America is having a crisis with Mental Health. People wouldn't try to shoot up schools or go on killing sprees if they get the help they need. Taking away guns will just make them search for other ways to vent their frustration to the world as nobody is able to help them. These people need help, and this is just another bullshit "Cut and dry" Policy to completely ignore the fact that they need it.
[QUOTE=Uber22;52404058]What both sides need to realize is that its not a gun issue at all. Its a mental health issue...and America is having a crisis with Mental Health. People wouldn't try to shoot up schools or go on killing sprees if they get the help they need. Taking away guns will just make them search for other ways to vent their frustration to the world as nobody is able to help them. People need help, and this is just another bullshit "Cut and dry" Policy.[/QUOTE] Mass murders by mentally unstable people are a tiny portion of overall gun death and crime.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52404065]Mass murders by mentally unstable people are a tiny portion of overall gun death and crime.[/QUOTE] I would consider anyone who murders or having the thought processing of thinking "Murder is whatever" to have some type of issue. Not saying all mentally ill people are crazy or murderers. But, i bet a large amount of murderers or crazy people probably have something going on in the brain. And because a large portion of them come from poor homes and etc, its harder for them to get treatment or therapy to deal with their frustrations.
[QUOTE=Uber22;52404074]I would consider anyone who murders or having the thought processing of thinking "Murder is whatever" to have some type of issue. Not painting mentally ill people as crazy people. Pointing out that a large amount of murderers could probably have some mental issue. Not all mentally ill people are crazy or murderers. But, i bet a large amount of murderers or crazy people probably have something going on in the brain. And because a large portion of them come from poor homes and etc, its harder for them to get treatment or therapy to deal with their frustrations.[/QUOTE] The vast majority of gun death, ignoring suicides, is caused by gang activity, arguments, etc.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52404087]The vast majority of gun death, ignoring suicides, is caused by gang activity.[/QUOTE] Teenagers and young adults who dont know what to do with their life. Confused as hell and wanting to vent their frustration among the world with some quick way to make themselves feel important without knowing what the fuck they're actually doing by joining a gang? They need therapy.
[QUOTE=Uber22;52404058]What both sides need to realize is that its not a gun issue at all. Its a mental health issue...and America is having a crisis with Mental Health. People wouldn't try to shoot up schools or go on killing sprees if they get the help they need. Taking away guns will just make them search for other ways to vent their frustration to the world as nobody is able to help them. These people need help, and this is just another bullshit "Cut and dry" Policy to completely ignore the fact that they need it.[/QUOTE] Mental health would solve many but not all gun violence problems. What about organized crime? Drug gangs aren't insane or depressed. Gun accidents are also a big killer. I'd even count the over-use of force by police as a gun-control problem - there are demonstrably cops out there who shouldn't be trusted with a gun, let alone a badge. An overall lower presence of guns in America would reduce the need for every cop to be lethally armed, which would in turn increase safety. Also, no solution to mental health care will be perfect. A good gun control system can catch those who fall through the cracks of the mental health care system. Defense-in-depth is a good philosophy.
[QUOTE=Uber22;52404094]Teenagers and young adults who dont know what to do with their life. Confused as hell and wanting to vent their frustration among the world with some quick way to make themselves feel important without knowing what the fuck they're actually doing. They need therapy.[/QUOTE] Maybe I misunderstood you, but "mental health" generally means diagnosable mental health issues, not having a hard life and making poor decisions because of it. These people need a community, counseling, and good role models more than they need therapy.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52404087]The vast majority of gun death, ignoring suicides, is caused by gang activity, arguments, etc.[/QUOTE] Yeah, and gang activity is caused by poverty; which causes lack of access to necessary public services such as mental health, community/recreational activities, education, etc. Most gun deaths in the US though are suicides, which again, just paints a necessary need for more developed mental health infrastructure.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52404102]Maybe I misunderstood you, but "mental health" generally means diagnosable mental health issues, not having a hard life and making poor decisions because of it.[/QUOTE] Alright, This is mostly me describing where most of the arguments towards Gun Control stem from. Since a large portion of it seems to come from Mass Shootings and etc. [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=gman003-main;52404098]Mental health would solve many but not all gun violence problems. What about organized crime? Drug gangs aren't insane or depressed. Gun accidents are also a big killer. I'd even count the over-use of force by police as a gun-control problem - there are demonstrably cops out there who shouldn't be trusted with a gun, let alone a badge. An overall lower presence of guns in America would reduce the need for every cop to be lethally armed, which would in turn increase safety. Also, no solution to mental health care will be perfect. A good gun control system can catch those who fall through the cracks of the mental health care system. Defense-in-depth is a good philosophy.[/QUOTE] I do agree on a better background check system to avoid guns getting into that bunch. Though, like i said before. A portion of gun control arguments stem from mass shootings. Organized crime and gangs clearly, like you said, aren't mentally insane or crazy. I sorta left out the portion of people in gangs and Organized crime. Though, i would consider the younger bunch in gangs to have some sorta of frustration and angst that they don't understand, and probably need therapy.
[QUOTE=Uber22;52404109]Alright, This is mostly me describing where most of the arguments towards Gun Control stem from. Since a large portion of it seems to come from Mass Shootings and etc.[/QUOTE] No, the majority of gun deaths doesn't come from mass shootings at all; but instead is mostly in socioeconomically disadvantaged areas and peoples that lack comprehensive access to the necessary public services that help prevent gang activity. EDIT: And yeah, mental health services is a big part of those and often underdeveloped even in places with higher socioeconomic status.
[QUOTE=kharkovus;52404118]No, the majority of gun deaths doesn't come from mass shootings at all; but instead socioeconomically disadvantaged areas and peoples that lack comprehensive access to the necessary public services that help prevent gang activity.[/QUOTE] I didn't say they all stemmed from Mass Shootings. I mean, most of the arguments for gun control is usually using Mass Shootings as an example... And yes, helping those poor areas will help combat against Gang violence and stuff like that. Just saying that probably a lot of young kids who get involved in gangs probably need therapy. Because they're venting their frustration in the worse way possible.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52404102]Maybe I misunderstood you, but "mental health" generally means diagnosable mental health issues, not having a hard life and making poor decisions because of it. These people need a community, counseling, and good role models more than they need therapy.[/QUOTE] I was put through the mental health care system for multiple years, and I've been a youth advocate for a mental health care service for a few years now. Believe me when I say that if these youths and people who 'made poor decisions' were put through the mental health care system, it's very highly likely that they would have one or more diagnosable mental health issues. It's simply a lack of the service in general that makes it seem like these people are just mentally stable people who 'chose badly'.
[QUOTE=Uber22;52404109]Though, i would consider the younger bunch in gangs to have some sorta of frustration and angst that they don't understand, and probably need therapy.[/QUOTE] Therapy wouldn't be sufficient. Low-level gang members are usually there because of necessity - because they lack better options. They either can't get jobs, or the ones they could get don't pay a living wage. Often, they have family to support. Joining an organized criminal gang, in that situation, is logical. It's not ethical, but it is logical. I am not arguing that we don't need a better mental health system. We absolutely do, and it would decrease gun violence. We can attack the causes all we want, but there are many, and not all can be stopped. At the end of the day, we do need a law to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.
That moment when you say something on FP and you worded it incorrectly, and you're sporadically trying to correct your statement. :v: [editline]26th June 2017[/editline] [QUOTE=gman003-main;52404150]Therapy wouldn't be sufficient. Low-level gang members are usually there because of necessity - because they lack better options. They either can't get jobs, or the ones they could get don't pay a living wage. Often, they have family to support. Joining an organized criminal gang, in that situation, is logical. It's not ethical, but it is logical. I am not arguing that we don't need a better mental health system. We absolutely do, and it would decrease gun violence. We can attack the causes all we want, but there are many, and not all can be stopped. At the end of the day, we do need a law to keep guns out of the hands of the wrong people.[/QUOTE] I do agree that isn't the only way to stop gang growth and gang violence. I do believe it can help at least, with a combination of all of what you said above. Just considering that maybe helping these kids with therapy could probably stop some of it. Its one of those things where its completely complicated and convoluted and because of that, one thing is unable to strike at it completely. So, its pretty much, fixing the neighborhood, giving better economic opportunities, better healthcare, better education, etc. Its pretty much a combination of all of that to fix it. And its like what i said before about Gun Control, just a simple small "cut and dry" fix is going to do jack shit in fixing a gigantic problem.
[QUOTE=sgman91;52404087]The vast majority of gun death, ignoring suicides, is caused by gang activity, arguments, etc.[/QUOTE] Then if you ignore gun deaths and look at suicides, they outnumber them 2 to 1. :why:
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52404836]Then if you ignore gun deaths and look at suicides, they outnumber them 2 to 1. :why:[/QUOTE] There's also no guarantee that banning guns will stop suicides. In Canada, gun control has had absolutely no effect on suicide rates. As a matter of fact, they went up after the Firearms Act passed in 1995, and stayed up for 10 years. About the only place I've seen have a measurable drop in suicide rate after the passage of gun control was Australia, and even then measurable doesn't mean significant.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52404836]Then if you ignore gun deaths and look at suicides, they outnumber them 2 to 1. :why:[/QUOTE] Guy talks about murder > I respond about murder > You don't get why I left out things that aren't murder?
[QUOTE=sgman91;52404087]The vast majority of gun death, ignoring suicides, is caused by gang activity, arguments, etc.[/QUOTE] This pretty much. The vast majority of violent crimes including those that involve the use of a gun are committed by perfectly normal-minded people. Honestly people way too readily blame all that is wrong with society on the mentally ill.
[QUOTE=purvisdavid1;52404836]Then if you ignore gun deaths and look at suicides, they outnumber them 2 to 1. :why:[/QUOTE] Access to guns make it easier to kill yourself, sure, but it is not the only way to kill yourself as it amounts for around 50% of suicide deaths in the US. Getting rid of guns wont make that statistic drop. The next leading cause of death in suicides is suffocation via a length of rope. Better access to higher quality mental healthcare, and healthcare in general, would save more lives than banning guns would. If your only tool is a hammer, then all your problems are nails. If a person has free access to a mental healthcare system thats not just going to toss them in an institution, then maybe they wouldnt see death as the only solution to their problems.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.