Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)

Someone apparently yelled "Gunshot" at a March for Our Lives Rally in Washington DC.



Look at all of those young males bravely acting as "leaders" in the evacuation as they selflessly push aside Granny and Junior and flop over the four foot tall barricades. It's best when you focus on some senior citizen or kid and just seem them getting floored by the stampede.

And yes, I know it's serious and they thought it was serious but c'mon. That entire area is a gun-free zone. There was literally no danger whatsoever smh.

wjla.com

Person yells 'gunshot' at DC March For Our Lives rally; tears, panic ensue

Momentary panic ensued at the March For Our Lives rally in D. C. Saturday when someone yelled "gun shot," 7News Ashlie Rodriguez reports. "Once people started running, others started running, causing momentary chaos and fear," Rodriguez tweeted, adding that some marchers were left in tears...
wjla.com wjla.com
 
Husky_Khan said:
Someone apparently yelled "Gunshot" at a March for Our Lives Rally in Washington DC.



Look at all of those young males bravely acting as "leaders" in the evacuation as they selflessly push aside Granny and Junior and flop over the four foot tall barricades. It's best when you focus on some senior citizen or kid and just seem them getting floored by the stampede.

And yes, I know it's serious and they thought it was serious but c'mon. That entire area is a gun-free zone. There was literally no danger whatsoever smh.

wjla.com

Person yells 'gunshot' at DC March For Our Lives rally; tears, panic ensue

Momentary panic ensued at the March For Our Lives rally in D. C. Saturday when someone yelled "gun shot," 7News Ashlie Rodriguez reports. "Once people started running, others started running, causing momentary chaos and fear," Rodriguez tweeted, adding that some marchers were left in tears...
wjla.com wjla.com
Click to expand...

I'd heard he yelled "I am the gun!"
 
Cherico said:
some senitors need to be primaried,
Click to expand...

Why? Most of it is entirely unobjectable, because it doesn't really related to guns at all, but rather resources or funding for various mental health or safety programs, or modify existing laws (such as the crackdown on straw buyers).

The only two gun related provisions are:
1. Making Domestic violence convictions prohibit gun ownership across the board, rather than only applying to felony DV. That seems reasonable.
2. People under 21 have to have local law enforcement review their juvenile records before they can buy a rifle. That seems conceptually fine, the question will be what form the actual legislation takes.
 
The Immortal Watch Dog said:
If they aren't second amendment absolutists, if they negotiate and settle and act like uniparty hacks, they ought to be primaried and also ejected from the local GOP.
Click to expand...

The second amendment absolutist position isn't "no background checks for anything ever", so I don't think them agreeing to the idea of a background checking using someone's juvenile records is inconsistent with that.
 
So a abuser should be allowed to get a gun to kill the abused. Got it....

Battlegrinder said:
Why? Most of it is entirely unobjectable, because it doesn't really related to guns at all, but rather resources or funding for various mental health or safety programs, or modify existing laws (such as the crackdown on straw buyers).

The only two gun related provisions are:
1. Making Domestic violence convictions prohibit gun ownership across the board, rather than only applying to felony DV. That seems reasonable.
2. People under 21 have to have local law enforcement review their juvenile records before they can buy a rifle. That seems conceptually fine, the question will be what form the actual legislation takes.
Click to expand...
From what I understand it is a way to pass the same things that passed in the house
 
The Immortal Watch Dog said:
Yeah it is.

Shall not be infringed. With the exception of felons and even that bugs me a little bit.
Click to expand...

If felons are an exception to the right to bear arms (and I agree with you on it being iffy, in the sense that law considers tax evasion and attempted murder to be equally valid reasons to restrict gun ownership), then logically running a background check to see if someone is a felon is necessary and not infringing, right?

Doomsought said:
Having if you were convicted of X you are not allowed to own a gun is not only a violation of the fifth amendment, but also an ex post facto punishment. All abrogations of rights must be assigned as part of the sentencing during a trial.
Click to expand...

This is misinformed on a level on par with "16 year olds can walk into a gun show and buy a machine gun without a background check or even showing ID" or the like.

First off, the 5th amendment says no one shall be deprived of liberty without due process of law. A criminal trial is due process.

Secondly, ex post facto laws are those that criminalize previously legal conduct and then charge people that committed those acts before they were crimes. It has nothing to do with revoking or limiting one's rights after a conviction, nor does it have anything to do applying additional punishments to convicted criminals (and furthermore its a moot point, as felons have been banned from owning guns since 1968 federally, and probably before that in many states).

Third, there's no basis in law whatsoever for this "all rights lost must be assigned as part of sentencing" thing.

Zachowon said:
From what I understand it is a way to pass the same things that passed in the house
Click to expand...

According to who? The only thing I've heard is "the bipartisan senate group working on a gun violence bill has announced the framework of what they're willing to pass". It has nothing to do with, and IIRC nothing in common with, Pelosi's DOA house bill.
 
qb3Wel59txqL.jpeg


Constitutional Carry States:
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Iowa
Kansas
Kentucky
Maine
Mississippi
Missouri
Montana
New Hampshire
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
South Dakota
Tennessee
Texas
Utah
Vermont
West Virginia
Wyoming

Conspicuously absent:
Florida
Louisiana
Michigan
Nebraska
North Carolina
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Wisconsin
 
Matt Gaetz criticized 'red flag' gun laws and said any Republican senator supporting them is a 'traitor to the Constitution'

www.businessinsider.com

Matt Gaetz criticized 'red flag' gun laws and said any Republican senator supporting them is a 'traitor to the Constitution'

Red flag laws, which provide a reporting system for possible gun threats, were supported by former President Donald Trump and Republican lawmakers.
www.businessinsider.com www.businessinsider.com

  • Rep. Matt Gaetz blasted "red flag" gun laws even though they've been touted by GOP lawmakers.
  • Gaetz and other GOP members of the Judiciary House Committee said such laws are easily exploited.
  • The Florida congressman said Republican senators who back such laws would "betray" their voters.
Florida Rep. Matt Gaetz said on Thursday that any Republican senator in favor of "red flag" laws for guns would "betray" their voters and the US Constitution.

His opposition to red flag laws — a measure previously backed by former President Donald Trump and many Republican lawmakers — was raised during the Judiciary House Committee's debate on a gun safety bill to address the recent surge in high-casualty gun violence.

"Let the message from this committee hearing to Republican senators be astonishingly clear," Gaetz said to the camera. "If you back red flag laws as some reflexive response to some emotion that you have, you betray your voters."

"You are a traitor to the Constitution, the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment, you do nothing to make mass shootings less likely," he added.

Gaetz said red flag laws would "put a target on the back" of constituents "to be subjected to bizarre proceedings" that impact their rights. "And these will be abused, they are being abused," he added.

Gaetz, who sits on the committee, tabled an amendment declaring that Congress "disfavors the enactment" of red flag laws, writing that they "trample on an individual's due process and Second Amendment rights."

Red flag laws, enacted individually by states, typically allow family members, law enforcement, medical officers, or school authorities to seek quick court intervention over a person they believe is a gun threat to themselves or others.

Next week, Congress will address another act covering federal red flag laws.

Thursday's debated bill, however, mainly focused on raising the purchase age for semi-automatic rifles from 18 to 21 and restricting high-capacity ammunition magazines.

Republican representatives on the committee, including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-TX) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY), rallied behind Gaetz's amendment on Thursday, arguing that red flag laws could easily be exploited.

They warned that the speed at which a reported person can be barred from owning a gun means there's not enough time for a proper investigation or due process.

For example, someone seeking revenge on an ex-lover could have their guns stripped from them, removing the latter's ability to defend themselves, Gaetz said.

'Spare me the bullshit'
Responding to Gaetz's proposed amendment, the committee's chair, New York Rep. Jerrold Nadler, said it wouldn't make sense for the amendment to "declare" what Congress disfavors because the House of Representatives hasn't even voted on the matter yet.

Democrat lawmakers in the committee also pointed out that Florida — the state Gaetz represents — already has a red flag gun law following the 2018 Parkland school shooting, and that the Trump administration also supported such legislation.

"You know who didn't have due process? You know who didn't have their constitutional right to life respected? The kids at Parkland, at Sandy Hook, in Uvalde, in Buffalo, and the list goes on and on," Rhode Island Rep. David Cicilline said. "So spare me the bullshit about constitutional rights."

Cicilline said that red flag gun laws are modeled after the government's response to domestic abuse cases and that they involve enough due process for the reporting system to be fair.

Gaetz's amendment failed to pass in a 24-18 vote along party lines. The bill, without his addition, received a 25-19 vote in favor of sending it to the House floor next week.

It's likely to pass in the House of Representatives, where Democrat lawmakers hold the majority, but whether the legislature will survive a Republican-led Senate is still in question.

The stance held by Gaetz and his GOP colleagues also comes as President Joe Biden on Thursday urged lawmakers to act on gun control. A federal red-flag law was among the legislation he supported.

"How much more carnage are we willing to accept?" he asked during his televised address.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top