DarthOne
☦️
Good.
Gun Political Issues Megathread. (Control for or Against?)
- Thread starter Free-Stater 101
- Start date
StormEagle
Well-known member
The question, for me, isn’t whether or not this gets struck down as unconstitutional.
The question is how many people die because of this bill between now and then.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
What's in the bill that's got people so worked up, exactly? Admittedly, I haven't been paying attention, and reading through the actual thing is too much legalese for me to stomach. (That, and the media is a shit source when it comes to guns, "assault-style rifles" and all.)
Red flag laws.
And the fact that it says you can't have a public defender
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
Yeah, I wondered if that might be why. (Although, knowing these people, there must more bureaucratic terrible-ness in there than just that.)
For what, being accused of firearm-related crimes? Guns are dangerous tools, no doubt, but considering how we allow rapists, arsonists, and murderers to have public defenders, then surely, we can do the same for accused gun owners. (Sadly, I'm guessing whoever put that in doesn't see it that way.)
No, no public defenders for red flag hearings.
Which means you're on the hook for thousands of dollars worth of lawyers fees to get you guns back, even if the 'red flag' that caused the confiscation was bullshit.
Zyobot
Just a time-traveling robot stranded on Earth.
I see...
As I said, I find it odd how we still allow rapists, arsonists, and murderers to have public defenders, but not red-flagged gun owners who may very well be innocent. I'm not a gun guy, but even ignoring the suspect constitutionality of it, this double standard right here tells me something's wrong. (And that the people who drafted it either haven't thought it through, or are knowingly legislating in bad faith.)
It also setup funding for states with Red Flag laws to help them cover the expense of applying, administering and prosecuting said red flag laws...but no, you don't get a public defender.
which means another thing to take to the supreme court because this violates multiple parts of the consitution.
DarthOne
☦️
Firearms Policy Coalition
@gunpolicy
BREAKING: California Attorney General says "effective immediately, issuing authorities should no longer require proof of good cause for the issuance of a public-carry license."
https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540501223543021576/photo/2
9:04 PM · Jun 24, 2022·TweetDeck
@gunpolicy
BREAKING: California Attorney General says "effective immediately, issuing authorities should no longer require proof of good cause for the issuance of a public-carry license."
https://twitter.com/gunpolicy/status/1540501223543021576/photo/2
9:04 PM · Jun 24, 2022·TweetDeck
This is a lie, that was not the holding in Caniglia v. Strom. The ruling in that case was that the exception to the 4th amendment that allows the police to search your car after they tow it applies only to a car, they cannot conduct a warrantless search otherwise. It has nothing to do with red flag laws, particularly since at the time the incident that spawned the case happened, Rhode Island didn't have a red flag law.
It's possible a similar ruling could come up regarding red flag laws, but it hasn't happened yet, and I wouldn't bet on it. Several states already have passed red flag laws, and despite many of those states having a 4th amendment like provision in thier constitution, it hasn't been raised in state court as far as I can tell. I don't see why it would be different federally.
Last edited:
DarthOne
☦️
Well…shit.
Well, California is probably going to get a lawsuit over their new carry permitting standards:
The article has even more stuff on how that provision would violate the First and Second Amendment, so it's sure to get California/the 9th Circuit in some trouble.
Article: Friday, the day after the New York State Rifle & Pistol Ass'n v. Bruen Supreme Court decision, the California Attorney General wrote a letter to California law enforcement and government lawyers, expressing "the Attorney General's view that the Court's decision renders California's 'good cause' standard to secure a permit to carry a concealed weapon in most public places unconstitutional." California thus seems ready to promptly shift to a fundamentally shall-issue regime, in which pretty much all law-abiding adults can get licenses to carry concealed weapons. Nor will this require legislative action, I think; California already has a may-issue regime in place for licensing, so—as the AG's office notes—licensing authorities ("sheriffs and chiefs of police") can just use that regime but essentially without applying a good-cause requirement.
But the AG's office concludes that the existing statutory requirement "that a public-carry license applicant provide proof of 'good moral character' remains constitutional," and that this requirement isn't limited to disqualifying felons, certain violent misdemeanants, and the like. And in particular the AG's office suggests that people who hold certain ideological viewpoints should be disqualified:
Existing public-carry policies of local law enforcement agencies across the state provide helpful examples of how to apply the "good moral character" requirement. The Sacramento County Sheriff's Office, for example, currently identifies several potential reasons why a public-carry license may be denied (or revoked), which include "[a]ny arrest in the last 5 years, regardless of the disposition" or "[a]ny conviction in the last 7 years." It is reasonable to consider such factors in evaluating an applicant's proof of the requisite moral character to safely carry firearms in public. See, e.g., Bruen (referencing "law-abiding citizens").
Other jurisdictions list the personal characteristics one reasonably expects of candidates for a public-carry license who do not pose a danger to themselves or others. The Riverside County Sheriff's Department's policy, for example, currently provides as follows: "Legal judgments of good moral character can include consideration of honesty, trustworthiness, diligence, reliability, respect for the law, integrity, candor, discretion, observance of fiduciary duty, respect for the rights of others, absence of hatred and racism, fiscal stability, profession-specific criteria such as pledging to honor the constitution and uphold the law, and the absence of criminal conviction." [Emphasis added.]
...
This strikes me as clearly unconstitutional under the First Amendment, even apart from the Second Amendment. The government can't restrict ordinary citizens' actions—much less their constitutionally protected actions—based on the viewpoints that they express. People can't be denied benefits because they
Nor does it matter that some extreme adherents of the relevant ideology engage in violence (something that's true for many ideologies), or that there are strands in the ideology that overtly support violence under some circumstances (again, something that's true for many ideologies). Just as the Free Exercise Clause would bar the government from engaging in religious discrimination in deciding which citizens can do certain things, so the Free Speech Clause bars the government from engaging in viewpoint discrimination. (The rules related to religious discrimination and viewpoint discrimination may be different when the government is acting as employer, but here we're talking about the government controlling the behavior of ordinary citizens.)
- endorse "hatred" (a potentially extraordinarily broad and vague term) and "racism" (a term that, especially in much recent usage, is likewise highly broad and vague), or
- because they endorse certain extremist views of Islam (or any other religion), or
- because they endorse violent Communist revolution or
- are strongly anti-police or
- anti-government or
- anti-abortion or
- pro-abortion-rights or
- environmentalist or
- pro-animal-rights.
And of course it's easy to see how, if California were allowed to deny concealed carry licenses to whoever California law enforcement officials believe is "racis[t]" or endorses "hatred," then some other state could deny such licenses—or lots of other kinds of licenses—to whoever its law enforcement officials believe is anti-government or anti-police or a Muslim extremist or what have you. Indeed, now that some states can ban abortion, presumably strong support of abortion rights might be seen in many states as lack of "good character" (since in those states' views, it would be support for mass murder). The First Amendment doesn't allow this.
The article has even more stuff on how that provision would violate the First and Second Amendment, so it's sure to get California/the 9th Circuit in some trouble.
wow that is incredibly racist, I mean the second amendment is for every one and wow just wow do these people think?
Typhonis
Well-known member
No they don't. At it's core...gun control is all about disarming poor Whites and Minorities, That's all, that is it. Crime does not matter, safety does not matter. The elites do not sleep well knowing Joe Public is packing heat and may use it if they have a grudge.
They forget there are weapons other than guns. If your cook is angry enough with you....
They forget there are weapons other than guns. If your cook is angry enough with you....
Look at the UK, and all of the regulation on knives, they know their population is frothing with rage and will ban more and more things as they get worse and worse and then one day it just wont matter.