Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Edge-]

https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-w...ights-illinois

A U.S. District Court judge ruled earlier this month that completely prohibiting illegal immigrants from possessing firearms is a violation of the Second Amendment.

The ruling, issued on March 8 by Obama-appointed District Judge Sharon Johnson Coleman, pertains to the case of illegal migrant Heriberto Carbajal-Flores. Carbajal-Flores was charged under Title 18 of U.S. Criminal Code, a measure preventing illegal migrants from possessing firearms.

Carbajal-Flores had no criminal history of improper use of a gun and therefore, according to the court, did not present a public danger when exercising his Second Amendment right in Chicago in 2020.

Carbajal-Flores contends that he received and used the handgun solely for self-protection and protection of property during a time of documented civil unrest in the Spring of 2020,” the judge wrote. “Thus, this Court finds that, as applied to Carbajal-Flores,[Title 18] is unconstitutional.”

In her decision, Coleman cited the Supreme Court's ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which found New York State could not constitutionally prevent anyone from carrying a pistol in public. The case, she said, “established a framework for analyzing whether a challenged firearm regulation violates the Second Amendment.”

The noncitizen possession statute, [Title 18], violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores,” the judge wrote. “Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores’ motion to dismiss.”

Courts continue to evaluate the right to bear arms and who is responsible for illegal acts committed with guns. In Washington earlier this month, a federal judge rejected a challenge to a law allowing lawsuits against gun makers if their weapons are used improperly.

A suspect in a Maryland shooting that killed a 2-year-old last month was in the country illegally and had prior detainments, according to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

I mean...technically this has always been true as folks in the US enjoy Constitutional protections regardless of their citizenship status. But I'll be curious to see reactions to this in the legal/political spheres and the like. Feel like some folks are going to have some mixed feelings.

[Grinning Serpent]

https://nbcmontana.com/news/nation-w...ights-illinois



I mean...technically this has always been true as folks in the US enjoy Constitutional protections regardless of their citizenship status. But I'll be curious to see reactions to this in the legal/political spheres and the like. Feel like some folks are going to have some mixed feelings.

Contradictory statements haven't stopped conservatives before, it probably won't stop them now.

[PhaelixWW]

I wanted you to clarify "lunatic", in this instance, because the inference here is both instances require action before enforcement: A felon is easy they commit a felony, but lunatic?

People can have their own opinions, but this actually has a relevant legal definition, as it's already a prohibiting factor for firearm ownership, as laid out in 18 U.S. Code § 922.

From ATF Form #4473, which is required to purchase a firearm from a dealer:

21.g. Have you ever been adjudicated as a mental defective OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

...and from the instructions section:

Question 21.g. Adjudicated as a Mental Defective: A determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency, condition, or disease: (1) is a danger to himself or to others; or (2) lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs. This term shall include: (1) a finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and (2) those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility.

Committed to a Mental Institution: A formal commitment of a person to a mental institution by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority. The term includes a commitment to a mental institution involuntarily. The term includes commitment for mental defectiveness or mental illness. It also includes commitments for other reasons, such as for drug use. The term does not include a person in a mental institution for observation or a voluntary admission to a mental institution.

EXCEPTION: Under the NICS Improvement Amendments Act of 2007, a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution in a State proceeding is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if the person has been granted relief by the adjudicating/committing State pursuant to a qualifying mental health relief from disabilities program. Also, a person who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution by a department or agency of Federal Government is not prohibited by the adjudication or commitment if either: (a) the person’s adjudication or commitment was set aside or expunged by the adjudicating/committing agency; (b) the person has been fully released or discharged from all mandatory treatment, supervision, or monitoring by the agency; (c) the person was found by the agency to no longer suffer from the mental health condition that served as the basis of the initial adjudication/commitment; (d) the adjudication or commitment, respectively, is based solely on a medical finding of disability, without an opportunity for a hearing by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority, and the person has not been adjudicated as a mental defective consistent with 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(4); or (e) the person was granted relief from the adjudicating/committing agency pursuant to a qualified mental health relief from disabilities program. This exception to an adjudication or commitment by a Federal department or agency does not apply to any person who was adjudicated to be not guilty by reason of insanity, or based on lack of mental responsibility, or found incompetent to stand trial, in any criminal case or under the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Persons who fall within one of the above exceptions should answer “no” to question 21.g.

[Grinning Serpent]

Problem is, that definition is far too narrow. And enforcement is pretty lacking, even if it wasn't. It's pretty clear, lots of folks here own guns when they aren't the sort of people in the right mental space to bear such a burden of responsibility.

[PhaelixWW]

Problem is, that definition is far too narrow.

"Far too narrow"? Nah. The requirement for abrogating a Constitutional right is necessarily strict. In this case, the requirement is a credible reason to expect a danger to self or others, as decided by a credible authority.

Otherwise, you get people arguing, for example, that a diagnosis of depression alone is grounds for the removal of a right.

And enforcement is pretty lacking, even if it wasn't.

This I won't argue against, however. And it's true in many ways. For one, this country would be a much better/safer place if adequate healthcare was neither punitive nor stigmatized.

[Grinning Serpent]

I don't really buy into the whole "rights" thing. If it can be taken from you, it's not a fucking right. It's a privilege.

And guess what? All of the things on the bill of rights can and *are* taken from you, with regularity, because our entire justice system is a fucking joke.

[Grinning Serpent]

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/cus...te-in-michigan

Well this one rank's pretty highly on the stupid meter. Shooting someone over an altercation over a side of guac. People like this should be made examples of.

[Edge-]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...ining-teachers

Ohio appears to be the first state to purchase shoot houses – mobile homes designed for indoor firearms training – to better prepare public school staff “to respond to an active shooter”.

The Ohio controlling board, which helps oversee changes to the state budget, approved public safety officials’ request for $78,028 last month to purchase two shoot houses to help train public school employees that are allowed to carry firearms at work.

Yeah boi, who's gonna shittalk their teacher in Ohio when they're fuckin strapped and trained for close quarters engagements with active shooters, baby?

I fuckin love America so fucking much there is literally no problem that we can't solve by just throwing more guns at it.

[Twdft]

https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/cus...te-in-michigan

Well this one rank's pretty highly on the stupid meter. Shooting someone over an altercation over a side of guac. People like this should be made examples of.

Here in Germany the employee might have been punched in the face. Whatever could be the reason? Maybe because nobody goes to a fastfood joint with a gun in their pocket... I wonder why that is...

[Captain N]

Here in Germany the employee might have been punched in the face. Whatever could be the reason? Maybe because nobody goes to a fastfood joint with a gun in their pocket... I wonder why that is...

Well here in the United States we believe that we're going to stop a crime and be the "good guy with a gun" so we bring our guns everywhere. Even though it has minimal success overall and often results in being the bad guy with the gun.

[Grinning Serpent]

Here in Germany the employee might have been punched in the face. Whatever could be the reason? Maybe because nobody goes to a fastfood joint with a gun in their pocket... I wonder why that is...

It's just the result of America's many, many social failings combined with ease of access to guns and the way guns are presented as a solution to problems.

If all you've got is a gun, turns out everything starts looking like a target. Weird how that works.

[PickleballAce]

Here in Germany the employee might have been punched in the face. Whatever could be the reason? Maybe because nobody goes to a fastfood joint with a gun in their pocket... I wonder why that is...

Disarm the undesirables, ja?

[diller]

Disarm the undesirables, ja?

What is that even supposed to mean?

[Twdft]

It's just the result of America's many, many social failings combined with ease of access to guns and the way guns are presented as a solution to problems.

If all you've got is a gun, turns out everything starts looking like a target. Weird how that works.

Then change it perhaps.

I'm sure we would be happy to let the US copy our gun law.

[Deus Mortis]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/85-old-id...194835824.html
85-year-old Idaho woman who killed intruder committed 'heroic act of self-preservation'

The 85-year-old mother of a disabled son committed a "justifiable homicide" in Idaho when she shot an armed burglar who snuck into her home and threatened to "kill her multiple times," a county prosecutor said.

Christine Jenneiahn presented "one of the most heroic acts of self-preservation" that Bingham County prosecutor Ryan Jolley has ever heard of when she shot and killed 39-year-old Derek Condon, according to an incident review written Tuesday.

Once in the living room, Condon handcuffed Jenneiahn to a wooden chair and demanded she tell him where the valuables were kept in her home, according to Jolley's review. When Jenneiahn told Condon that she "didn't have much," the burglar placed the gun against her head, the document continued.

Jenneiahn eventually told Condon about two safes downstairs, which led to him leaving her handcuffed in the living room while he went to check several rooms multiple times, according to the review.

While checking downstairs, Condon realized that Jenneiahn's disabled son was also in the home, Jolley's review says. This led to Condon becoming angry with Jenneiahn because she did not tell him anyone else was in the house, according to the document.

"(Condon) also made numerous threats to Christine telling her that he would kill her," Jolley said in the incident review.

At some point when Condon was downstairs, Jenneiahn dragged the chair she was handcuffed to into her bedroom and got her .357 Magnum from under her pillow, according to the incident review. The mother then returned to the living room and hid the gun between the armrest and cushion of a couch next to where she was seated and waited to see what Condon did, the legal document continued.

Jenneiahn told prosecutors her recollection of what happened next is "somewhat unclear," Jolley said in the review. She did recall Condon coming back to the living room and threatening to kill her as he continued to burglarize her home, according to the county prosecutor.

During the chaos, Jenneiahn ultimately decided that it was "now or never" so she pulled out her revolver and shot Condon twice, the review says. Condon would return fire, shooting Jenneiahn multiple times in her abdomen, leg, arm and chest, the document continued.

After returning fire, Condon went into the kitchen and died from his wounds, Jolley said in the review. A still-handcuffed Jenneiahn fell to the floor and remained there for 10 hours, according to the prosecutor.

The mother called 911 after her son came upstairs in the morning and handed her the phone, the review says. Deputies got to the home and worked to save Jenneiahn's life, according to the legal document.

A lock pick set, car keys, a handcuff key and items in a bag from Jenneiahn's home were found with Condon, Jolley said in the review.

What a badass old lady.

[Grinning Serpent]

What a badass old lady.

It's why I am ultimately in favor of (compared to some of our peers) relatively permissive gun laws and the right to self-defense. I'm guessing this would've been a double homicide if she wasn't armed. It's also an example of why the "just use a baseball bat" argument isn't solid. That said, our laws need a lot of work. For every one of these stories we get dozens of negligent homicides and intentional homicides.

So in other news, uh. How we feeling about 4 more years of Trump? Because apparently the Democrats have decided they don't want to win this time around: https://scrippsnews.com/stories/new-...show-loophole/

Nothing like providing Republicans with something that both the establishment and the Trump cult (and their voters) fucking despise to unite against Democrats over.

[Spectral]

So in other news, uh. How we feeling about 4 more years of Trump? Because apparently the Democrats have decided they don't want to win this time around: https://scrippsnews.com/stories/new-...show-loophole/

The change is broadly popular, you won't find anything to unite against here. The only concern with a change in rules is enforcing them against legitimately private, non-business transfers (e.g. a firearm being transferred to a friend that compensates you for it) where they wouldn't have access to background check databases. A legitimate FFL that's in business to make a profit should have no trouble following rules rather than skirting them.

[The Stormbringer]

More background checks? Sweet, sign me the fuck up.

[schmonz]

I as a german never understood the love for guns in america.

[Grinning Serpent]

The change is broadly popular, you won't find anything to unite against here. The only concern with a change in rules is enforcing them against legitimately private, non-business transfers (e.g. a firearm being transferred to a friend that compensates you for it) where they wouldn't have access to background check databases. A legitimate FFL that's in business to make a profit should have no trouble following rules rather than skirting them.

Who're you trying to kid? This is literally something gun owners have been complaining about for years, actually taking place - that they'd claim the written exclusion is a loophole and then close it.

The slippery slope types are already taking this and running with it. Like, do you just not talk to conservatives or something? I haven't encountered a single one that approves of this. Now, would they approve of it if it came from Trump? I'm sure they'd bitch about it but they'd still vote Republican. The key is that it's a Democrat that's doing it.

And you do realize that an FFL that doesn't run checks isn't an FFL, right? Like, that's a major component of being one - you must run checks, because you are a business and not a private seller. There's no such thing as being an illegitimate FFL - the word you're looking for is "criminal."

Personally I'm very annoyed that they're calling this a loophole, because it's fucking not. And I'm particularly annoyed this isn't being done through Congress, because the more we bypass Congress the less our elections mean (not that Congress has much legitimacy when people like Boebert and Traitor Greene aren't immediately ejected from their office), and because something that is done by Presidential penstroke can just as easily be reversed by a future Presidential penstroke.

But in terms of actually "doing something"? It's going to make fuck all difference. Overwhelming majority of sales at gun shows are through registered FFLs, and they run checks. At most, Bubba will move his van from the gun show parking lot to some Walmart parking lot in the town instead - assuming the ATF even bothers patrolling parking lots, looking for private sellers in the first place. It's the epitome of useless "look like we're doing something" Democrat stupidity.

- - - Updated - - -

I as a german never understood the love for guns in america.

Probably a mixture of country westerns and the way that the American revolution, founding fathers, etc have become mythologized over the years. People watching shit like The Patriot and actually believing it's remotely realistic and accurate, etc. You have a lot of people, ignorant of their own country's actual history, that *genuinely believe* that the only reason we won the war was because there were some dudes in a swamp/forest/whatever with muskets.

Then you add the way the NRA's been in bed with gun manufacturers since the late 80's (it began in the early 80's but it was closer to the 90's when it really started to turn into what we're used to today) and... yeah.