Gun Control & Gun Rights Catch-All Thread

[Ddseddse]

I'm saying I don't think it would work. I have nothing against an assault rifle ban. Not a thing.

So we both agree it's worth giving it a try.

 

[Icky Mettle]

You are right that everyone obeys the law until they don't. And when people don't obey the law and face zero consequences as a result, they will continue to break the law. What is the point of having a law at all if it is not enforced? Telling someone that it is too expensive to get a violent and armed felon off of the street while at the same time telling them that they are no longer going to be able to defend themselves from that violent felon that is being allowed to do whatever he wants is not sensible policy, but it seems to be exactly what you are proposing.

Here's what I'm proposing: if you are a felon and caught with a weapon illegally, your bond is $5 million. If you use a gun to commit a crime, your bond is $5 million. If you buy a gun legally and then sell or give that gun to someone that you know is not allowed to own that gun, your bond is $5 million. Saying it is too expensive to actually prosecute dangerous criminals is a feeble excuse.

The purpose of setting bond isn’t to punish people. The primary purpose of setting bond is to ensure that the accused appears in court. A secondary purpose is assure the safety of the community while the case is pending. Not everyone charged with a crime if guilty of the crime charged, and the reason we have bail is to prevent unconvicted suspects from suffering unnecessary incarceration. Thus, bond should not be a one size fits all determination. In addition to the nature of the offense, the history and characteristics of the defendant and the strength of the evidence need to be considered.

 

[nycfan]

9th Circuit so chances are good that SCOTUs will eventually overturn the restrictions they allowed here:



“California may enforce its recent ban on guns in “sensitive places” when it comes to parks and playgrounds, bars and restaurants that serve alcohol, casinos, stadiums, amusement parks, zoos, libraries, museums, athletic facilities and the parking areas associated with them, a federal appellate court ruled Friday.

However, the state may not enforce similar restrictions in hospitals or other medical facilities, on public transit, at places of worship or financial institutions, or in the parking areas associated with or shared by those places, the three-judge panel of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals determined.

It also may not enforce its ban on guns at all events requiring a permit, or on visitors carrying guns onto any private property where the owner has not posted signs explicitly allowing them, the panel ruled. …”

 

[uncgriff]

It's so funny to see a full page of posts reduced to only 2 items because I have one idiot on super ignore.

 

[nycfan]

9th Circuit Opinion, a good chunk of which appears to be trying to parse through the historical record to apply Clarence Thomas’s ridiculous historicity requirement:

https://cdn.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/opinions/2024/09/06/23-16164.pdf

 

[nycfan]

 

[tarheel931]

I don't support this as handguns are an excellent home defense tool and can be stored safely so that minors or others cannot access them. Moreover, I am not a fan of open carry have no issue with concealed carry. CCW permit holders in most states have jumped through all of the hoops that gun-control advocates want them to jump through and they are underrepresented amongst people who commit gun crime.

That's not factual. There are currently 29 states that allow permitless concealed carry. The only requirements are that the individual be of legal age to own a firearm (and not a felon) and be above the age of 21. Those sure are some strict hoops that they've jumped through.