It’s important so you can shoot cops?
Well, if the cop is coming for your gun…
Yeah, this is really very strange. Absurd, even.
“Problem: police departments are militarizing.”
“Solution: bigger guns for civilians.”
Of all the conceivable ways to address the problem… You would think somewhere on the list, maybe just a tiny tiny bit higher up, you might see:
“Solution: demilitarize police departments.”
It’s also ironic that the fringe militia crowd tend to be white males, the group LEAST likely to be oppressed by law enforcement, other than for the fact that they overly arm themselves, for fear of being oppressed. Talk about a vicious circle.
Well of course. It’s not coincidence that the white militias toting around assault rifles in public places are the same people who call BLM “thugs” or “terrorists”.
BLM is actually trying to fight police oppression. White militias just use the existence of militarized police as an excuse for why they need to exist, but will happily praise them if they use their power to oppress some minorities.
I just want to point out this did not happen. He had a fake gun and did fire 4 or so shots but did neither injure or kill anyone. Police killed him.
He also had no links to extreme Islam, and was not an immigrant. He was a German, with mixed German/Italian ancestry.
Oh I agree - it’s very J-Edgar-esque (unsurprising, in that it was probably instigated by Cheney). However, it has been completely stymied in being challenged in the Courts, and is in active use right now. As such, I think the only way to really get a good Court debate on it is to tie it to a gun bill so that the first person who is unable to exercise their constitutional rights under the 2nd amendment will be able to get that debate going, and maybe it can be fixed.
It certainly isn’t going to be fixed as is - if Obama didn’t do it, I can’t see Clinton or Trump doing it.
And I certainly get the reluctance others may have to use a bad rule to try and force public debate of a worse one.
However I definitely feel the appeal of such an attempt. You’d think this would be a slam dunk instance where such a ruling would be swiftly challenged. However, as you note, I have no confidence that either incoming administration would seriously challenge the watch list, such a gun ownership restriction or not.
The thing is that as soon as anyone is denied for Gun ownership, then they have standing to sue under Constitutional rights. Here’s an update from the ACLU as to where the process is:
We filed the suit in June 2010 on behalf of 10 U.S. citizens and permanent residents who the government banned from flying to or from the U.S. or over American airspace. (Three more people later joined the suit.) Our clients, among them four U.S. military veterans, were never told why they were on the list or given a reasonable opportunity to get off it. Some were stranded abroad, unable to come home. As one response to our lawsuit, the government began to allow Americans to fly home on a “one-time waiver,” with stringent security precautions.
Separately, the government made two basic arguments in its defense of the No Fly List, both of which the court rejected. First, it argued that U.S. persons had no constitutionally protected right to fly. In August 2013, the court disagreed, holding that constitutional rights are at stake when the government stigmatizes Americans as suspected terrorists and bans them from international travel…
…As a result, the government announced in April that it would tell U.S. citizens and lawful permanent residents whether they are on the No Fly List, and possibly offer reasons.
Unfortunately, the government’s new redress process still falls far short of constitutional requirements. In our case, it refuses to provide meaningful notice of the reasons our clients are blacklisted, the basis for those reasons, and a hearing before a neutral decision-maker. Much as before, our clients are left to guess at the government’s case and can’t clear their names. That’s unconstitutional.
There’s another important aspect to the government’s case at this stage. The government has emphasized that it is making predictive judgments that people like our clients — who have never been charged let alone convicted of a crime — might nevertheless pose a threat
First, it argued that U.S. persons had no constitutionally protected right to fly.
But they would be allowed to return to the USA on a wooden sail ship if they built one.
Wait, is The Donald still over in Europe? Cause I got a great idea…
Brilliant
Yeah. I have concerns about using something we to know is wrong more in the hopes of doing so will ultimately get it repealed entirely. If that approach doesn’t work, we’ve just given the beast more teeth.
I understand the position though. Driving cars, flying planes… those are things that are privileges not rights. Do we really think the pro-gun group and the NRA would help in this case or would they be okay with it because the “wrong” kinds of people appear to be targeted.
Father accidentally shoots his own son at a gun range: https://www.yahoo.com/news/teen-accidentally-shot-dead-front-174932767.html
So clearly not intentional, but why exactly is he not being charged with anything?
better (worse) example: family visiting from out of state, 3 y.o. son finds a .40 cal pistol and shoots himself dead
“It has not yet been announced which, if any, charges are going to be filed in this case.”
At least charges remain a possibility in that case. In the Florida case, it sounds like they’ve ruled out charges.
Also, is there a way to edit posts in this new forum?
Yes. The little pencil icon under your post.
This thread is way to depressing for infinite scroll.
Five thousand posts about kids shooting themselves in the face.