Stronger background checks, better gun storage laws, provide basic firearm education (maybe even make it mandatory).
I'd love to see your source for such positions, especially regarding the magnitude of improvement expected and the justification for such.
We already have extensive background checks for nearly every firearm purchase. I've yet to see support for the notion that any meaningful percentage of firearm violence is committed by those who legally purchased a firearm but somehow bypassed a background check.
Similarly, I've yet to see any support for the notion that legally requiring safe storage - constitutional violation concerns aside - would make any meaningful improvement. This, at least, one could do much to promote without adding restrictions - I've yet to see any blue team support for, say, subsiding safes.
And similarly, there's no blue team support for subsided, equitable, shall-issue training and licensing - and a lack of indication it would make a difference.
I'm pro gun. But think about the people you know who should never own one. That’s what we should be focusing on. Weeding out irresponsible gun owners and harsher punishments for those that ignore the laws.
Oh? Who are those people? How would you objectively identify such?
Every pro gunner likes to use murder as a comparison against gun laws, “well murder is illegal, but people still do it!” Yeah, but can you imagine how high murder rates would skyrocket if they were legal? You’re not going to stop all gun deaths, but we could do a shit ton to at least minimize them the best we can.
Ironically, you highlight the reason such a highlight is raised - you do nothing at all about the underlying issue (violence and the pressures for it) and, instead, focus only on the fact firearms are a tool used; tacking on more restrictions which create additional burden for those already doing nothing wrong yet are unlikely to meaningfully impact the crime is absurd. You ignore that the current laws and proposed laws continue to ignore the problems.
It’s so frustrating because all we need to do is implement common sense gun restrictions to keep them out of the wrong hands, but nooooo. That takes too much brain power for half of the US, apparently.
"Common sense" is such a laughably disingenuous phase here. It implies the solutions are obvious and intuitive yet the solutions proposed do nothing for the issue at all beyond setting the stage for fire and fury when such measures are rightly resisted.
You are right that there are a few simple things we can do to meaningfully impact things... but you might be surprised as to what they are.
Emergency restrain orders could be another reason for the exception.
Would this be the same ERPO process often touted as a solution to unhinged individuals going on a rampage that almost never works due to the current slow process, general unawareness, and issues with restoration of rights?
Try justifying the waiting period rather than creating some Rube Goldberg machine of negligible value.
Should be added to the law. If for whatever reason that gun that was legal and becomes illegal, government should pay double the retail price when bought to the owner. If over turned, there should be a automatic availability to buy the firearm with no waiting period for the person that previously had it.
You seem to miss that California has a rich and established history of using SLAP lawsuits and sandbag legislation specifically intended to require lengthy federal appeal and judgment to resolve, always with the next legislative measure ready to go no matter how unconditional.
You seem to believe such states are operating in good faith - they're not. Your suggestion only works if they are.
Additionally, the state still has information it shouldn't regarding civilians and ownersgip of firearms and has already demonstrated incompetence with such information resulting in leaks.
I can respect the brainstorming, but the answer truly is to simply address the underlying issues behind individuals and the myriad pressures toward violence.
I'd argue handwaving away rejections of your own nonsense - which appears to hinge on anything butthe actual amendment and its intent - as mere "NRA propaganda" is both actively preventing useful, rational discourse and highlighting the extent to which you retreat behind your own biases rather than confront being wrong.
He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism.
Is that what he did? Reclassify?
I'm increasingly confident you haven't actually read any of it and are just talking out of your ass.
He decides to reclassify a accessories as arms, and that’s not a valid criticism.
Ah, so you are just straight-up full of shit. Fair enough. Way to own it. You don't see that often.
I was pretty sure I'd referenced the ruling in this comment chain, but on the off chance I haven't, here's the relevant part. Also, here's where it was already provided.
That's an interesting assertion - especially given the lack of actual criticism of his ruling and its arguments.
This wouldn't be denial, would it?
I'm sure you guys won’t complain if every magazine, optic and accessory is required to ship to an FFL for paperwork before getting to the customer. 'Cause they’re “arms” now, right?
You might want to revisit his provided statement on the matter - it wasn't very ambiguous.
That said, you're certainly welcome to try to push for such - SCOTUS has a history of slapping down such ban-incrementalist measures lately and I suspect that such a laughable overreach is more likely to result in erosion of FFL processes and requirements.
Ah, I see - criticism and correction of your misunderstandings is supporting firearm ownership without nuance - a thing of freedoms and rights; therefore I'm an authoritarian.
I'm interested in your thoughts on how I've elevated authoritarians; you seem to know quite a bit about who I've voted for... or to be talking out your ass once more.
No, but it could stop some from buying from actual legal stores.
That would be the entire point to the existing straw purchase legislation - which would be a better place to start, if such avenues are demonstrably the actual problem.
Like you said it is a multifaceted issue but repairing like cracks here there will help reinforce other parts of the issue.
Addressing symptoms will never be as effective as addressing root issues, you'll just feel better about negligible impact. That's the problem.
I didn’t say anything about the militia, not sure why you’re referencing that. I provided the verbatim text, which doesn’t reference capacity.
And I provided the opinion from a ruling which directly addressed the most common but militia arguments.
Heller did not establish protections for magazine capacity, that’s what your image says. It’s not settled law, that’s why it’s being contested. This judge was overruled on appeal on this once before. Until it’s settled law the argument magazine capacity is protected is as valid as the argument it’s not.
I'll take a federal judge's opinion on the matter - one which aligns with what was clearly laid out in Heller - over yours, thanks.
You seem to be intentionally neglecting that SCOTUS vacated that and kicked it back down to be revisited in light of Bruen, resulting in... this exact ruling.
Yes, in context for the 1790s the people had access to the same weapons as the standing army, of course they didn’t really have a lot of choice…
It’s almost like context changes over time and laws need to as well
Which doesn't change the intent of parity was quite clear - another thing those pesky sources highlight for you.
This is wrong. Bruen simply held that may issue states cannot use arbitrary evaluations of need to issue permits for concealed carry. Everything else is, by definition, debatable which is why this case is working its way through the courts.
Do you truly believe that's all that was established in Bruen? You seem to be intentionally ignoring the majority of the outcome of that e.g. the things that triggered this to be vacated and reheard - thus this judgement we're discussing.
Again, this is a dumb law and not at all representative of reasonable gun control but magazine capacity is not protected by the 2nd amendment. Not yet, at least.
It's interesting you comment on depth given your demonstrated inability to engage with anything - be it arguments or your own sources - beyond the most superficial.
You do understand the as an [X]/hello fellow kids is pretty transparent, right?
Your declaration of my understanding doesn’t make it so.
It is, rather, your showing your lack of understanding in various comments that shows it is so.
Blind faith? I don’t even know what you’re trying to get at. Save your thoughts and prayers for the next person
Yes, you do. While I enjoy the implied conservative lean - I always enjoy when a rando demonstrates the extent to which they're partisan biased and irrational - you miss in your assumption.
I'd argue I care more about this problem than those of you do cannot help but make bland insults when faced with disagreement and who cannot manage to actually try identifying and solving problems amidst their rants and hyperbole.
From reading your article, wouldn’t the serial registration also help prevent US drug cartels from spamming mexico with ghost guns, which could be traced back to crime organizations?
The entire premise to the ghost gun fearmongering is the lack of traceability - "serial numbers" aren't part of it.
I somehow suspect a cartel manufacturing firearms isn't going to bother registering it before trafficking it to Mexico. So, no - it would be entirely ineffective.
![Jeremy [Iowa]](https://midwest.social/pictrs/image/cf578083-5772-4b2f-a181-51285d32757b.jpeg?format=webp&thumbnail=128)
I'd love to see your source for such positions, especially regarding the magnitude of improvement expected and the justification for such.
We already have extensive background checks for nearly every firearm purchase. I've yet to see support for the notion that any meaningful percentage of firearm violence is committed by those who legally purchased a firearm but somehow bypassed a background check.
Similarly, I've yet to see any support for the notion that legally requiring safe storage - constitutional violation concerns aside - would make any meaningful improvement. This, at least, one could do much to promote without adding restrictions - I've yet to see any blue team support for, say, subsiding safes.
And similarly, there's no blue team support for subsided, equitable, shall-issue training and licensing - and a lack of indication it would make a difference.
Oh? Who are those people? How would you objectively identify such?
Ironically, you highlight the reason such a highlight is raised - you do nothing at all about the underlying issue (violence and the pressures for it) and, instead, focus only on the fact firearms are a tool used; tacking on more restrictions which create additional burden for those already doing nothing wrong yet are unlikely to meaningfully impact the crime is absurd. You ignore that the current laws and proposed laws continue to ignore the problems.
"Common sense" is such a laughably disingenuous phase here. It implies the solutions are obvious and intuitive yet the solutions proposed do nothing for the issue at all beyond setting the stage for fire and fury when such measures are rightly resisted.
You are right that there are a few simple things we can do to meaningfully impact things... but you might be surprised as to what they are.