Law Gun Control: A Global Overview

[Deorum]

---

Don't worry. We'll come take guns out of all you gun nuts' hands this November when Kamala wins. This isn't the 1700s. Guns have no place in civilian hands.

Plz, No!

 

[My Spot]

Seems to me that if gun controlls really did care about reducing gun violence they'd go after handguns and not "weapons of war."

 

[Rob Battisti]

Based Cruise has entered the chat.

Been a while since I revisited that interview. Love me some Tom Cruise

 

[LeonardoBjj]

Seems to me that if gun controlls really did care about reducing gun violence they'd go after handguns and not "weapons of war."

- Handguns are really ease to use. But they dont look as scary!

 

[Deorum]

Depending how this plays out it might get more interesting down the road . . .

I trust you'll keep a watchful eye on any further developments.

 

[spamking]

I trust you'll keep a watchful eye on any further developments.

I'm not sure what will come from it, but seeing how things play out when the Feds appeal will be interesting.

 

[BFoe]

I'm not sure what will come from it, but seeing how things play out when the Feds appeal will be interesting.

Bruen rears it’s ugly retarded head again, I guess.

But even if one is in agreement with the SCOTUS decisions of 2008-present, didn’t Heller address this quite clearly?

 

[spamking]

Bruen rears it’s ugly retarded head again, I guess.

But even if one is in agreement with the SCOTUS decisions of 2008-present, didn’t Heller address this quite clearly?

Assuming you're referring to felon-in-possession laws being deemed "presumptively lawful", wasn't this guy taking advantage of the stipulation mentioned in Heller that disarmed individuals get the opportunity to show that they're not dangerous?

 

[BFoe]

Assuming you're referring to felon-in-possession laws being deemed "presumptively lawful", wasn't this guy taking advantage of the stipulation mentioned in Heller that disarmed individuals get the opportunity to show that they're not dangerous?

1. Bruen is nothing to celebrate. It’s a literally unworkable, indecipherable standard. It has no objectively precise meaning and no practical workability. Maybe separate from our convo, I’ll drop a post ITT about why Bruen is so shockingly stupid. Not that the Righties here will care of course, but still….

2. No, I’m speaking of a prohibition on machine guns. Even according to the definitions the Roberts Court provides on “dangerous and unusual weapons,” this issue of the prohibition of machine guns has been dealt with by the Roberts Court, has it not?

 

[spamking]

1. Bruen is nothing to celebrate. It’s a literally unworkable, indecipherable standard. It has no objectively precise meaning and no practical workability. Maybe separate from our convo, I’ll drop a post ITT about why Bruen is so shockingly stupid. Not that the Righties here will care of course, but still….

I've celebrated Bruen many times . . . and will continue to do so.

2. No, I’m speaking of a prohibition on machine guns. Even according to the definitions the Roberts Court provides on “dangerous and unusual weapons,” this issue of the prohibition of machine guns has been dealt with by the Roberts Court, has it not?

This judge felt otherwise when stating this:

While prosecutors pointed to laws from the 1700s and 1800s barring the use of "dangerous or unusual weapons," Broomes said those historical examples focused on their use to terrorize the public, not simply possessing them in the first place.

It probably won't, but I hope this blows up the NFA and the closed registry.

 

[BFoe]

I've celebrated Bruen many times . . . and will continue to do so.

Sad.

This judge felt otherwise when stating this:

While prosecutors pointed to laws from the 1700s and 1800s barring the use of "dangerous or unusual weapons," Broomes said those historical examples focused on their use to terrorize the public, not simply possessing them in the first place.

It probably won't, but I hope this blows up the NFA and the closed registry.

Obviously that Trump-appointed judge felt otherwise, that’s not in dispute. We are obviously going nowhere here, and I don’t quite understand why. I am pointing out, and asking for your agreement, that this issue has been addressed quite clearly by the Roberts Court. My question was very simple, and the answer is obviously “yes, the Roberts Court has explicitly upheld the prohibition on dangerous and unusual weapons like machine guns.” How could there be any other answer?

Moving on…clearly this won’t be a fruitful dialogue.

 

[SummerStriker]

If a president was so certain that a gun control program was going to work that he gave up his own guns and disarmed the secret service (they switch to swords and pepper spray), would you be more willing to surrender your own guns?

 

[spamking]

Sad.



Obviously that Trump-appointed judge felt otherwise, that’s not in dispute. We are obviously going nowhere here, and I don’t quite understand why. I am pointing out, and asking for your agreement, that this issue has been addressed quite clearly by the Roberts Court. My question was very simple, and the answer is obviously “yes, the Roberts Court has explicitly upheld the prohibition on dangerous and unusual weapons like machine guns.” How could there be any other answer?

Moving on…clearly this won’t be a fruitful dialogue.

 

[BFoe]

Yup. That’s exactly the “IDGAF what’s right or wrong as long as I get my way” response I’ve come to expect from conservatives these days.
Carry on.

 

[spamking]

Yup. That’s exactly the “IDGAF what’s right or wrong as long as I get my way” response I’ve come to expect from conservatives these days.
Carry on.

Too bad . . . the NFA registry is growing by leaps and bounds. NFA items are quickly becoming "in common use and typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." which are protected by the 2A. It's not too far of a leap to say the NFA’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles and suppressors violate Heller already.

 

[BFoe]

Too bad . . . the NFA registry is growing by leaps and bounds. NFA items are quickly becoming "in common use and typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes." which are protected by the 2A. It's not too far of a leap to say the NFA’s restrictions on short-barreled rifles and suppressors violate Heller already.

We are not talking about short barreled rifles or suppressors—although that is a fine example of why Miller is right and Heller is wrong—we are talking about machine guns.

I honestly didn’t expect this exchange to be a tense one, I assumed you’d agree with me that Heller addressed this issue, because….Heller addressed this issue. Clearly. It’s isn’t even a question. I thought this would be a simple point that even you and I would agree upon. Silly me, I shouldn’t have been so naive.

It seems obvious to me that you don’t want to go on record saying so because of some personal desire you have that the Roberts Court will find a way to wriggle out from underneath their own framework—which, tbf, is a thing they like to do, so you may just get your wish.

 

[My Spot]

Why waste your time on someone who disagreed with SCOTUS overturning Trump's bump stock ban?

 

[spamking]

We are not talking about short barreled rifles or suppressors—although that is a fine example of why Miller is right and Heller is wrong—we are talking about machine guns.

Miller dealt with a sawed-off shotgun being transported across state lines. The court decided that a sawed-off shotgun had no military application at the time. Yet today, an SBR combined with a suppressor is often the weapon of choice for various military teams. Regardless, when it comes to the definition of "dangerous and unusual", SBRs and suppressors are lumped into that group just like a machinegun. So anything impacting "dangerous and unusual" impact everything within that definition.

I honestly didn’t expect this exchange to be a tense one, I assumed you’d agree with me that Heller addressed this issue, because….Heller addressed this issue. Clearly. It’s isn’t even a question. I thought this would be a simple point that even you and I would agree upon. Silly me, I shouldn’t have been so naive.

I honestly didn't expect you to get so butthurt about it either. Clearly it is a question and a point that should be challenged since based on how Heller addressed the issue it's pretty obvious that the "dangerous and unusual" are becoming "common use" and are protected as bearable arms.

It seems obvious to me that you don’t want to go on record saying so because of some personal desire you have that the Roberts Court will find a way to wriggle out from underneath their own framework—which, tbf, is a thing they like to do, so you may just get your wish.

Feel free to take my previous comments as going on the record.

Heller clarified what “arms” the Second Amendment protects. Arms that are considered to be “in common use” and those “typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes,” but not those that are “dangerous and unusual.” Applying the various steps based on Bruen it's pretty clear that "dangerous and unusual" arms that were once rarely owned are becoming more and more commonly used/owned arms.

 

[djacobox372]

Seems to me that if gun controlls really did care about reducing gun violence they'd go after handguns and not "weapons of war."

Handguns aren't a significant threat to any armed force that opposes them.

Banning handguns would be easier also, as they aren't weapons typically used for "militia" purposes as the 2A lays out.

 

[BFoe]

Handguns aren't a significant threat to any armed force that opposes them.

Banning handguns would be easier also, as they aren't weapons typically used for "militia" purposes as the 2A lays out.

Heller already struck down a handgun ban, and stated that people have a right to have them in the home for defense. McDonald likewise struck down what was effectively a handgun ban, protected what it called a right to use them outside the home for self defense as well. Furthermore, the way SCOTUS defined common-use weapons clearly takes them off the table.

I suppose we could do the same thing Republicans did to us when Roe was in effect, which is ignore it and pass bills that we know will be struck down, and force people to litigate that shit for years and make taxpayers pay for it, but that’s a stupid, shitty thing to do. We go after other types of weapons because there is some legitimate room in the SCOTUS’s decisions by which to do so.