Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Jim M

New Doubts on 2nd Amendment Rights

Recommended Posts

Interesting development at the Supreme Court. No idea where this leads....

 

 

New doubts on Second Amendment rights

Raising significant new questions about how much protection the Constitution’s Second Amendment actually gives to gun owners, the Supreme Court on Monday left intact a local ordinance that restricts access to guns even within one’s own home. The denial of review drew a fervent dissent from two Justices, who argued that the Court is narrowing the amendment’s “right to keep and bear arms.”

 

The Court acted on the gun case while granting review of three more cases for decisions in its next Term, including a new test case of major significance on the right of a group of individuals to band together to file a joint lawsuit seeking a common remedy — “class actions” for consumers and workers and “collective actions” for workers.

 

The refusal to review the case of Jackson v. City and County of San Francisco was the latest in a string of such orders, declining to clarify the personal right to have a gun, first established seven years ago and extended nationwide five years ago, but not explained further in the years since. Once again, as is its custom, the Court did not explain why it was choosing to remain on the sidelines.

 

In the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court had ruled that the right created by the Second Amendment included a right to have a gun for one’s own use in self-defense, at least within the home, and with such a weapon in a condition allowing it to be quickly used. That is the right that the Court said applied all across the country, in the 2010 decision in McDonald v. City of Chicago. But McDonald marked the last time the Court had spoken on the amendment’ s reach.

 

Much of the uncertainty that has spread to courts across the country has involved the core question whether the personal right extends anywhere beyond the home. That has been the issue that the Justices have most often declined to sort out. The San Francisco case, however, sought to bring the Court back inside the home, to determine how far government could go to regulate access to a weapon there.

 

Under the city-county ordinance at issue, a handgun in the home could be carried on the body of the person, but otherwise had to be stored in a locked container or else disabled with a trigger lock. The right to carry a handgun within the home was restricted to those over the age of eighteen.

 

Lower federal courts had upheld those restrictions, despite gun-owners’ claims that the ordinance directly contradicted the access that the Court supposedly had assured in the Heller decision. The main rationale for upholding the ordinance was the need to prevent gun-related accidents within the home.

 

Six San Franciscans who own guns, and want easy access to them in their homes, asked the Supreme Court to strike down the local law. Their plea argued that the lower courts’ rulings were “perhaps the most direct repudiation of this Court’s holding in Heller since the decision was handed down.”

 

That was the plea that the Court chose to bypass, over a dissent by Justice Clarence Thomas that was joined by Justice Antonin Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in the Heller case. The rulings upholding the San Francisco ordinance are “in serious tension with Heller,” the dissenters argued. The Court should have granted review, they contended, “to reiterate that courts may not engage in . . . judicial assessment as to the severity of the burden imposed on core Second Amendment rights.”

 

Among the three cases granted review on Monday, perhaps the most significant was Tyson Foods v. Bouaphakeo, in which the pork-processing company is challenging a $2.8 million money damages verdict awarded to a class of current and former hourly workers at Tyson’s plant in Storm Lake, Iowa.

 

The cases raises two questions applying both to class-action claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and collective-action claims under federal wage-and-hour law. First is whether damages in such a case may be calculated based upon a mere sampling of evidence from a small segment of the class, and the second is whether members of the group can collect any damages payments if they were not personally injured by the action the group is challenging.

 

In agreeing to hear Tyson’s case, the Court took no action on a pair of petitions raising similar issues, by the huge retail chain, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. Those challenges presumably will be held on the Court’s docket awaiting the decision in the Tyson Foods case.

 

In the other two newly granted cases, the Court will be deciding whether a federal judge acts unconstitutionally in ordering a person facing a criminal charge and potential forfeiture of assets from using any funds not obtained from the crime to pay for a defense lawyer (Luis v. United States), and will clarify the standard for summoning a special three-judge U.S. District Court to hear a test case on redistricting — in this case, a new arrangement of election districts for Maryland’s members in the U.S. House of Representatives (Shapiro v. Mack).

The Court denied review in a number of significant cases, including tests of these questions:

 

** In a new case on the federal Affordable Care Act. whether Congress acted unconstitutionally in requiring states to continue to provide, through 2019, subsidized medical care for eighteen- and nineteen-year-olds from low-income families. That was the issue raised by Maine officials in Mayhew v. Burwell.

 

** Whether judges in federal bankruptcy courts have only limited power to regulate state government assets or programs, while judging the validity of a debtor’s reorganization under Chapter 11. The case was Michigan Workmen’s Compensation Agency v. Ace American Insurance Co.

 

** Whether an agreement between two parties to send any dispute they have to arbitration may be enforced even if it does not clearly show that the right to sue is being surrendered. The case was U.S. Legal Services Group v. Atalese. http://www.scotusblog.com/2015/06/new-doubts-on-second-amendment-rights/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Little late checking your in box today.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No little one, I read the article at Scotusblog and I thought it was worthwhile posting even if it is way over your head.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seems the courts are taking the principal of self defense very seriously.

 

Nah, they don't always listen to me and it looks like 7 of them are not taking the principle seriously either.

 

But thanks for the appointment.

 

I assume you meant me.

 

We really should capitalize my title.

 

The Principal of Self-Defense! I like it! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Under the city-county ordinance at issue, a handgun in the home could be carried on the body of the person, but otherwise had to be stored in a locked container or else disabled with a trigger lock. The right to carry a handgun within the home was restricted to those over the age of eighteen.

 

Trigger locks are dangerous because people try to use them on loaded guns.

 

If JBSF hands me back the crown, I'm gonna ban them.

 

Otherwise, the SF rules are my rules. Guns are generally on me or locked up. Generally. The thing is, I can make exceptions to my rules. If I'm about to do something that would coat my gun with salt or paint, for example, I can legally set it aside for a few minutes. As long as it is not foaming at the barrel at the time, that's generally safe.

 

The legal distinctions between this case and Heller, for those who care, are:

 

1. DC did not allow a person to carry a loaded gun, while SF does.

 

2. DC did not allow removal of locks for the purpose of self-defense, while SF does.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Seems the courts are taking the principal of self defense very seriously.

Nah, they don't always listen to me and it looks like 7 of them are not taking the principle seriously either.

 

But thanks for the appointment.

 

I assume you meant me.

 

We really should capitalize my title.

 

The Principal of Self-Defense! I like it! ;)

Now you can go school people!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every firearm I own is either on my person or locked in a gun safe. Common sense. Nevertheless, I agree with Thomas and Scalia that the court should have reviewed the decision, if for no other reason than preventing stupid thread titles on PA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Every firearm I own is either on my person or locked in a gun safe. Common sense. Nevertheless, I agree with Thomas and Scalia that the court should have reviewed the decision, if for no other reason than preventing stupid thread titles on PA.

 

Well, if that is why they decide to hear cases, it will certainly tie things up for the foreseeable future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

GunlobbyspokesmanTomRay_zps58dda322.png

 

Tom, you sound absolutely scholarly this morning. But you seem to have changed your tune about this case quite a bit in two weeks.

In mid-May, I started a thread on the Jackson case: you soon chimed in, from your lofty , superior soapbox. (The one made of corrugated gun lobby cardboard. Rain is your enemy...and it's starting to pour, bud.)

 

Tom Ray Posted 16 May 2015 - 12:51 PM

The basis for the upcoming summary reversal, from Heller:

Quote

We must also address the District’s requirement (as applied to respondent’s handgun) that firearms in the home be rendered and kept inoperable at all times. This makes it impossible for citizens to use them for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional.

Maybe the 9th got jealous when they lost their "most overturned" title?

 


The Jackson v. SF case is a good read. The 9th circuit intrinsically, pointedly and repeatedly used the verbiage and logic of both Heller and McDonald to form their decision. It was very carefully written. Tom hasn't read it yet, I guess.

Tom changed his input this morning, dodging from sweeping Scalia principles to minute intra-city details. He is suddenly dodging his own "core principles" bit. Such "core principles" were not enumerated in the actual second amendment...nor were individual rights. Tom's interpretation of "core principles" extends them to hyperbolic claims of unregulatable self defense "rights". The courts disagree, AND NOT JUST OUTDOORS.)

 

 

 

Polls show that most Americans now believe they have "rights" to unrestricted to guns everywhere. The gun lobby sponsored and fostered this lie over a thirty year period. OTOH, state courts, circuit courts, and the Supreme Court have supported gun regulations (and a variety of them) in general. The key exceptions to this generalization are Emerson, Peruta, and Palmer. To be continued.

 

**************

The idea that having loaded, hidden guns laying about is desirable is a bit sick.

The idea that multiple attackers justify AW's and LCM's laying about is even sicker.

The public health pays a daily price for such an extremist-fringe mentality.

Even if MOST Americans now want to think that the "core purpose" of the second cannot be regulated (or "infringed"), the courts have spoken, and they say otherwise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another stupid thread where the title comes nowhere close to reality. BL, you need to read for comprehension a bit better. The court declining to hear a case =/= new doubts being raised on the 2A.

 

About all you accomplished with this thread was to cause jocal's penis to become severely chaffed in his excitement at the thought. Well, it was good while it lasted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another stupid thread where the title comes nowhere close to reality. BL, you need to read for comprehension a bit better. The court declining to hear a case =/= new doubts being raised on the 2A.

 

About all you accomplished with this thread was to cause jocal's penis to become severely chaffed in his excitement at the thought. Well, it was good while it lasted.

 

So you say. If there was any case one might expect the Supreme Court to review it might be San Francisco's. This goes right to the heart of Heller and McDonald in that it seeks to regulate the use of guns inside one's home. The ability to defend oneself in the home was the heart of the Heller decision, at a minimum, a review of how San Francisco intends to enforce their law since the SC should weigh in on the very idea of law enforcement demanding entry to a home and that is pretty over the top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another stupid thread where the title comes nowhere close to reality. BL, you need to read for comprehension a bit better. The court declining to hear a case =/= new doubts being raised on the 2A.

 

About all you accomplished with this thread was to cause jocal's penis to become severely chaffed in his excitement at the thought. Well, it was good while it lasted.

 

The thread title is quite solid, mate.

If the Supreme Court had constitutional objections about locking guns up in one's own castle, they had a chance to weigh in.

Instead, they declined. The silence speaks volumes. It is certainly not the summary dismissal predicted on our forums.

There is no way this bounced in favor of "self defense" rights, or pro-gun beliefs.

 

The pattern here is that the Supreme Court is not supporting the NRA belief system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you so gun-ho on protecting the criminal scum elements of society?.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another stupid thread where the title comes nowhere close to reality. BL, you need to read for comprehension a bit better. The court declining to hear a case =/= new doubts being raised on the 2A.

 

About all you accomplished with this thread was to cause jocal's penis to become severely chaffed in his excitement at the thought. Well, it was good while it lasted.

 

So you say. If there was any case one might expect the Supreme Court to review it might be San Francisco's. This goes right to the heart of Heller and McDonald in that it seeks to regulate the use of guns inside one's home. The ability to defend oneself in the home was the heart of the Heller decision, at a minimum a review of how San Francisco intends to enforce their law since the very idea of law enforcement demanding entry to a home is pretty over the top.

 

 

I suppose the pragmatic application of violations would be any liability after an incident involving an unsecured gun.

That alone will form a deterrence for stashed and loaded "preparation."

 

But YMMV. Other gun whiners will go all tinfoil hat and, and insist no-knocks are coming.

This fulfills them. Jocal is coming for r guns, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No news flash: local jurisdiction can require a gun owner to be responsible.

 

 

Meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No news flash: local jurisdiction can require a gun owner to be responsible.

 

 

Meh

 

I think you're right. The Supreme Court is going to be quite happy to let lower courts handle these issues and any thought that there would be changes to either Heller or McDonald are best kept in Fantasyland. It just isn't going to happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why are you so gun-ho on protecting the criminal scum elements of society?.....

 

Criminals will always exist. But the better societies somehow rise above them.

The worse societies get caught up in violence... at the same level as criminals, by reacting to criminality.

The promoters of armed "self defense" sound high-tone, but in the end, they are rationalizing vigilantism.

 

Such movements, in fact, lead to losses of civil rights, and cause increased police militarization and undesirable cultural attributes.

Your four mother figures really let you down, mate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't let your wife read that, you stupid fuking piece of shit criminal lover.

 

Really, you oughta ashamed of yourself. Fuck you!....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, Clarence Thomas is on the correct side of the Constitution. From his dissent:

 

We warned in Heller that “[a] constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” 554 U. S., at 634. The Court of Appeals in this case recognized that San Francisco’s law burdened the core component of the Second Amendment guarantee, yet upheld the law. Because of the importance of the constitutional right at stake and the questionable nature of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, Iwould have granted a writ of certiorari.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As usual, Clarence Thomas is on the correct side of the Constitution. From his dissent:

 

We warned in Heller that “[a] constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” 554 U. S., at 634. The Court of Appeals in this case recognized that San Francisco’s law burdened the core component of the Second Amendment guarantee, yet upheld the law. Because of the importance of the constitutional right at stake and the questionable nature of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, Iwould have granted a writ of certiorari.

 

 

 

There were only two dissents. Was Thomas on the correct side of the Constitution or correct on what you view as correct? (just messing with you) I agree also.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

As usual, Clarence Thomas is on the correct side of the Constitution. From his dissent:

 

We warned in Heller that “[a] constitutional guarantee subject to future judges’ assessments of its usefulness is no constitutional guarantee at all.” 554 U. S., at 634. The Court of Appeals in this case recognized that San Francisco’s law burdened the core component of the Second Amendment guarantee, yet upheld the law. Because of the importance of the constitutional right at stake and the questionable nature of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, Iwould have granted a writ of certiorari.

 

 

 

good catch...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Why are you so gun-ho on protecting the criminal scum elements of society?.....

 

Criminals will always exist. But the better societies somehow rise above them.

The worse societies get caught up in violence... at the same level as criminals, by reacting to criminality.

The promoters of armed "self defense" sound high-tone, but in the end, they are rationalizing vigilantism.

 

Such movements, in fact, lead to losses of civil rights, and cause increased police militarization and undesirable cultural attributes.

Your four mother figures really let you down, mate.

 

 

You've made a lot of stupid posts, but this one...shit, what an assclown!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's the internet forum version of Diary of A Mad Man. Even better? Its running live as we speak. .....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Talk about falling down a rabbit hole.

 

Using your civil rights causes you to lose them?

 

So if we don't want to lose the first amendment, we should shut up and not protest.

 

If we don't want to lose the fourth amendment, we should allow the govt to search us whenever they feel like it.

 

If we don't want to lose the fifth amendment, we should always speak to the police and testify under oath, without an attorney as only guilty people would need those.

 

Yeah, that makes a lot of sense.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

There were only two dissents. Was Thomas on the correct side of the Constitution or correct on what you view as correct? (just messing with you) I agree also.

 

 

Correct side of the Constitution. I don't believe he's always there, just usually. Take his concurrence on the "Bong Hits For Jesus" case that limits student speech. Wrong.

 

WTH does "Bong Hits F Jesus" even mean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

Interesting that depending on where you live can determine what you can & cannot do, legally, in your own home. When our

daughters were young we kept our guns locked up, our choice. We now keep our handguns loaded & readily accessible, to us,

our choice.

 

We don't keep our liquor cabinet or my prescription pain pills locked up either. Oh my, someone might break into our house

& get high on liquor & pills & then go out & kill somebody. Where does it all end? Benwyne says I am a "Big Government" guy,

not even close.

 

Being told what you can & cannot do in your own house is "Big Government".

 

Dabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Len, we need to be careful tossing around the term "your civil rights."

Those rights are still being defined.

Even Alan Gura and Alan Gottlieb use the term hyperbolically.

It's for the courts to define the term.

Have you read the varied restrictions listed in Heller? They cover people, places, and things.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Len, we need to be careful tossing around the term "your civil rights."

Those rights are still being defined.

Even Alan Gura and Alan Gottlieb use the term hyperbolically.

It's for the courts to define the term.

Have you read the varied restrictions listed in Heller? They cover people, places, and things.

 

You enjoy the same civil rights as every other citizen of this country. Each of those rights is worth protecting, even for someone you adamantly oppose. The approach of infringement that you espouse is intellectually lazy, as well as being ineffective. You want a quick easy solution, and the 50+ years of societally accepted reduction in personal responsibility can't be fixed that way.

 

So - keep slapping bondo on the rust, but, don't be surprised when the shocks come up thru the floor slamming you thru the windshield when the patch job you've perpetuated hits rock bottom.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Being told what you can & cannot do in your own house is "Big Government".

 

Dabs

 

Some of us have been saying that about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

 

But, a certain political party, for which you admit to blindly voting, is doing everything it can to outlaw. Then, they claim to be about a smaller and less intrusive government.

 

You just can't make this up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that depending on where you live can determine what you can & cannot do, legally, in your own home. When our

daughters were young we kept our guns locked up, our choice. We now keep our handguns loaded & readily accessible, to us,

our choice.

 

We don't keep our liquor cabinet or my prescription pain pills locked up either. Oh my, someone might break into our house

& get high on liquor & pills & then go out & kill somebody. Where does it all end? Benwyne says I am a "Big Government" guy,

not even close.

 

Being told what you can & cannot do in your own house is "Big Government".

 

Dabs

Another "not my fault" Republican. From the party of personal responsibility no less.

 

Hate to break it to you - but you're already on the hook if your unsecured weapon is used in an accident, both criminally and civilly.

 

This just adds a little icing on the "you in heap big trouble white man" (my quote) cake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bus, do you have any examples of republican efforts trying to control what consenting adults do in their bedrooms?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

 

Being told what you can & cannot do in your own house is "Big Government".

 

Dabs

 

Some of us have been saying that about what consenting adults do in the privacy of their bedrooms.

 

But, a certain political party, for which you admit to blindly voting, is doing everything it can to outlaw. Then, they claim to be about a smaller and less intrusive government.

 

You just can't make this up.

 

 

I can't recall saying what I think other people should or should not do in the privacy of their own homes, as long as they don't

blow up their neighbors. I do object to the homosexual community using their status to bring harm to others they dis-agree with.

 

I support the Republican party because I agree with more of their policies than those of the Democrat party. I think the Republican

Party is wasting their time & resources opposing gay marriage & abortion, just my take on it.

 

Dabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy, gun laws have effects (and I can sorce them).

What has no effect is pretending that changes in human behavior will happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

Interesting that depending on where you live can determine what you can & cannot do, legally, in your own home. When our

daughters were young we kept our guns locked up, our choice. We now keep our handguns loaded & readily accessible, to us,

our choice.

 

We don't keep our liquor cabinet or my prescription pain pills locked up either. Oh my, someone might break into our house

& get high on liquor & pills & then go out & kill somebody. Where does it all end? Benwyne says I am a "Big Government" guy,

not even close.

 

Being told what you can & cannot do in your own house is "Big Government".

 

Dabs

Another "not my fault" Republican. From the party of personal responsibility no less.

 

Hate to break it to you - but you're already on the hook if your unsecured weapon is used in an accident, both criminally and civilly.

 

This just adds a little icing on the "you in heap big trouble white man" (my quote) cake.

 

So far, it has not been mandated that I have a safe in my house, or lock up my liquor cabinet & pain pills. Should I be

forced to install one, I might forget to lock it when I am home.

 

Dabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy, gun laws have effects (and I can sorce them).

What has no effect is pretending that changes in human behavior will happen.

 

 

No, no they don't you fuking moron. In fact just the opposite. Just do some Googling.

 

G-damn but how in the flying fuck did you ever get this old without training wheels?....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

In all the excitement I kind of lost track of where I was going with this. Went back to the original post, from the San Francisco part:

 

"Under the city-county ordinance at issue, a handgun in the home could be carried on the body of the person, but otherwise had to be stored in a locked

container or else disabled with a trigger lock. The right to carry a handgun within the home was restricted to those over the age of eighteen."

 

So, if I am reading it correctly, it says a handgun must be locked up, or equipped with a trigger lock, unless you are carrying it. We have our handguns

primarily for self defense and choose double action revolvers for simplicity & reliability. Pick it up, squeeze the trigger & repeat, if necessary. When

someone is in the process of breaking into our house I don't want the extra distraction of unlocking a trigger or safe lock. But the "law" says I have to lock it.

 

As mentioned, I might just "forget" to lock it. Also from the OP:

 

"In the 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, the Court had ruled that the right created by the Second Amendment included a right to have a gun for one’s own use in self-defense, at least within the home, and with such a weapon in a condition allowing it to be quickly used."

 

Key word, to me anyway, is "Quickly used"

 

Interesting, no mention of long guns?

 

​When we are away overnight, our guns are secured, wouldn't want them to be an attractive nuisance

 

Dabs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As mentioned, I might just "forget" to lock it. Also from the OP:

You seem pretty cool about writing this sort of thing in public. Where people can go back and find it in the future.

 

Better hope you never find yourself in related difficulties and have people going looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

As mentioned, I might just "forget" to lock it. Also from the OP:

You seem pretty cool about writing this sort of thing in public. Where people can go back and find it in the future.

 

Better hope you never find yourself in related difficulties and have people going looking.

 

 

Yes, you have a good point. I guess I shouldn't have said that. I thought the qualifier of "I might" would make it OK, maybe not?

 

At my age, I probably don't have too long to worry about it?

 

I should have said something like:

 

"I wonder what would happen if somebody "Forgot" to lock their safe, while at home? But of course, I would always have mine locked at all times."

 

I definitely wouldn't say something like "Make my day" , or "Do you feel lucky, punk?", that wouldn't be nice.

 

Dabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guy, gun laws have effects (and I can sorce them).

What has no effect is pretending that changes in human behavior will happen.

 

 

No, no they don't you fuking moron. In fact just the opposite. Just do some Googling.

 

G-damn but how in the flying fuck did you ever get this old without training wheels?....

 

 

Do your own Googling. Then present it, pal. Because this is what I keep finding.

Here's a study from November, covering eleven years. It measures an 8% increase in aggravated assault.

 

New Stanford research confirms that right-to-carry gun laws are linked to an increase in violent crime.

'Totality of the evidence'

Now, Donohue and his colleagues have shown that extending the data yet another decade (1999-2010) provides the most convincing evidence to date that right-to-carry laws are associated with an increase in violent crime.

"The totality of the evidence based on educated judgments about the best statistical models suggests that right-to-carry laws are associated with substantially higher rates" of aggravated assault, rape, robbery and murder, said Donohue.The strongest evidence was for aggravated assault, with data suggesting that right-to-carry (RTC) laws increase this crime by an estimated 8 percent – and this may actually be understated, according to the researchers.

"Our analysis of the year-by-year impact of RTC laws also suggests that RTC laws increase aggravated assaults," they wrote.

The evidence is less strong on rape and robbery, Donohue noted. The data from 1979 to 2010 provide evidence that the laws are associated with an increase in rape and robbery.

The murder rate increased in the states with existing right-to-carry laws for the period 1999-2010 when the "confounding influence" of the crack cocaine epidemic is controlled for. The study found that homicides increased in eight states that adopted right-to-carry laws during 1999-2010.

http://news.stanford...s-study-111414.

Even "shall issue" increases crime, evidently:

 

Another study entitled An Evaluation of State Firearm Regulations and Homicide and

Suicide Death Rates, done by M Rosengart, et al in 2005, found “that when a ‘shall issue’ law was

present, the rate of firearm homicides was greater, RR 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.99 to

1.24), than when the law was not present, as was the rate of all homicides, RR 1.08 (95% CI 0.98

to 1.17), although this was not statistically significant.”

The study found that no statistically significant reduction in the rates of firearm homicides or total homicides could be found for any

law. Also, no statistically significant change in firearm suicide rates could be connected to any laws.

The study concluded that implementing a shall-issue law with few restrictions on

obtaining or carrying a concealed weapon may be linked to increased firearm homicide rates.

However, no law (edit: such as shall issue) was connected to a statistically significant decease in firearm homicide or

suicide rates (Rosengart, 2005).

http://people.uwplat...per example.pdf

In 2013, Siegal did a thirty year comparison covering all fifty states.

Largest Gun Study Ever: More Guns, More Murder

This guy has a PhD from Harvard:

 

More guns, more homicide: four Harvard studies

1. Where there are more guns there is more homicide (literature review).

Our review of the academic literature found that a broad array of evidence indicates that gun availability is a risk factor for homicide, both in the United States and across high-income countries. Case-control studies, ecological time-series and cross-sectional studies indicate that in homes, cities, states and regions in the US, where there are more guns, both men and women are at higher risk for homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Hepburn, Lisa; Hemenway, David. Firearm availability and homicide: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior: A Review Journal. 2004; 9:417-40.

2. Across high-income nations, more guns = more homicide.

We analyzed the relationship between homicide and gun availability using data from 26 developed countries from the early 1990s. We found that across developed countries, where guns are more available, there are more homicides. These results often hold even when the United States is excluded.

Hemenway, David; Miller, Matthew. Firearm availability and homicide rates across 26 high income countries. Journal of Trauma. 2000; 49:985-88.

3. Across states, more guns = more homicide

Using a validated proxy for firearm ownership, we analyzed the relationship between firearm availability and homicide across 50 states over a ten year period (1988-1997).

After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states, 1988-1997. American Journal of Public Health. 2002: 92:1988-1993.

4. Across states, more guns = more homicide (2)

Using survey data on rates of household gun ownership, we examined the association between gun availability and homicide across states, 2001-2003. We found that states with higher levels of household gun ownership had higher rates of firearm homicide and overall homicide. This relationship held for both genders and all age groups, after accounting for rates of aggravated assault, robbery, unemployment, urbanization, alcohol consumption, and resource deprivation (e.g., poverty). There was no association between gun prevalence and non-firearm homicide.

Miller, Matthew; Azrael, Deborah; Hemenway, David. State-level homicide victimization rates in the U.S. in relation to survey measures of household firearm ownership, 2001-2003. Social Science and Medicine. 2007; 64:656-64.

Pasted from <http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/hicrc/firearms-research/guns-and-death/> bg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No news flash: local jurisdiction can require a gun owner to be responsible.

 

 

Meh

 

Exactly. I see no real issue with the law.

 

Meh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy, gun laws have effects (and I can sorce them).

What has no effect is pretending that changes in human behavior will happen.

 

So you're actually saying that human behavior cannot and never will change???

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"My answer to Jokeawf?"

 

r-GIRLS-GUNS-large570.jpg

 

"Both barrels!"

 

I would definitely like to give her "both barrels". Youza!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Guy, gun laws have effects (and I can source them).

What has no effect is pretending that changes in human behavior will happen.

 

So you're actually saying that human behavior cannot and never will change???

 

 

Hi Jeff. Human nature is evolving, but moving at glacial speed.

200 yrs ago, North American natives had to make adjustments to "thou shalt not steal" and "thou shalt not kill," for example.

The Yakama and Nisqually tribes copied impartial British justice in their tribal courts circa 1830...and included an appeals process.

The direction wrt violence? What I see is that the meek will inherit the earth; the warriors, not so much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tell your wife we said Hi....

 

Hey, cut him some slack. At least his wife is a rape victim and not a vigilante. Just the way jocal prefers it.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch, warning shot to the head...:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun Rights Are Civil Rights

 

woman-baby-and-shotgun-630x286.jpg

 

Not really. That's just a shallow 2015 PR campaign from the NRA.

And this is what is so alarming about Tom's forty days and forty nights of extended race-baiting: guns actually have a history of the suppression of civil rights.

 

 

Sorry Folks, But Gun Rights And Civil Rights Don’t Mean The Same Thing.

I’m happy that the NRA has decided to create greater awareness about the struggle for civil rights and the value that black Americans placed on arming and defending themselves during that time. But when the NRA uses the history of armed resistance to racism to justify arming the average American as a response to everyday crime, they are moving from past history to present-day advocacy, two positions that have nothing to do with each other at all.

The Klan wasn’t just someone who would break into your house or mug you in the street. It was, in many areas of the South, an organized vigilante movement whose mission was to recreate the racist political and social structure that existed before the Civil War. That blacks chose to arm themselves in the face of political terrorism directed only at them should never be confused with decisions that people make today about whether personal ownership of guns will protect them from crime.

The NRA now refers to itself as America’s “longest-standing civil rights organization” and by that I guess they mean that somehow the 2nd Amendment ranks above all other Constitutional rights. But the truth is that the NRA paid lip service at best to concerns about threats to the 2nd Amendment until Harlon Carter took over the leadership in 1977 and began to play the political advocacy game in a much more aggressive way.

By the time the NRA discovered that gun ownership was not just a Constitutional but also a civil right, black Americans had been fighting and winning their civil rights for over twenty years.

Pasted from <http://mikethegunguy.com/>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Why are you so gun-ho on protecting the criminal scum elements of society?.....

 

Criminals will always exist. But the better societies somehow rise above them.

The worse societies get caught up in violence... at the same level as criminals, by reacting to criminality.

The promoters of armed "self defense" sound high-tone, but in the end, they are rationalizing vigilantism.

 

Such movements, in fact, lead to losses of civil rights, and cause increased police militarization and undesirable cultural attributes.

Your four mother figures really let you down, mate.

 

 

You've made a lot of stupid posts, but this one...shit, what an assclown!

 

 

Let's take a look behind your bumper sticker justice:

 

How Gun Rights Harm the Rule of Law

Thanks to Stand Your Ground, citizens must now fear their armed neighbors in addition to prospective criminals. What if someone who spies you walking down the street thinks you look suspicious? What if you become a target for would-be George Zimmermans? Or what if the man you argue with, or potentially insult or offend, even unintentionally, is armed and irascible—and the argument escalates?

(...) In a Stand Your Ground society, it makes sense to suspect your neighbor—and fear the worst.The gun-rights movement claims it is a staunch defender of the peace, contributing to and bolstering law and order. As gun rights are currently advanced, nothing could be further from the truth. In addition to pushing Stand Your Ground laws, the NRA fought universal background checks. Their premise—that it will not stop hardened and determined criminals from accessing guns—ensured that criminals could have easy access to guns at gun shows or from unscrupulous arms dealers. What’s more, thanks to NRA pressure, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (ATF) is also greatly hindered from pursuing such dealers and stemming the flow of weapons to criminals.

(...)The cumulative effect of these efforts is a society where security must be upheld or enforced by individual gun owners, who could misperceive what justice demands in any given situation.

(...)Armed citizens are therefore needed to fill those gaps when cops are not present—no matter how small or short those gaps may be—in order to keep the peace. In pushing this agenda, the gun-rights movement mistakenly urges supporters to think that public order rests upon overt shows of force. In a democracy, however, peace is founded on rule of law. Rule of law is essential for maintaining the peace in civil society. It is also an act of faith: People presume and trust that everyone else around them will act lawfully and safely. (...)

An over-armed society ensures that government will be anything but restrained. A common feature of the many police shootings perpetrated over the last year, and highlighted in the media during and after Ferguson, is that police now assume their suspects to be armed. Given the state of affairs the NRA has fostered, this may be a prudent and understandable assumption. But it also means police are instinctively cautious, hostile, and all too ready to use their weapons against ordinary citizens. In an over-armed society, we may also expect to see a steady uptick in the number of cases involving police brutality or excessive force. And then, as the NRA would have it, the government is most fully and clearly the people’s enemy, too.

http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/04/how-gun-rights-harm-the-rule-of-law/389288/?utm_source=btn-twitter-ctrl1>

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Tell your wife we said Hi....

 

Hey, cut him some slack. At least his wife is a rape victim and not a vigilante. Just the way jocal prefers it.....

 

 

We moved on, to a life of fulfillment. ;) You guys didn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Guy, gun laws have effects (and I can sorce them).

What has no effect is pretending that changes in human behavior will happen.

So you're actually saying that human behavior cannot and never will change???

Some human behavior will never change. Talking in absolutes about complex things to drive home a point purely for the sake of winning is but one example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Tell your wife we said Hi....

 

Hey, cut him some slack. At least his wife is a rape victim and not a vigilante. Just the way jocal prefers it.....

 

 

We moved on, to a life of fulfillment. ;) You guys didn't.

 

 

"we"??? You were raped too?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

Tell your wife we said Hi....

 

Hey, cut him some slack. At least his wife is a rape victim and not a vigilante. Just the way jocal prefers it.....

 

 

We moved on, to a life of fulfillment. ;) You guys didn't.

 

 

"we"??? You were raped too?

 

 

If I weren't attached to the situation, you would have no cause to needle me.

But you and Boothy can't let it rest.

We are at peace, Jeffie. While you are hatin' it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A New Jersey woman was murdered by a Jocal on Wednesday as she waited for approval from the state to buy a handgun.

In addition to obtaining a restraining order against her ex, Michael Eitel, and installing security cameras in her home, Carol Bowne had applied for a permit to purchase a handgun on April 21.

 

Police told the (New Jersey) Courier-Post that she had inquired about the application as recently as Monday. “We did not get the fingerprint information yet,” Berlin Township Police Chief Leonard Check told the paper.

 

Unlike most states, New Jersey’s restrictive gun laws require a permit to purchase a handgun. The permit process can take several months to complete.

 

If she had lived in a part of the country where the precious right to keep and bear arms is not so severely infringed, it is likely that she would still be alive. At the very least she would not have been easy to kill.

 

Carol-Bowne.jpg
RIP Carol Bowne.

 

http://freebeacon.com/issues/new-jersey-woman-stabbed-to-death-by-ex-while-waiting-for-gun-permit/

 

Another dead woman thanks to people like Jokeawf.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of a need for even stronger restraining orders. Yes, I know, the guy can be a victim of a crazy bitch, but better a couple days inconvenience than a dead woman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bus, do you have any examples of republican efforts trying to control what consenting adults do in their bedrooms?

 

Google "Virginia Crime Against Nature", and then get back to us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do object to the homosexual community using their status to bring harm to others they dis-agree with.

 

Dabs

 

Not sure how they did things over at SailNet. But, around here, when you say stuff like this, someone is bound to ask you for a cite.

 

Regarding this allegation, I'm that someone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have no rights...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of a need for even stronger restraining orders. Yes, I know, the guy can be a victim of a crazy bitch, but better a couple days inconvenience than a dead woman.

 

 

Teach you daughter to shoot. A restraining order is just a piece of paper.

 

Women-at-Gun-Range.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of a need for even stronger restraining orders. Yes, I know, the guy can be a victim of a crazy bitch, but better a couple days inconvenience than a dead woman.

 

What would a stronger restraining order look like? We have basically two options, tell the abusive partner to stay away and arrest him/her if they don't, or preemptively imprison them. The only thing that would stop a determined abuser like this from killing is to preemptively put them in prison, and I don't see something like that happening.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Dabnis

 

I do object to the homosexual community using their status to bring harm to others they dis-agree with.

 

Dabs

 

Not sure how they did things over at SailNet. But, around here, when you say stuff like this, someone is bound to ask you for a cite.

 

Regarding this allegation, I'm that someone.

 

 

Well, you started the "Bedroom" drift way back om post # 30, but I will be polite & reoly

 

http://www.kgw.com/story/news/local/2015/02/02/ruling-gresham-bakery-discriminated-against-same-sex-couple/22760387/

 

The likely $135,000 fine/settlement/fee, or whatever you want to call it is a form of harm to the Kliens. My opinion, yours may vary.

 

"Sailnet"? I am still on exile. Interestingly, I don't recall the big push on having to "prove" everything there. Some would just say

" I don't believe you" & let it go at that.

 

Dabs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another example of a need for even stronger restraining orders. Yes, I know, the guy can be a victim of a crazy bitch, but better a couple days inconvenience than a dead woman.

 

What would a stronger restraining order look like? We have basically two options, tell the abusive partner to stay away and arrest him/her if they don't, or preemptively imprison them. The only thing that would stop a determined abuser like this from killing is to preemptively put them in prison, and I don't see something like that happening.

 

 

More than two options are in play for preventing such behavior. For those concerned, action could take the shape of a GVRO.

 

GVRO Gun violence restraining order

The law was brought about by the Isla Vista murders in May 2014. In the wake of those killings, it became apparent that like Loughner's parents, the parents of Elliot Rodger—the 22-year old who stabbed to death three, and shot to death three others—saw warning signs.

After the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting in 2012, the national conversation on gun violence quickly turned toward mental health—how best to keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unwell. That response, however, didn't seem right to Frattaroli and others in the gun violence prevention community. The science didn't support it.

"We were all surprised that the policy response was 'okay, what we have to do is keep guns away from people with mental illness,'" Frattaroli said. Mental illness alone is a poor predictorof who is going to be violent. A better predictor of future violent behavior? Past violent behavior. "It's dangerousness, not diagnosis," she said, and familiy members are in the best position to identify warning signs.

"In both cases [Loughner's and Rodger's], those closest to the shooters identified dangerous behaviors, expressed concerns, and took concrete actions to intervene," Frattaroli's paper reads. "In neither case did the level of dangerousness rise to a point that caused those involved to initiate involuntary commitment procedure, and as a result they were left with few options to intervene and no systematic mechanism to limit gun access." In retrospect, GVROs in these cases could have been effective.

Gun-rights advocates are worried about due-process rights and vagueties in the law. GRVOs will be decided ex parte, meaning the person who stands accused does not need to be involved in the proceedings. A person can have his or her firearms taken away before getting the chance to contest the order.

The California law says a petitioner needs "reasonable cause" to get a GVRO, that there is a "substantial likelihood" that a person poses a danger to himself or others. Falsifying such information before a court is illegal. But the National Rifle Association worries that there is potential for abuse. "Everyone has good intentions, but you have to think of unintended consequences too," NRA spokeswoman Jennifer Baker said. "You are forcing a person to give up ownership of a valuable property."

Adam Winkler, a constitutional law professor and Second Amendment expert at University of California (Los Angeles), and said the NRA's concerns are largely unfounded. "At the end of the day it's not a thorny issue," Winkler said. "It's not a Second Amendment violation to take away the guns of someone who is dangerous."

Panel to end gun violence meets in Phila.

Ayana Jones Tribune Staff Writer

A panel of Pennsylvania-based and national mental health, public health and gun violence prevention experts convened in Philadelphia on Thursday to discuss new approaches to keeping guns out of the hands of dangerous people.

Organized by the Consortium for Risk-Based Firearm Policy, the panel discussion was held at The Temple University Beasley School of Law. The panel’s research identified behaviors associated with an increased risk of future violence, including violent acts, threats of violence and a history of substance and alcohol abuse.

“We need to ensure that those with an elevated risk of violence don’t have access to firearms,” said Josh Horwitz, executive director of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence, a convener of the consortium.

The discussion was part of an effort across the country to highlight the value of the new policy tools the consortium is recommending to state legislators. These policies would prevent individuals from purchasing or possessing guns when they are at elevated risk of harming themselves or others.

The panel comes as almost four people die every day from firearm-related injuries in Pennsylvania. The majority of gun deaths in Pennsylvania are suicides. Firearm suicides consistently represent more than half of Pennsylvania gun deaths and accounted for 63 percent of all firearm deaths in 2013. Officials said many of these tragedies could be prevented with improved policies.

As the executive director of CeaseFirePA, Pennsylvania’s largest gun-violence prevention organization, Shira Goodman will work to bring together medical professionals, law enforcement, policy makers and public and mental health professionals to focus on developing better policies and ways to identify who might become dangerous to themselves or others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Tell your wife we said Hi....

Hey, cut him some slack. At least his wife is a rape victim and not a vigilante. Just the way jocal prefers it.....

We moved on, to a life of fulfillment. ;) You guys didn't.

"we"??? You were raped too?

If I weren't attached to the situation, you would have no cause to needle me.

But you and Boothy can't let it rest.

We are at peace, Jeffie. While you are hatin' it.

I'm glad you're at peace and I don't hate it in the least. I'm sure you're also at peace about all those other dead and raped women who aren't vigilantes because they didn't defend themselves. In your fucked up mind, being a victim is better than being a vigilante, even if they are dead or scarred for life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A New Jersey woman was murdered by a Jocal on Wednesday as she waited for approval from the state to buy a handgun.

(...)

Another dead woman thanks to people like Jokeawf.

 

Very sad occurrence. Did that gun help the situation?

Far more murders of women occur with guns around, than when guns are not around.

NGS, reach out for quality content. You seem to have little to offer but personal attacks.

Your knowledge base on this subject (at least so far) is puerile.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did what gun help the situation, the one she was not allowed to buy? Nope, it did not help. You know why? Because she did not have it. Holy fucking blinders batman.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Did what gun help the situation, the one she was not allowed to buy? Nope, it did not help. You know why? Because she did not have it. Holy fucking blinders batman.

 

Reading for content is tough business for some.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I'm glad you're at peace and I don't hate it in the least. I'm sure you're also at peace about all those other dead and raped women who aren't vigilantes because they didn't defend themselves. In your fucked up mind, being a victim is better than being a vigilante, even if they are dead or scarred for life.

 

Some guns in some situations would work out great for women. Fine by me. But not as you are proposing things.

 

It would be nice if your "guns guns guns" self-defense theory worked for women OVERALL. If gun mentality actually endangers women, however, reality does not support your pro-gun fantasy. Are women asking for what you want?

 

The N.O.W. website isn't asking for more armed women. They are asking for

--fewer guns in society,

--fewer predatory traits in men, and

--tighter gun laws.

They object to modern sporting rifles composing one's "masculinity." Read on.

 

Gender Roles Must be Part of Dialogue on Gun Violence

We must find a way to disentangle ourselves from the lethal gender narratives that lead men to violence, that lead men to kill women they seek to control, that lead them to kill large numbers of people to exact revenge on a class of people or a world they believe has done them wrong.

 

Sexism and “masculine” posturing fuel the fire in countless murders each year. Let’s work together to put an end to this crime spree that disgraces us all.

High Court Hears Gun Rights for Batterers Case

New GOP plan: Guns for domestic abusers

When the right to bear arms trumps a woman’s right to safety

Pasted from <http://now.org/?s=gun+control>

 

 

Stop Gun Violence against Women

WHEREAS, the American Journal of Public Health found that femicides, or intimate partner homicides, occur at an alarming rate of five times more often when there is access to a firearm; this puts the United States death rate at 19 times higher than that of any other industrialized nation in firearm homicides; and

WHEREAS, firearms are the second leading cause of injury and death, with 28,000 Americans dying each year as a result of guns according to the National Center for Health Statistics; and WHEREAS, the Domestic Violence Misdemeanor Gun Ban, passed in 1996, attempted to prohibit anyone convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence or child abuse from purchasing or possessing a gun; and

WHEREAS, this ban was negated when the Supreme Court decided in a June 2010 case that gun bans are unconstitutional at state or local levels, just as they are unconstitutional at federal levels; and

WHEREAS, as a result of this decision, limited flexibility will be allowed for different levels of government to place restrictions on gun possession, and even convicted domestic violence perpetrators will be able to purchase guns with limited restrictions;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the National Organization for Women (NOW) recognize the life threatening dangers women face as a result of disturbingly weak current gun control laws.

http://now.org/about/conference-resolutions/2010-national-now-conference-resolutions/#stop>

 

 

Guns pose a particular threat in the hands of domestic abusers

http://smartgunlaws.org/domestic-violence-firearms-policy-summary/>

  • Abused women are five times more likely to be killed by their abuser if the abuser owns a firearm.2
  • Domestic violence assaults involving a gun are 23 times more likely to result in death than those involving other weapons or bodily force.3
  • More than two-thirds of spouse and ex-spouse homicide victims between 1980 and 2008 were killed with firearms.4
  • In 2011, nearly two-thirds of women killed with guns were killed by their intimate partners.5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Jocal,

 

We don't care what you think about our civil rights, any of them.

It wasn't up to you what went into the Bill of Rights at this nations founding, and it is not up to you to change them.

Americans will continue to cherish the right of self defense long after you are just a bad memory.

 

So, with all due respect: Piss off. Nobody cares.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ironically, I'm more scared of the women in my house----given that they're both better shots than me....:lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guy, gun laws have effects (and I can sorce them).

What has no effect is pretending that changes in human behavior will happen.

 

JoCal - what you're trying to do IS to influence human behavior, but, your focus is on the wrong group of humans.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Another example of a need for even stronger restraining orders. Yes, I know, the guy can be a victim of a crazy bitch, but better a couple days inconvenience than a dead woman.

 

Yup... If you want a restraining order to be effective, IMHO it shouldn't be reliant upon the behavior of individuals who've already demonstrated a propensity to behave in a way that would warrant them being restrained.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Another example of a need for even stronger restraining orders. Yes, I know, the guy can be a victim of a crazy bitch, but better a couple days inconvenience than a dead woman.

 

What would a stronger restraining order look like? We have basically two options, tell the abusive partner to stay away and arrest him/her if they don't, or preemptively imprison them. The only thing that would stop a determined abuser like this from killing is to preemptively put them in prison, and I don't see something like that happening.

 

 

Provide a temporary place for the aggrieved party to go while the order is adjudicated, perhaps? Off the cuff, and not germane (sp?) to each situation, but, it does establish a level of severity that can then be used to prioritize response.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Provide a temporary place for the aggrieved party to go while the order is adjudicated, perhaps? Off the cuff, and not germane (sp?) to each situation, but, it does establish a level of severity that can then be used to prioritize response.

 

 

I dunno. My daughter's ex is a psycho heroin dealer and is not happy that we have custody of their child. I can not imagine how I could move myself, my wife, my mom, our pets, my self, and my business in order to get out of his way. The only way to know that he is not a threat is to have him locked up, but you can't lock him up until he assaults or tries to kill someone. I would love to be able to make a call and have this fuckhead locked up and away from us, but the law just does not work that way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Provide a temporary place for the aggrieved party to go while the order is adjudicated, perhaps? Off the cuff, and not germane (sp?) to each situation, but, it does establish a level of severity that can then be used to prioritize response.

 

 

I dunno. My daughter's ex is a psycho heroin dealer and is not happy that we have custody of their child. I can not imagine how I could move myself, my wife, my mom, our pets, my self, and my business in order to get out of his way. The only way to know that he is not a threat is to have him locked up, but you can't lock him up until he assaults or tries to kill someone. I would love to be able to make a call and have this fuckhead locked up and away from us, but the law just does not work that way.

 

 

Understood, and aside from watching your ass constantly, which sucks too, I don't have an answer for this situation. Are you aware of a town that used to be, named Centralia?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Understood, and aside from watching your ass constantly, which sucks too, I don't have an answer for this situation. Are you aware of a town that used to be, named Centralia?

 

 

Yep, I know the place. I know the cops know who he is and what he does, and am just hoping they put him away soon. In the meantime, I am just keeping an eye out all the time. It is not a comfortable feeling, that is for sure.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Tom Ray is MIA.

Nothing to be smarmy about on this thread today? LMFAO.

 

Well, he can cheer up now, because I'm here to toss him some talking points.

Will gun locks or gun safes be required in driveways? On porches? In garages?

Will Bloomberg knock down the doors to check for unlocked gun safes?

Will the indoor militia have to use locks while on duty?

Didn't Hillary insist on gun gun locks in Bengazi?

What if MLK had been forced to use a gun lock in 1919 Missouri? Would using gun locks be racist forever?

Will it make Tom a criminal if he poops with his gun sitting on the countertop?

Does the First Amendment protect "Brady's Best" from spray when taped over the urinal?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites