OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Has there been a bad year for gun rights since the early 1990's? It's either been "stock up before they come for your guns" or "stock up, they're coming for your guns". You guys have made gun manufacturers some $.
Protecting our 2nd Amendment Rights
- Thread starter Austin_Bill
- Start date
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
At the Federal level none since 94, when Clinton passed the meanie gun ban - which helped toss the Democrat party out of control of the House for the first time since the 50's.
Couple of bad years at the state level - NY passed their ban on lots of rifles in 2013, as did a few other gun grabber states.
And I do always get a laugh from those who try to sarcastically say "They're coming for your guns!!!", when they actually are coming for our guns. Mom's Demand Action! (part of the Brazzers network) wants to outlaw and confiscate semi-auto rifles. But only some of them now, the rest later.
Just because they haven't been able to yet, doesn't mean the Democrat party doesn't want to disarm the citizens of this country.
Couple of bad years at the state level - NY passed their ban on lots of rifles in 2013, as did a few other gun grabber states.
And I do always get a laugh from those who try to sarcastically say "They're coming for your guns!!!", when they actually are coming for our guns. Mom's Demand Action! (part of the Brazzers network) wants to outlaw and confiscate semi-auto rifles. But only some of them now, the rest later.
Just because they haven't been able to yet, doesn't mean the Democrat party doesn't want to disarm the citizens of this country.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
In real 2nd Amendment news, on 3 Nov, the Supreme Court will hear the case of NY Pistol and Rifle Association against the state. It's only the second 2A case heard since 2010 or so - which speaks to how poor of a job the Coward John Roberts and others have done to ensure the 2A rights are not infringed. Pretty sure there wasn't a 10 year pause in SC rulings on something they care about, like abortion, from 1973 on.
In this case, NY will try to defend their "may issue" handgun carry license, in which a citizen has to convince a judge for the need of it (or proof of donations to the Democrat party). While 42 other states have "shall issue", where like a driver's license, if you meet the standards of age, lack of criminal background, and training, you are issued a license.
It takes 4 votes from the Justices to hear a case, so it's a good bet there are at least 4 votes to strike down NY's law - Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and either Kav or Barrett. Kav wrote a strong defense of the 2A while on the DC court, and Barrett has supported the 2a in other cases, so that should be a 5 vote majority.
Three things will be interesting to see:
1. How far the SC goes in both striking down NY's law, and then telling them what needs to happen. The conservatives on the SC have a bad habit of striking things down but then not spelling out what the law should be, so that leaves the states and lower courts to hem and haw and say the SC meant this or that or let's just ignore it all and hope they don't rule again.
This happened in the Heller case, where the SC didn't lay down the law as to what gun laws were permissible and which ones weren't. Instead they talked about the role of the 2a and how it applied, but lower courts have for the most part just ignored anything that isn't a total ban on handgun ownership.
It would be nice for the SC to spell out exactly what type of law NY needs to have, with timelines and a promise to review. With Constitutional Carry, that "dangerous and extreme" law found in such Wild West hellholes such as, checks notes, Vermont, being the hammer to come smashing down on their sticky little fingers if they don't follow the SC's rulings.
But, more likely they will strike NY's law down, and tell them to come up with a Shall Issue license, as the courts did for Illinois and DC, and gun rights groups will have to eyeball the new law every step of the way. Still, will be a great advancement for gun and citizen rights.
2. As importantly, the SC needs to lay down the rules for what infringements of the 2A are permissible, and what isn't. The lower courts have done this trick related to the level of scrutiny (strict is for rights they care about, like abortion, while intermediate is for ones they are so so about, and then there's what's called rational basis which means outlaw what you like) that is allowed for 2A.
Most courts have gone to intermediate scrutiny as the legal profession, being mostly leftist scum, hate guns and want to outlaw them. So the 2A gets shortchanged compared to other rights in the Bill of Rights, or those in the invisible ink section such as abortion.
3. If there are 5 good gun rights votes for the case, does the Coward John Roberts or the ever sneaky Kagan try to sign onto the majority ruling, but also issue their own opinions which would be used by lower courts, wrongly, to justify not following the majority 5 ruling? It's a trick courts sometimes pull if they know lower courts and the legal - industrial complex don't want to follow a ruling. Hopefully the solid 5 won't allow for a watered down decision or concurring opinions that seek to sabotage the overall decision.
Exciting times for gun rights. Supreme Court ruling on the 2A, Constitutional Carry in 3 more states this year including the big one of Texas, no real gun grabbing laws passed in the states, a good chance to flush the Democrats down the drain in Virginia in a month and keep more bad laws from being passed there, and seeing Slow Joe try to fill the ATF position after the disaster that was the turd Chapman.
In this case, NY will try to defend their "may issue" handgun carry license, in which a citizen has to convince a judge for the need of it (or proof of donations to the Democrat party). While 42 other states have "shall issue", where like a driver's license, if you meet the standards of age, lack of criminal background, and training, you are issued a license.
It takes 4 votes from the Justices to hear a case, so it's a good bet there are at least 4 votes to strike down NY's law - Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and either Kav or Barrett. Kav wrote a strong defense of the 2A while on the DC court, and Barrett has supported the 2a in other cases, so that should be a 5 vote majority.
Three things will be interesting to see:
1. How far the SC goes in both striking down NY's law, and then telling them what needs to happen. The conservatives on the SC have a bad habit of striking things down but then not spelling out what the law should be, so that leaves the states and lower courts to hem and haw and say the SC meant this or that or let's just ignore it all and hope they don't rule again.
This happened in the Heller case, where the SC didn't lay down the law as to what gun laws were permissible and which ones weren't. Instead they talked about the role of the 2a and how it applied, but lower courts have for the most part just ignored anything that isn't a total ban on handgun ownership.
It would be nice for the SC to spell out exactly what type of law NY needs to have, with timelines and a promise to review. With Constitutional Carry, that "dangerous and extreme" law found in such Wild West hellholes such as, checks notes, Vermont, being the hammer to come smashing down on their sticky little fingers if they don't follow the SC's rulings.
But, more likely they will strike NY's law down, and tell them to come up with a Shall Issue license, as the courts did for Illinois and DC, and gun rights groups will have to eyeball the new law every step of the way. Still, will be a great advancement for gun and citizen rights.
2. As importantly, the SC needs to lay down the rules for what infringements of the 2A are permissible, and what isn't. The lower courts have done this trick related to the level of scrutiny (strict is for rights they care about, like abortion, while intermediate is for ones they are so so about, and then there's what's called rational basis which means outlaw what you like) that is allowed for 2A.
Most courts have gone to intermediate scrutiny as the legal profession, being mostly leftist scum, hate guns and want to outlaw them. So the 2A gets shortchanged compared to other rights in the Bill of Rights, or those in the invisible ink section such as abortion.
3. If there are 5 good gun rights votes for the case, does the Coward John Roberts or the ever sneaky Kagan try to sign onto the majority ruling, but also issue their own opinions which would be used by lower courts, wrongly, to justify not following the majority 5 ruling? It's a trick courts sometimes pull if they know lower courts and the legal - industrial complex don't want to follow a ruling. Hopefully the solid 5 won't allow for a watered down decision or concurring opinions that seek to sabotage the overall decision.
Exciting times for gun rights. Supreme Court ruling on the 2A, Constitutional Carry in 3 more states this year including the big one of Texas, no real gun grabbing laws passed in the states, a good chance to flush the Democrats down the drain in Virginia in a month and keep more bad laws from being passed there, and seeing Slow Joe try to fill the ATF position after the disaster that was the turd Chapman.
Alec Baldwin shoots prop gun, killing 1, injuring another on set'
It says a prop gun firing blanks accidentally discharges killing one and injuring another. That's BS. A blank could put your eye out or burn you but it isn't going to kill one and injure another. After accidents in the past I'm not even sure these prop guns can even hold real rounds. Something else will come out of this.
Someone in my town died playing with a “starter” gum for sporting events. He held it against his head. Fairly stupid.
Unlike CNN, I will wait until the facts come out. See, that isn’t hard.
Oh, it is a well established and long-standing fact that Baldwin is a douchecanoe.
Or did you mean the gun thing?
Horn2RunAgain
2,500+ Posts
Terribly irresponsible on Baldwin's part. Manslaughter is a possibility
Baldwin should be convicted of manslaughter. He killed a human.
No...no...no...the gun did it! Baldwin played no role in it.
Depends if these folks ever held a gun to a pregnant woman, or was passing counterfeiting money, drugs, things like that. If so, lock him up for 20 years.
Since you know how to handle a firearm, let me ask you this:
If somebody handed you a firearm and said "it is unloaded" or "it is cold", would you point it at another person (let alone pull the trigger) based solely on the word of the man who handed the firearm to you?
I know what the answer is. Anybody with any respect for a firearm or knowledge of firearms would verify for themselves before assuming it was truly unloaded. Point is, Baldwin is not completely exonerated here. He actively chose not to learn about handling weapons at any point in his life. His ignorance played a role in costing a life, and shouldn't be dismissed from consideration as the investigation into the incident proceeds.
I wouldn’t but I’m not a Hollywood actor. I also would never point a gun at anyone I didn’t intend on shooting. But obviously a film about the Wild West or war is going to include actors pointing guns at each other.
I’ll let the investigation play out. Obviously there is liability somewhere for a live bullet to be loaded in a gun about to be used for a film.
I’ll let the investigation play out. Obviously there is liability somewhere for a live bullet to be loaded in a gun about to be used for a film.
It isn't ALL Baldwin's fault, obviously. But in my view he shares some culpability.
Yes, this! You ALWAYS check the chamber and also verify what you think is loaded is actually in it. ALWAYS! No one ever accused actors of being smart. They're just better at being fake than the average person.
Duck Dodgers
1,000+ Posts
Doubtful. Reports say it as a period single action revolver, which requires the user to cock the hammer back then pull the trigger. Baldwin probably shited his pants after the first shot so doubtful he cocked the hammer again and fired to make sure he killed the camera lady.
This is a negligent discharge, not an accidental one, as those do not exist. For a gun to kill someone, you have to load it, point it, and pull the trigger. Those don't happen on their own - it's all done by the person holding it.
Saying it's an accident is like saying you accidently cooked a pot roast. You took it out of the fridge, put it in the over, and turned the oven on, but didn't mean to cook it - it was all just a series of unfortunate coincidences.
Baldwin should be convicted of manslaughter - but as a prime Party Member in Good Standing, in a state completely run by the Democrat party, nothing will happen to him. Party members don't get convicted of crimes in the US anymore so than Party members did in the USSR.
The DA will sit on the case while things die down, like the camera woman Baldwin killed, then wait till something else happens to take up all the news, and release a short statement saying no charges will be filed.
Baldwin will lay low till then, then a bit longer, then get rehabliated in the media with breathless stories in the media (written by his staff) about how he's bravely dealt with this tragedy in spite of all those meanie Republican's who said mean things about him. For he is both the true victim here, and the hero.
This is a negligent discharge, not an accidental one, as those do not exist. For a gun to kill someone, you have to load it, point it, and pull the trigger. Those don't happen on their own - it's all done by the person holding it.
Saying it's an accident is like saying you accidently cooked a pot roast. You took it out of the fridge, put it in the over, and turned the oven on, but didn't mean to cook it - it was all just a series of unfortunate coincidences.
Baldwin should be convicted of manslaughter - but as a prime Party Member in Good Standing, in a state completely run by the Democrat party, nothing will happen to him. Party members don't get convicted of crimes in the US anymore so than Party members did in the USSR.
The DA will sit on the case while things die down, like the camera woman Baldwin killed, then wait till something else happens to take up all the news, and release a short statement saying no charges will be filed.
Baldwin will lay low till then, then a bit longer, then get rehabliated in the media with breathless stories in the media (written by his staff) about how he's bravely dealt with this tragedy in spite of all those meanie Republican's who said mean things about him. For he is both the true victim here, and the hero.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
So a prop gun was improperly put into inventory and it's the actor who's responsible? It's an accident. There may be civil liability but it would rest on whoever had the authority/responsibility to manage the property. If Baldwin is an Executive Producer, his culpability may rest there. Ironic, that it may be some title to get a few extra $ that should cost him.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Well **** the bed. We agree on something...
Damnit. I've been instructed to head to HIC brisket therapy in Chicago.
OUBubba
5,000+ Posts
Agree. I think on an action movie that changes a little. I read up on this and the guy in charge of "safety" had a history of not being "safe".
And this is why actors should never have any influence on politics. If they aren't smart enough to safety check a weapon before pointing it at someone and squeezing the trigger then they deserve what they get. Clearly since it fired an actual live round it wasn't a "prop gun" and he knew it. I hope he spends some time in jail for negligence in a death, but unfortunately because he is in Hollywood he'll get away with this then go on a gun confiscation crusade. What he should do is go on a crusade to keep real weapons out of idiot actors hands on movie sets.
Weekly Prediction Contest
* Predict TEXAS-KENTUCKY *
Sat, Nov 23 • 2:30 PM on ABC
Recent Threads
-
President Biden Accountability Thread
- Started by 2003TexasGrad
- Replies: 4K
- West Mall
Prediction Results Threads
