What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Status
Not open for further replies.
FreshFish said:
US Constitution, Article V:




or at least, that was the plan....

nowadays, it seems far too many people (for my comfort, at least) prefer the Humpty Dumpty version of constitutional interpretation:
Click to expand...

You mean like people willfully ignoring the first clause of the second amendment because they have to compensate for something?
 
GrinCDXX said:
Is there any part of the test that considers whether it's likely to be effective?
Click to expand...

Well, the second amendment has never been analyzed this way, because until Heller it was never defined as an individual right. We're essentially trying to mash first amendment law with where it looks like the second is headed.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

unofan said:
Owning a gun is a protected right, but it's not a protected class for purposes of anti-discrimination laws.
Click to expand...

That's the crux if it. You are absolutely allowed to have a gun...but gun owners can be discriminated against (i.e., monitored with profiling implications, taxed, licensed). Races and religions cannot be subject to that type of discrimination.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

unofan said:
Well, the second amendment has never been analyzed this way, because until Heller it was never defined as an individual right. We're essentially trying to mash first amendment law with where it looks like the second is headed.
Click to expand...

Will be interesting to see how that plays out.
 
unofan said:
Preventing mass shootings isn't a compelling public interest? I mean, you can spin these proposals 100s of ways, but finding a compelling reason is not going to be the tough part of the argument.
Click to expand...
Right. The tough part will be showing that whatever restriction your law implements will in any way, shape, or form actually accomplish said public interest. Best of luck with that.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

LynahFan said:
Right. The tough part will be showing that whatever restriction your law implements will in any way, shape, or form actually accomplish said public interest. Best of luck with that.
Click to expand...

Start with the obvious ones, then, like restricting people who are diagnosed with a mental illness or are on the No Fly list. Guns magnify the damage that person x can do. Person x is recognized as a sufficiently high risk of doing damage. Ergo, restricting person x's access to guns is a public interest. QED.
 
Kepler said:
Start with the obvious ones, then, like restricting people who are diagnosed with a mental illness or are on the No Fly list. Guns magnify the damage that person x can do. Person x is recognized as a sufficiently high risk of doing damage. Ergo, restricting person x's access to guns is a public interest. QED.
Click to expand...

Can we collect dna from afterbirth and start a list of people before they get a chance to obtain status on a list or develope mental illnesses?

All in the name of saving time of course
 
Kepler said:
Start with the obvious ones, then, like restricting people who are diagnosed with a mental illness or are on the No Fly list. Guns magnify the damage that person x can do. Person x is recognized as a sufficiently high risk of doing damage. Ergo, restricting person x's access to guns is a public interest. QED.
Click to expand...
No argument from me on those. Remember, this discussion was an offshoot of a generalized desire to reduce demand for guns via taxation on all guns, which is how I ended up there.

Edit to add: I am in no way a gun zealot, and I would be completely fine with an amendment to modify/restrict the 2nd. I'm strictly talking about efficacy. I don't find the argument that "we'd be safer if there were 10% fewer guns in the US" to be any more compelling than "we'd be safer if there were 10% fewer Muslims in the US." Both are dubious claims, the latter is just more offensive.
 
Last edited:
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

I know a buddy of mine had to go through hell to get his shotgun because he has a really common name and they kept linking him to a legitimately insane person out west. It took months to sort it out.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

mookie1995 said:
Can we collect dna from afterbirth and start a list of people before they get a chance to obtain status on a list or develope mental illnesses?

All in the name of saving time of course
Click to expand...

We already have this data. It's called parent's political affiliation.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Kepler said:
Start with the obvious ones, then, like restricting people who are diagnosed with a mental illness or are on the No Fly list. Guns magnify the damage that person x can do. Person x is recognized as a sufficiently high risk of doing damage. Ergo, restricting person x's access to guns is a public interest. QED.
Click to expand...

Nobody knows if they are on the No Fly List (Ted Kennedy was on it for a while) or not. Even the ACLU has trouble with the No Fly List (NFL) and using it for background checks. And, wouldn't HIPAA prevent checking on mental illness?

It's a nice idea, but the implementation has lots of roadblocks.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

joecct said:
Nobody knows if they are on the No Fly List (Ted Kennedy was on it for a while) or not. Even the ACLU has trouble with the No Fly List (NFL) and using it for background checks.
Click to expand...

Oh, I know. Dr. Mrs. works for the DHS Office of Civil Rights and Civil Liberties. She would have my guts for garters if she knew I suggested it.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

Kepler said:
Start with the obvious ones, then, like restricting people who are ... on the No Fly list.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding from legal scholars that the No Fly List would not work for this purpose because there are no "due process" rights to people placed on said list. There are plenty of anecdotal stories of more than one person being named "Kepler" and the wrong one being placed on the list, making it really hard to get off of it afterward.

I think that particular proposal probably wouldn't fly. ;)


btw, I saw an interesting note that the SCOTUS had relied on the "well-regulated militia" clause to allow a ban on individual ownership of certain weapons to stand on the grounds that members of a militia never would be using them. Not sure how accurate that note was.
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

LynahFan said:
a generalized desire to reduce demand for guns .
Click to expand...

Demand for guns goes up when people feel unsafe, or when people feel like the government is against them and they need to protect themselves from it.


How about we change those two dynamics??



Beyond that, it seems like we are not at all trying to "reduce demand" for guns, instead we are trying to restrict supply. We all know how badly that works out in other areas. How often are we going to keep making the same mistake?? :(
 
Re: Days Since Last Mass Shooting: 0

unofan said:
You mean like ... ?
Click to expand...

"penumbras and emanations", exactly! Finding something that isn't even there, and then admitting that it isn't even there!





It isn't to say whether Roe v Wade were the right outcome or not; even its most ardent supporters concede that the reasoning in favor of it was atrocious.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top