Those Damn Guns Again
- Thread starter thoughtone
- Start date
Re: ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties
So the Bill of Rights is now subject to popular opinion ?
So the Bill of Rights is now subject to popular opinion ?
Re: ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties
According to the Supreme Court it is.
source: New York Times
Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn’t Block Proposed Controls</NYT_HEADLINE>
WASHINGTON — Despite the sweeping language of a 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control law, the decision appears perfectly consistent with many of the policy options being discussed after the shootings in Newtown, Conn.
Legal experts say the decision in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, has been of mainly symbolic importance so far. There have been more than 500 challenges to gun laws and gun prosecutions since Heller was decided, and vanishingly few of them have succeeded.
The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.
Nor does Heller impose any major hurdles to many of the most common legislative proposals in the wake of the Newtown shootings, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” Among the responses that Heller allows, he said, are better background checks, enhanced mental health reporting and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.
There is one major possible exception to the trend, and it is quite fresh. Last week, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, struck down an Illinois law that banned carrying loaded guns in public. Judge Richard A. Posner, writing for the majority, said the ruling was required by the Heller decision.
The Heller case, decided by a 5-to-4 vote, struck down a ban on handguns kept in the home for self-defense, saying it violated the Second Amendment.
After the shootings on Friday in Newtown, which killed 20 children and 7 adults before the gunman took his own life, policy makers — mostly Democrats — have called for tougher gun laws. Of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in American history, six have occurred since 2007.
The proposed measures include bans on some kinds of weapons and ammunition magazines, more sharing of information among government agencies, and an expansion of the settings in which background checks are required. In California, Democratic lawmakers are seeking to regulate ammunition sales more tightly.
The main obstacle to the passage of such measures is likely to be politics, not constitutional law, scholars say.
“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in the Heller decision. “But,” he added, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”
Still, the decision also contained a long list of laws and regulations that would, the court said, be unaffected. Among them were “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools.”
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” Justice Scalia wrote. Government buildings in general could still ban guns. And the court said it had no quarrel with “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Justice Scalia added that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.” He gave an example: “M-16 rifles and the like.”
When the case was argued in 2008, Justice Scalia suggested that other kinds of weapons and ammunition could be regulated. “I don’t know that a lot of people have machine guns or armor-piercing bullets,” he said. “I think that’s quite unusual.”
Jonathan E. Lowy, director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Legal Action Project, said the Heller decision thus did very little to restrict possible Congressional responses to the Newtown shootings.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on an issue left open in Heller: whether the Second Amendment forbids blanket bans on having guns for self-defense outside the home. Last week, the Seventh Circuit said it did.
The two central words in the phrase “to keep and bear” have different meanings, Judge Posner wrote, and the second one “is unlikely to refer to the home.”
“A Chicagoan,” he wrote, “is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.”
Judge Posner reviewed the empirical literature about the practical consequences for crime and safety of bans on carrying guns in public, and he found it inconclusive. Justice Stephen G. Breyer came to a similar conclusion about gun-control laws generally in his dissent in Heller.
“Anyway,” Judge Posner wrote, “the Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts.”
A ban short of a blanket prohibition might be permissible, he added, and the court gave the Illinois Legislature 180 days to enact a new law. One suggestion: it could prohibit guns “merely in particular places, such as public schools.”
The decision is in tension with recent ones from federal appeals courts in New York and Virginia, which is often a sign that an issue is heading to the Supreme Court.
For now, though, there is something like consensus that the court’s existing decisions will not stand in the way of most legislative responses to the recent shootings.
In a speech to the Brady Center in October, former Justice John Paul Stevens, who dissented in Heller and retired in 2010, said the decision was wrong but limited.
“Even as generously construed in Heller,” he said, “the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the court’s decision in Heller.”
According to the Supreme Court it is.
source: New York Times
Supreme Court Gun Ruling Doesn’t Block Proposed Controls</NYT_HEADLINE>
WASHINGTON — Despite the sweeping language of a 2008 Supreme Court decision that struck down parts of the District of Columbia’s strict gun-control law, the decision appears perfectly consistent with many of the policy options being discussed after the shootings in Newtown, Conn.
Legal experts say the decision in the case, District of Columbia v. Heller, has been of mainly symbolic importance so far. There have been more than 500 challenges to gun laws and gun prosecutions since Heller was decided, and vanishingly few of them have succeeded.
The courts have upheld federal laws banning gun ownership by people convicted of felonies and some misdemeanors, by illegal immigrants and by drug addicts. They have upheld laws making it illegal to carry guns near schools or in post offices. They have upheld laws concerning unregistered weapons. And they have upheld laws banning machine guns and sawed-off shotguns.
Nor does Heller impose any major hurdles to many of the most common legislative proposals in the wake of the Newtown shootings, said Adam Winkler, a law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and the author of “Gunfight: The Battle Over the Right to Bear Arms in America.” Among the responses that Heller allows, he said, are better background checks, enhanced mental health reporting and a ban on high-capacity ammunition clips.
There is one major possible exception to the trend, and it is quite fresh. Last week, a divided three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, in Chicago, struck down an Illinois law that banned carrying loaded guns in public. Judge Richard A. Posner, writing for the majority, said the ruling was required by the Heller decision.
The Heller case, decided by a 5-to-4 vote, struck down a ban on handguns kept in the home for self-defense, saying it violated the Second Amendment.
After the shootings on Friday in Newtown, which killed 20 children and 7 adults before the gunman took his own life, policy makers — mostly Democrats — have called for tougher gun laws. Of the 12 deadliest mass shootings in American history, six have occurred since 2007.
The proposed measures include bans on some kinds of weapons and ammunition magazines, more sharing of information among government agencies, and an expansion of the settings in which background checks are required. In California, Democratic lawmakers are seeking to regulate ammunition sales more tightly.
The main obstacle to the passage of such measures is likely to be politics, not constitutional law, scholars say.
“We are aware of the problem of handgun violence in this country,” Justice Antonin Scalia wrote for the majority in the Heller decision. “But,” he added, “the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.”
Still, the decision also contained a long list of laws and regulations that would, the court said, be unaffected. Among them were “laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools.”
“Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill,” Justice Scalia wrote. Government buildings in general could still ban guns. And the court said it had no quarrel with “laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
Justice Scalia added that laws banning “dangerous and unusual weapons” are “another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms.” He gave an example: “M-16 rifles and the like.”
When the case was argued in 2008, Justice Scalia suggested that other kinds of weapons and ammunition could be regulated. “I don’t know that a lot of people have machine guns or armor-piercing bullets,” he said. “I think that’s quite unusual.”
Jonathan E. Lowy, director of the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence’s Legal Action Project, said the Heller decision thus did very little to restrict possible Congressional responses to the Newtown shootings.
The Supreme Court has not yet ruled on an issue left open in Heller: whether the Second Amendment forbids blanket bans on having guns for self-defense outside the home. Last week, the Seventh Circuit said it did.
The two central words in the phrase “to keep and bear” have different meanings, Judge Posner wrote, and the second one “is unlikely to refer to the home.”
“A Chicagoan,” he wrote, “is a good deal more likely to be attacked on a sidewalk in a rough neighborhood than in his apartment on the 35th floor of the Park Tower.”
Judge Posner reviewed the empirical literature about the practical consequences for crime and safety of bans on carrying guns in public, and he found it inconclusive. Justice Stephen G. Breyer came to a similar conclusion about gun-control laws generally in his dissent in Heller.
“Anyway,” Judge Posner wrote, “the Supreme Court made clear in Heller that it wasn’t going to make the right to bear arms depend on casualty counts.”
A ban short of a blanket prohibition might be permissible, he added, and the court gave the Illinois Legislature 180 days to enact a new law. One suggestion: it could prohibit guns “merely in particular places, such as public schools.”
The decision is in tension with recent ones from federal appeals courts in New York and Virginia, which is often a sign that an issue is heading to the Supreme Court.
For now, though, there is something like consensus that the court’s existing decisions will not stand in the way of most legislative responses to the recent shootings.
In a speech to the Brady Center in October, former Justice John Paul Stevens, who dissented in Heller and retired in 2010, said the decision was wrong but limited.
“Even as generously construed in Heller,” he said, “the Second Amendment provides no obstacle to regulations prohibiting the ownership or use of the sorts of automatic weapons used in the tragic multiple killings in Virginia, Colorado and Arizona in recent years. The failure of Congress to take any action to minimize the risk of similar tragedies in the future cannot be blamed on the court’s decision in Heller.”
Re: ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties
Is opinion ever excluded from the political landscape of the United States ???
Did the Bill of Rights come into existence by osmosis, or, was there a vote ???
Is opinion ever excluded from the political landscape of the United States ???
Did the Bill of Rights come into existence by osmosis, or, was there a vote ???
Re: ACLU says Reid’s gun legislation could threaten privacy rights, civil liberties
With this thought pattern, we richly deserve the slavery we are begging for.
With this thought pattern, we richly deserve the slavery we are begging for.
Perhaps. But he who fails to realize (1) that opinion is part of the fabric of our political landscape and is not only urged but protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution; and (2) that voting (whether directly by the people or through their voted-upon representatives, i.e., ratification of the Bill of Rights) is one of the fundamental underpinnings our political system, is not begging for slavery -- hell, he's living it!
Senate moves closer to compromise
on gun background checks
McClatchy Newspapers
By Curtis Tate
April 10, 2013
"It took bipartisan negotiations between two senators with impeccable gun-rights credentials to put the vote within reach.
Sens. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., and Pat Toomey, R-Pa., announced Wednesday a proposal to extend background checks to gun shows and online sales.
Their compromise falls short of the universal measure gun control advocates sought because it would exempt private transactions between friends and family members."
THat is as false as the premise that the pending guns restriction laws will curb violence with guns. It empirically has not worked.
Keep dreaming and attacking inanimate objects.
Excuse me, but please point out EXACTLY what you're claiming to be false.
Waiting . . .
Wait over.
And I also find it disingenuous, and downright hypocritical, as well as intellectually inconsistent, that you would use one part of the Bill of Rights to serve as the underpinnings for the attack on another part of the Bill of Rights.
Also, the Assault Weapons Ban did nothing.
So, you're saying that:
Opinion is NOT A part of the fabric of our political landscape ???
Opinion is NOT protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution ???
Voting (whether directly by the people or through their voted-upon representatives, i.e., ratification of the Bill of Rights) is NOT one of the fundamental underpinnings our political system ???
Hell, all these years I thought the above to be truths, self evident
AND, you find it disengenous for me to state my opinion (though the First Amendment says I can) that the 2nd Amendment is the product of a vote
Again, all this time I thought Article V of the Constitution provides that an amendment may be proposed either by the Congress with a two-thirds majority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate or by a constitutional convention called for by two-thirds of the State legislatures -- and my research and study tells me that none (thats not fucking one) of the 27 amendments to the U.S. Constitution have been proposed by constitutional convention. -- but I'm being disengenuous and hypocritical ???
You've either misunderstood what I've written; or you know not what the fuck you speak
If I've said something you don't understand, ask me to make it clearer and I will be happy to oblige. I do that often to Greed, though I think he thinks I'm throwing rocks at him -- but thats what I do: ask questions when I don't understand.
Febuary 6, 1989 - University of Southern California
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nG4V_6pCLVo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
<iframe width="420" height="315" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/nG4V_6pCLVo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>
Store owner: “I didn’t kill him; he killed himself”
The prosecutor is shit.
Always remember, the government would rather you die than not rely on them for security. The store owner was shot at by a robber who had previously pointed the gun at the store owner's wife. And the whole thing was video taped.
Store owner: “I didn’t kill him; he killed himself”
Prosecutor sends case to grand jury
By Eric Schwartzberg
Staff Writer
Posted: 10:00 p.m. Monday, April 15, 2013
HAMILTON — Smail Gueddari was working in the back room of his store, Mazagan Urban Ware, around 8:30 p.m. Saturday when, suddenly, he heard his wife, who had been manning the cash register, screaming from the front of the shop.
Gueddari rushed from the back room to find a robber, with the lower part of his face covered by a makeshift black bandanna, pointing a handgun at his wife and motioning with it for her to empty the store’s cash register. When the robber spotted Gueddari rounding the corner, he fired a shot at the store owner, but the bullet narrowly missed him and instead struck two mannequins before lodging into a nearby wall.
Gueddari said that’s when he pulled his firearm and shot back twice, hitting the robber once in the torso. The robber, identified Monday as 26-year-old Jeremy Scott Irvin of Fairfield, tried to escape with some of the stolen money after being wounded, but collapsed on the sidewalk just outside of the store located at 201 Main Street. Irvin would be pronounced dead shortly afterwards at Fort Hamilton Hospital.
Gueddari, in his first interview since the incident, told the Hamilton JournalNews that Irvin’s actions caused his own demise.
“Anybody in my place would have done what I do,” Gueddari said on Monday. “ I didn’t kill him; he killed himself.”
While Gueddari described the encounter as a classic case of self-defense, Butler County Prosecutor Mike Gmoser said Monday that evidence would be turned over to a grand jury to determine whether or not charges would be filed against the business owner.
“The parameters with respect to the use of deadly force and fire arms, and the protection of business property only, had to be laid out clearly so people don’t get the wrong idea of what they can do and they can’t do,” Gmoser said.
For example, Gmoser said someone coming into a piano shop and smashing up the pianos with a hammer does not warrant the use of deadly force simply to protect their property. But if the person turned the hammer on the shop keep, “that’s different,” he said.
Gmoser has sent similar cases before a grand jury before. In 2012, he sent a case involving a homeowner who shot a man for tearing up his home to a grand jury. While the grand jury did not indict the homeowner, Gmoser said then that he wanted to make it clear that the “Castle Doctrine” — a law which provides certain protections from prosecution to those who use deadly force when they reasonably fear imminent peril, serious bodily harm or death to himself or another person — is not meant as a free pass to execute intruders.
Irvin attended Hamilton High School until 10th grade, according to the Hamilton City School District. He had no prior record of criminal activity in Hamilton, police said. Irvin has a minor criminal record in Fairfield for an OVI charge and two probation violations in 2007 and a seatbelt violation in 2013, according to court records.
Family members who answered the door at Irvin’s house Monday afternoon declined to comment.
Gueddari, who said he came to the United States from Morocco 11 years ago, opened Mazagan Urban Ware in 2011. He said his wife often works the register in the evenings, and the couple’s 2-year-old son was sleeping in the back room when the robbery occurred.
“I’m glad my family’s OK,” Gueddari said. “I don’t want to kill him, it was just in defense.”
Contrary to previous reports, Gueddari said his store had never been robbed before Saturday.
“I hope this is the last time,” he said.
Gueddari, who kept the business closed Sunday, said he plans to operate his store as usual moving forward.
“Business is business,” he said. “What are you going to do? Shut down? You have to open. You have a lot of overhead.””
Gueddari said he planned to show the store’s video footage from the robbery and shooting to the news media once Hamilton police returned it. He said police told him it would be about a week until the digital surveillance unit was back in his possession.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/store-owner-i-didnt-kill-him-he-killed-himself/nXMwP/
The prosecutor is shit.
Always remember, the government would rather you die than not rely on them for security. The store owner was shot at by a robber who had previously pointed the gun at the store owner's wife. And the whole thing was video taped.
Store owner: “I didn’t kill him; he killed himself”
Prosecutor sends case to grand jury
By Eric Schwartzberg
Staff Writer
Posted: 10:00 p.m. Monday, April 15, 2013
HAMILTON — Smail Gueddari was working in the back room of his store, Mazagan Urban Ware, around 8:30 p.m. Saturday when, suddenly, he heard his wife, who had been manning the cash register, screaming from the front of the shop.
Gueddari rushed from the back room to find a robber, with the lower part of his face covered by a makeshift black bandanna, pointing a handgun at his wife and motioning with it for her to empty the store’s cash register. When the robber spotted Gueddari rounding the corner, he fired a shot at the store owner, but the bullet narrowly missed him and instead struck two mannequins before lodging into a nearby wall.
Gueddari said that’s when he pulled his firearm and shot back twice, hitting the robber once in the torso. The robber, identified Monday as 26-year-old Jeremy Scott Irvin of Fairfield, tried to escape with some of the stolen money after being wounded, but collapsed on the sidewalk just outside of the store located at 201 Main Street. Irvin would be pronounced dead shortly afterwards at Fort Hamilton Hospital.
Gueddari, in his first interview since the incident, told the Hamilton JournalNews that Irvin’s actions caused his own demise.
“Anybody in my place would have done what I do,” Gueddari said on Monday. “ I didn’t kill him; he killed himself.”
While Gueddari described the encounter as a classic case of self-defense, Butler County Prosecutor Mike Gmoser said Monday that evidence would be turned over to a grand jury to determine whether or not charges would be filed against the business owner.
“The parameters with respect to the use of deadly force and fire arms, and the protection of business property only, had to be laid out clearly so people don’t get the wrong idea of what they can do and they can’t do,” Gmoser said.
For example, Gmoser said someone coming into a piano shop and smashing up the pianos with a hammer does not warrant the use of deadly force simply to protect their property. But if the person turned the hammer on the shop keep, “that’s different,” he said.
Gmoser has sent similar cases before a grand jury before. In 2012, he sent a case involving a homeowner who shot a man for tearing up his home to a grand jury. While the grand jury did not indict the homeowner, Gmoser said then that he wanted to make it clear that the “Castle Doctrine” — a law which provides certain protections from prosecution to those who use deadly force when they reasonably fear imminent peril, serious bodily harm or death to himself or another person — is not meant as a free pass to execute intruders.
Irvin attended Hamilton High School until 10th grade, according to the Hamilton City School District. He had no prior record of criminal activity in Hamilton, police said. Irvin has a minor criminal record in Fairfield for an OVI charge and two probation violations in 2007 and a seatbelt violation in 2013, according to court records.
Family members who answered the door at Irvin’s house Monday afternoon declined to comment.
Gueddari, who said he came to the United States from Morocco 11 years ago, opened Mazagan Urban Ware in 2011. He said his wife often works the register in the evenings, and the couple’s 2-year-old son was sleeping in the back room when the robbery occurred.
“I’m glad my family’s OK,” Gueddari said. “I don’t want to kill him, it was just in defense.”
Contrary to previous reports, Gueddari said his store had never been robbed before Saturday.
“I hope this is the last time,” he said.
Gueddari, who kept the business closed Sunday, said he plans to operate his store as usual moving forward.
“Business is business,” he said. “What are you going to do? Shut down? You have to open. You have a lot of overhead.””
Gueddari said he planned to show the store’s video footage from the robbery and shooting to the news media once Hamilton police returned it. He said police told him it would be about a week until the digital surveillance unit was back in his possession.
http://www.daytondailynews.com/news/news/store-owner-i-didnt-kill-him-he-killed-himself/nXMwP/
Senate Defeats Background-Check Plan, Imperiling Gun Bill
Senate Defeats Background-Check Plan, Imperiling Gun Bill
By Heidi Przybyla & James Rowley
Apr 17, 2013 8:50 PM CT
The Senate defeated a plan to expand background checks for firearm purchasers, imperiling President Barack Obama’s bid for new gun-control measures four months after 20 schoolchildren were shot to death in Newtown, Connecticut.
Senators voted 54-46, with 60 needed to adopt the measure, as a handful of Democrats joined most Republicans in opposition. The vote was the most significant on gun control in 20 years and countered 90 percent public support of mandatory background checks.
“The fight has just begun; it’s not going away,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters after the vote.
Obama spoke at the White House following the Senate vote, standing with victims of gun violence, including former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and some of their relatives. Giffords, a Democrat, was shot in the head in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011.
Obama called the Senate vote a “distortion” of Senate rules because a minority of lawmakers was able to block the background-check proposal.
“The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill,” he said. ”They claimed that it would create some sort of big-government registry.”
Assault-Weapons Ban
The defeated amendment was offered last week by Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, and Pat Toomey, a Republican, in an effort to craft a proposal that could win bipartisan support. The Senate also rejected Obama-backed proposals to ban assault weapons and limit the size of ammunition magazines. All required 60 votes.
The debate over gun control was reignited by the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to kill 20 children and six school employees. Obama proposed a gun-safety agenda weeks later, including a ban on assault weapons and size limits on ammunition magazines.
Those proposals were removed from the Senate bill, S. 649, amid opposition by the National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest gun lobby, which claims 4 million members.
The NRA’s top lobbyist, Chris Cox, said in a statement after the vote, “expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.”
National Registry
The NRA had said expanded background checks would lead to a national gun registry. Federal law bars such a registry, and licensed gun dealers have kept sales records since 1968.
Five Democrats voted against the background-check measure: Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Baucus, Pryor and Begich face re-election in 2014 in states carried last year by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Reid also voted no, allowing himself under Senate rules to seek reconsideration of the vote.
Republicans Mark Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Toomey voted for the amendment.
“Shame on you!” Patricia Maisch of Tucson, Arizona, shouted from the visitors’ gallery after the Senate vote result was announced. Maisch had helped overpower the gunman when Giffords was shot.
Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama opposed expanded background checks, calling them a “legislative misfire.”
‘Glorified Violence’
“Who knows what will come next?” Shelby said. “These restrictions will not prevent the next tragedy.” Congress should instead focus on “glorified violence” in Hollywood, he said.
Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said the legislation is in the “feel-good category” and won’t prevent another Newtown.
Manchin spoke on the Senate floor about the resistant Democrats and Republicans.
“I understand that some of our colleagues believe that supporting this piece of legislation is risky politics,” Manchin said. “I think there’s a time in our life that’s a defining time, when you know the facts are on your side and you walk into the lion’s den and look that lion in the eye, and tell that lion, ‘Not today.’”
McCain took the floor to applaud Manchin and Toomey for “political courage.”
‘Right Thing’
“You may not win today, but you did the right thing,” McCain said. “Doing the right thing is always a reward in itself.”
Mandatory background checks for most gun purchasers are supported by 91 percent of U.S. voters, including 96 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans and 88 percent of gun- owning households, according to a Quinnipiac University (78104MF) poll conducted March 27-April 1.
Reid voted for a renewed ban on assault weapons offered in a separate amendment, reversing his earlier opposition.
“Assault weapons have one purpose and one purpose only, to kill a large number of people really quick,” Reid said.
California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, sponsor of the assault-weapon ban, urged fellow senators to “show some guts.”
“We’re here on six-year terms for a reason; to take votes on difficult issues,” Feinstein said before her amendment failed on a 40-60 vote.
‘Smart Man’
A group of gun-violence survivors and relatives were in the Senate chamber to witness the vote, including Lori Haas, whose daughter, Emily, survived the mass shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 2007. Haas said Reid is keeping the bill alive in the hopes of holding another vote.
“Reid is a smart man,” Haas said. If he didn’t have the votes, “why wouldn’t he wait a few more days?”
The Senate legislation also would increase funding for school safety and set new penalties for gun trafficking. It gained momentum last week when Manchin and Toomey agreed on the bolstered background-check plan.
Still, several Democrats from pro-gun states balked. Democratic leaders said they needed as many as 10 Republican votes to adopt the expanded background-check measure. Democrats control the Senate 55-45.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, co-chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in a statement called the vote on the background-check requirement “a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington.” The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.
Lobbying Lawmakers
The president has campaigned across the U.S. for his gun proposals, and he brought relatives of Newtown victims to Washington on Air Force One last week to lobby lawmakers for their support.
Current law requires background checks for gun purchases from federally licensed dealers. Manchin and Toomey’s proposal would expand that to include purchases from private dealers at gun shows and over the Internet. It would exempt non-commercial gun sales or transfers between family members.
The Senate also defeated an amendment that would allow people with concealed-weapon permits to carry hidden firearms into other states, including those with stricter standards for issuing permits. Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas proposed the measure.
“I have a great deal of concern about concealed carry,” New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, said earlier this week. “New York City is not Wyoming.”
Even if the bill passed the Senate, it still would face an uncertain fate in the House, where there is widespread Republican opposition. Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said he won’t make a “blanket” commitment to bring a gun measure to the House floor.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ackground-check-plan-imperiling-gun-bill.html
Senate Defeats Background-Check Plan, Imperiling Gun Bill
By Heidi Przybyla & James Rowley
Apr 17, 2013 8:50 PM CT
The Senate defeated a plan to expand background checks for firearm purchasers, imperiling President Barack Obama’s bid for new gun-control measures four months after 20 schoolchildren were shot to death in Newtown, Connecticut.
Senators voted 54-46, with 60 needed to adopt the measure, as a handful of Democrats joined most Republicans in opposition. The vote was the most significant on gun control in 20 years and countered 90 percent public support of mandatory background checks.
“The fight has just begun; it’s not going away,” Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid told reporters after the vote.
Obama spoke at the White House following the Senate vote, standing with victims of gun violence, including former Representative Gabrielle Giffords, and some of their relatives. Giffords, a Democrat, was shot in the head in Tucson, Arizona, in 2011.
Obama called the Senate vote a “distortion” of Senate rules because a minority of lawmakers was able to block the background-check proposal.
“The gun lobby and its allies willfully lied about the bill,” he said. ”They claimed that it would create some sort of big-government registry.”
Assault-Weapons Ban
The defeated amendment was offered last week by Senators Joe Manchin of West Virginia, a Democrat, and Pat Toomey, a Republican, in an effort to craft a proposal that could win bipartisan support. The Senate also rejected Obama-backed proposals to ban assault weapons and limit the size of ammunition magazines. All required 60 votes.
The debate over gun control was reignited by the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown. Adam Lanza used a Bushmaster AR-15 semiautomatic rifle to kill 20 children and six school employees. Obama proposed a gun-safety agenda weeks later, including a ban on assault weapons and size limits on ammunition magazines.
Those proposals were removed from the Senate bill, S. 649, amid opposition by the National Rifle Association, the nation’s largest gun lobby, which claims 4 million members.
The NRA’s top lobbyist, Chris Cox, said in a statement after the vote, “expanding background checks, at gun shows or elsewhere, will not reduce violent crime or keep our kids safe in their schools.”
National Registry
The NRA had said expanded background checks would lead to a national gun registry. Federal law bars such a registry, and licensed gun dealers have kept sales records since 1968.
Five Democrats voted against the background-check measure: Max Baucus of Montana, Mark Pryor of Arkansas, Mark Begich of Alaska and Heidi Heitkamp of North Dakota. Baucus, Pryor and Begich face re-election in 2014 in states carried last year by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney. Reid also voted no, allowing himself under Senate rules to seek reconsideration of the vote.
Republicans Mark Kirk of Illinois, John McCain of Arizona, Susan Collins of Maine and Toomey voted for the amendment.
“Shame on you!” Patricia Maisch of Tucson, Arizona, shouted from the visitors’ gallery after the Senate vote result was announced. Maisch had helped overpower the gunman when Giffords was shot.
Republican Senator Richard Shelby of Alabama opposed expanded background checks, calling them a “legislative misfire.”
‘Glorified Violence’
“Who knows what will come next?” Shelby said. “These restrictions will not prevent the next tragedy.” Congress should instead focus on “glorified violence” in Hollywood, he said.
Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican, said the legislation is in the “feel-good category” and won’t prevent another Newtown.
Manchin spoke on the Senate floor about the resistant Democrats and Republicans.
“I understand that some of our colleagues believe that supporting this piece of legislation is risky politics,” Manchin said. “I think there’s a time in our life that’s a defining time, when you know the facts are on your side and you walk into the lion’s den and look that lion in the eye, and tell that lion, ‘Not today.’”
McCain took the floor to applaud Manchin and Toomey for “political courage.”
‘Right Thing’
“You may not win today, but you did the right thing,” McCain said. “Doing the right thing is always a reward in itself.”
Mandatory background checks for most gun purchasers are supported by 91 percent of U.S. voters, including 96 percent of Democrats, 88 percent of Republicans and 88 percent of gun- owning households, according to a Quinnipiac University (78104MF) poll conducted March 27-April 1.
Reid voted for a renewed ban on assault weapons offered in a separate amendment, reversing his earlier opposition.
“Assault weapons have one purpose and one purpose only, to kill a large number of people really quick,” Reid said.
California Democrat Dianne Feinstein, sponsor of the assault-weapon ban, urged fellow senators to “show some guts.”
“We’re here on six-year terms for a reason; to take votes on difficult issues,” Feinstein said before her amendment failed on a 40-60 vote.
‘Smart Man’
A group of gun-violence survivors and relatives were in the Senate chamber to witness the vote, including Lori Haas, whose daughter, Emily, survived the mass shooting at Virginia Polytechnic Institute in 2007. Haas said Reid is keeping the bill alive in the hopes of holding another vote.
“Reid is a smart man,” Haas said. If he didn’t have the votes, “why wouldn’t he wait a few more days?”
The Senate legislation also would increase funding for school safety and set new penalties for gun trafficking. It gained momentum last week when Manchin and Toomey agreed on the bolstered background-check plan.
Still, several Democrats from pro-gun states balked. Democratic leaders said they needed as many as 10 Republican votes to adopt the expanded background-check measure. Democrats control the Senate 55-45.
New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg, co-chairman of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, in a statement called the vote on the background-check requirement “a damning indictment of the stranglehold that special interests have on Washington.” The mayor is founder and majority owner of Bloomberg LP, the parent of Bloomberg News.
Lobbying Lawmakers
The president has campaigned across the U.S. for his gun proposals, and he brought relatives of Newtown victims to Washington on Air Force One last week to lobby lawmakers for their support.
Current law requires background checks for gun purchases from federally licensed dealers. Manchin and Toomey’s proposal would expand that to include purchases from private dealers at gun shows and over the Internet. It would exempt non-commercial gun sales or transfers between family members.
The Senate also defeated an amendment that would allow people with concealed-weapon permits to carry hidden firearms into other states, including those with stricter standards for issuing permits. Republican Senator John Cornyn of Texas proposed the measure.
“I have a great deal of concern about concealed carry,” New York Senator Charles Schumer, a Democrat, said earlier this week. “New York City is not Wyoming.”
Even if the bill passed the Senate, it still would face an uncertain fate in the House, where there is widespread Republican opposition. Speaker John Boehner of Ohio said he won’t make a “blanket” commitment to bring a gun measure to the House floor.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-...ackground-check-plan-imperiling-gun-bill.html
Re: Store owner: “I didn’t kill him; he killed himself”
Like it or not, the prosecutor's actions are rather typical. Most have within their power the ability to determine the case doesn't arise to the criminal. But rather than do so and run the risk of appearing impartial or appearing to favor someone, some group, etc., over another -- they send the case to the grand jury.
The Grand Jury is a rather one-sided affair, usually held in secret. On the one hand, prosecutors can get ham sandwiches indicted, if they want to; and on the other, they have ways of letting the jurors know a particular case is just presented for their wise review - letting the people have the last word. The latter more often than not results in a no bill (no indictment) -- the person is cleared, the D.A. has done his job, and the people have spoken leaving few to complain.
Like it or not, the prosecutor's actions are rather typical. Most have within their power the ability to determine the case doesn't arise to the criminal. But rather than do so and run the risk of appearing impartial or appearing to favor someone, some group, etc., over another -- they send the case to the grand jury.
The Grand Jury is a rather one-sided affair, usually held in secret. On the one hand, prosecutors can get ham sandwiches indicted, if they want to; and on the other, they have ways of letting the jurors know a particular case is just presented for their wise review - letting the people have the last word. The latter more often than not results in a no bill (no indictment) -- the person is cleared, the D.A. has done his job, and the people have spoken leaving few to complain.
Re: Store owner: “I didn’t kill him; he killed himself”
If the article is accurate, then he shouldn't put this store owner through any more stress.
If the public wants to question it, then show them the tape and the bullet lodged in the wall that was fired by the robber.
I see the prosecutor's point about having an intruder is not a license to kill, but this case doesn't advance that point.
That county prosecutor sounds like a coward and a waste of space that doesn't want to be responsible or accountable for his own judgement.
If the article is accurate, then he shouldn't put this store owner through any more stress.
If the public wants to question it, then show them the tape and the bullet lodged in the wall that was fired by the robber.
I see the prosecutor's point about having an intruder is not a license to kill, but this case doesn't advance that point.
Re: Store owner: “I didn’t kill him; he killed himself”
That's how it read to me and I appreciate DAs that go through that process.
That's how it read to me and I appreciate DAs that go through that process.
Re: Store owner: “I didn’t kill him; he killed himself”
With that said:
Wouldn't it be better to "appreciate DAs that go through that process" when necessary. A DA using his best judgement to not refer a case to the grand jury is part of the process too.
Or do you think it hasn't been traumatic enough for the store owner?
He had to go through the trauma of having his wife and his own life threatened while his toddler slept in the back, and he had to go through the reality of taking another man's life. All while having a videotape supposedly confirming the events.
Then the two of you think it's reasonable to hold an indictment over his head while passing it off as a harmless formality. If the police investigators have confirmed his story, then why take steps in any way, shape, or form that implies he did something wrong?
“The parameters with respect to the use of deadly force and fire arms, and the protection of business property only, had to be laid out clearly so people don’t get the wrong idea of what they can do and they can’t do,” Gmoser said.
Explain what that has to do with this case. If people wrongly view it as open season on random trespassers then prosecute those particular people. Don't hold this guy out there as an example.
You and QueEx need some shame in how far you want to take your anti-gun stance.
I looked for a story update, but there wasn't one.
With that said:
Wouldn't it be better to "appreciate DAs that go through that process" when necessary. A DA using his best judgement to not refer a case to the grand jury is part of the process too.
Or do you think it hasn't been traumatic enough for the store owner?
He had to go through the trauma of having his wife and his own life threatened while his toddler slept in the back, and he had to go through the reality of taking another man's life. All while having a videotape supposedly confirming the events.
Then the two of you think it's reasonable to hold an indictment over his head while passing it off as a harmless formality. If the police investigators have confirmed his story, then why take steps in any way, shape, or form that implies he did something wrong?
“The parameters with respect to the use of deadly force and fire arms, and the protection of business property only, had to be laid out clearly so people don’t get the wrong idea of what they can do and they can’t do,” Gmoser said.
Explain what that has to do with this case. If people wrongly view it as open season on random trespassers then prosecute those particular people. Don't hold this guy out there as an example.
You and QueEx need some shame in how far you want to take your anti-gun stance.
The DA used his judgement and thought it best to send it to the grand jury, I think that was sound. It apparently is this DA's modus operandi and it's not going to amount to anything unless the store owner is lying or hiding something that comes out.
You seem more worried about it that Mr. Gueddari. I choose to not worry more about something than the person it actually affects.
I missed where this had anything to do with guns. I should be used to your ability to project and build strawmen but I'm clearly not.
You seem more worried about it that Mr. Gueddari. I choose to not worry more about something than the person it actually affects.
I missed where this had anything to do with guns. I should be used to your ability to project and build strawmen but I'm clearly not.
Re: Store owner: “I didn’t kill him; he killed himself”
Yeah, it would be better -- so long as YOU have feelings, for this case. But, what about the next case?
There are a lot of policy decisions that have to be made and one would like to think that the "right ones" are being made. Many district attorneys tend to send all shootings through the grand jury, that way, you don't get those black-on-black or black-on-white varieties predominating the grand jury rooms and those involving white perpetrators receiving the ole "D.A.'s Judgment" pass.
I wouldn't want the D.A., catching feelings for one guy's shooting; and seemingly not with the next. Race and station in life appears to have too much to do with that.
I think consistency and fairness should be the talisman.
The store owner shot a man to death. The issue is whether it was criminal -- NOT whether you have feelings for him.
Actually, I never expressed an opinion one way or another with respect to the grand jury (SEE, you're leaping to conclusions, AGAIN). I merely gave one explanation of the thought process of many district attorneys in deciding how to handle shootings.
you damn sure missed the point.
I don't think the article was about a "gun stance" in the first instance. Perhaps, you wanted <s>to</s> it to be ??? Seriously, is that why you posted it ???
And, what about this:
"The Government this" . . . "The government that" . . . you're making me think libertarians are just the flip-side of the "they wanna take our gun kooks" Coin . . . infected with a seemingly ever-constant government paranoia.
Yeah, it would be better -- so long as YOU have feelings, for this case. But, what about the next case?
There are a lot of policy decisions that have to be made and one would like to think that the "right ones" are being made. Many district attorneys tend to send all shootings through the grand jury, that way, you don't get those black-on-black or black-on-white varieties predominating the grand jury rooms and those involving white perpetrators receiving the ole "D.A.'s Judgment" pass.
I wouldn't want the D.A., catching feelings for one guy's shooting; and seemingly not with the next. Race and station in life appears to have too much to do with that.
I think consistency and fairness should be the talisman.
The store owner shot a man to death. The issue is whether it was criminal -- NOT whether you have feelings for him.
Actually, I never expressed an opinion one way or another with respect to the grand jury (SEE, you're leaping to conclusions, AGAIN). I merely gave one explanation of the thought process of many district attorneys in deciding how to handle shootings.
you damn sure missed the point.I don't think the article was about a "gun stance" in the first instance. Perhaps, you wanted <s>to</s> it to be ??? Seriously, is that why you posted it ???
And, what about this:
"The Government this" . . . "The government that" . . . you're making me think libertarians are just the flip-side of the "they wanna take our gun kooks" Coin . . . infected with a seemingly ever-constant government paranoia.
Last edited:
I would never doubt your default belief of government knows best, so obviously you think it's sound for the government to treat him as a suspect.
The DA will control what the grand jury gets to consider, and as QueEx stated, they'll come back with the DA's desired outcome. If the DA won't assert that the store owner is lying then why take it to the grand jury?
Just leave someone who's done nothing wrong alone. Nothing wrong according to the DA's statement, the cops investigative results, and the store's surveillance tape.
Or is leaving people alone too foreign a concept for you?
That explains your positions in the other threads regarding bankers receiving immunity, citizens being assassinated by their own government, or anything else that gets posted in this board.
So a story about the proper use of a gun for self-defense has no connection to this thread, but any random misuse should be valid fodder for you and Que's opinion, that only wants to put limits on others?
Re: Store owner: “I didn’t kill him; he killed himself”
The DA said he was trying to prove a point by sending this to the grand jury. Prove that point on a case that fits his idea of abuse of the principle of self-defense.
Are those my feelings or are the statistics of racial disparities in justice system a big ass lie?
Is that a valid reason to send shit to the grand jury?
To you it is because otherwise you "have feelings."
And you're labeling those people as kooks because they don't see eye-to-eye with you.
This is one of many threads where those "kooks" are right not to trust that you're concerned about their welfare or safety.
You call it feelings because I don't consider, the government fucks with everyone (who's not rich of course), a valid reason to fuck with this storeowner.
The DA said he was trying to prove a point by sending this to the grand jury. Prove that point on a case that fits his idea of abuse of the principle of self-defense.
Thats a hell of a reality you live in where you think the actions of government lean towards the "right ones."
As you said, grand juries generally result in whatever outcome the government wants. So nothing about your logic protects against the abuse you cited as being made unlikely through this process.
Are those my feelings or are the statistics of racial disparities in justice system a big ass lie?
Once again the county DA isn't even asserting that the store owner did anything wrong. He said he wants to stress that people shouldn't think having a trespasser is a license to kill. The grand jury choice is a political point independent of this particular case.
Is that a valid reason to send shit to the grand jury?
To you it is because otherwise you "have feelings."
Oh, I'm sorry. What is your opinion that will not be predictable in the slightest?
The criminalization of self-defense using a gun (which is the only valid use) is why I posted it and why you and Dave completely see the government as reasonable in this situation.
I'm not a libertarian and never claimed to be, but that never matters to people who don't value individuality.
And you're labeling those people as kooks because they don't see eye-to-eye with you.
This is one of many threads where those "kooks" are right not to trust that you're concerned about their welfare or safety.
Was I for bankers receiving immunity? I don't even recall us talking about that, at least not disagreeing (unless you're all for them getting it, then we have an issue).
For whatever you have this emotional thing about me and it forces you to try box me in with whatever preconceived notions and strawman arguments you NEED me to believe.
Don't let me rent space in your head. You dont in mine.
In tangential way, you could make a long reach for that angle but that's a trip you can take by yourself. If the owner had stabbed the guy and the DA came to the same conclusion, my opinion would be the same. Just because you choose to focus on the gun, doesn't mean anyone else will.
Isn't the point your apathy to topics, depending on how much the person affected cares? That thought process especially explains your lack of opinion.
Prior to this I never questioned your interest in those threads, but since you volunteered your philosophy on the matter, I'm letting you know I was enlightened and it explains alot.
Tangent huh?
I can't wait for you be as forthcoming when a random murder with a gun is posted to a gun-subject thread. You know since it's obviously about the death and not the gun.
Please note that you've been slacking since this 300 post thread is full of those stories as proof of a need for more gun control.
This made me
. I've been accused of many a thing but never "lack of opinion".It's not apathy, it's realizing that if the person affected doesnt care then why should I? There are better places to aim my energy.
OK
. Last I checked, I have no problem expressing myself so if it was enlightenment you sought, simply asking me is the most direct route to getting a straight answer. Assuming will just lead you wrong.I read that a couple times and I still can't figure out what you're trying to say.
Doesn't matter.
Still topic became dull to me because it stopped being about reality and became about philosophy, which just leads to rehashing the same posts over ad nauseum.
You can't de-link the two. It's like thoughtone's infantile logic when he screams about Liberty without Justice. One implies the other with Justice being a necessary, not sufficient, condition for Liberty. You can't respect reality then shit on the only way humans have to perceive it.
No wonder you get bored easily, you don't find any value in reality beyond what's in front of your face. That's actually very consistent with your, it doesn't affect me, logic.
Spoken like a true trickle down proponent.
So much for your railing against corporate bailouts.
I'm confused thoughtone.
Can you explain how one leads to the other?
Thanks in advance.
Specifically?
Specifically the part where arguing that you can't separate Justice from Liberty or philosophy from reality is inconsistent with my "railing against corporate bailouts."
Thanks in advance.