Happiness is a warm gun

[broncofan]

The other issue they raise is "equal protection." Equal protection prevents the government from using arbitrary classifications to legislate. In particular it prevents them from using these classifications in a way that doesn't remedy the problem and does injury to the proxy group.

It doesn't say in the article but I just read that the NRA has argued in their briefs that the law discriminates against "women aged 18-21." In other words, because women are much less likely to engage in gun violence, the law is irrational when applied to women.

But would they for instance support a law that prevented men from getting guns until 25 when the brain is fully developed, and women, who are more stable and mature to be able to own guns at 18? I would fully support making women the guardians of guns for men of any age since they are so much less likely to engage in violence. How about it NRA? This wins most disingenuous argument of the year given how frequently women are the victims of violence.

[Stavros]

Thank you. I didn't know about any of this. The laws look very reasonable and from what I've seen from the article the NRA doesn't have much chance of succeeding in court based on what Scalia has said. He said in Heller that nothing in his opinion should be interpreted to mean assault weapon bans are unconstitutional and that the 2nd amendment codifies the right to own the type of ordinary weapon people use for self-defense.
The other issue they raise is "equal protection." Equal protection prevents the government from using arbitrary classifications to legislate. In particular it prevents them from using these classifications in a way that doesn't remedy the problem and does injury to the proxy group.
For example let's say in order to work somewhere safely it required a person to be 170 pounds and at least 5 foot 8. If instead of just mandating that requirement, they say that women cannot operate machinery because only 10% of women meet those requirements. In equal protection terms the classification would be over-inclusive and under-inclusive. It's over-inclusive because some women are that height and weight and it's under-inclusive because some men aren't.
The NRA is claiming that the age restriction discriminates against adults 18-21. But age has always been a proxy for maturity and they certainly would not want the government to engage in the sort of competency testing that would get more directly to the issue. It's also true that while older people can face invidious discrimination that underestimates their competency it hasn't been much of a problem with younger individuals. As I sort of indicated, equal protection addresses the use of classifications that aren't effective for legislating, but it also looks for an element of discrimination. The age restriction is unfortunately the best proxy we have for most dangerous activities short of stringent licensing and individualized competency testing, and it's not what they call a "suspect classification" where you are somewhat suspicious of the intent behind the classification.
The bigger point behind this is to ask, what does this say about the NRA? Things we already know but that their aim is not to protect the right to own guns for self-defense, but a militia culture that is toxic to our country. It also indicates they don't know how to pick their battles, because unless there is something I'm not seeing here, they're going to lose. They are worried about the laws but as laws determine norms, and as Scalia's opinion kind of uses norms as a benchmark for laws, they don't want this to get away from them.

I am unable to match your erudite exposition of the legal position, it seems to me the NRA has for the time being, at least, lost the moral argument, and that is what matters to 'ordinary people', including those who own guns.

[broncofan]

https://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewi...-demonstration

This came across my feed. A specific incident but doesn't bode well for arming teachers.

[dreamon]

https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/gr...ing/index.html

Maryland school officer stops armed student who shot 2 others

Blaine Gaskill is a hero.

[filghy2]

Great, the student "only" shot two others, so problem solved. In any normal country that would be counted as a failure, not a success to be celebrated.

[trish]

I’m not quite clear on the story here. Was the shooter on a rampage, or was his goal to kill the 16 year old female student who knew him? Was the 14 year old boy an unfortunate bystander or the first victim of a massacre that was stopped short by a hero. Did the SWAT trained officer stop a suicide or another mass shooting? Either way it was all a tragedy that didn’t have to happen.

“Officials could not say who shot the boy or whether the attacker, 17-year-old Austin Wyatt Rollins, was killed by Gaskill or shot himself with the Glock semiautomatic handgun he brought to the school.” ( https://www.washingtonpost.com/local...=.a59d185c146b )

“It's not yet clear whether the shooter, Austin Wyatt Rollins, was felled by the officer's bullet or killed himself.” ( https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/20/us/ma...rnd/index.html )

In what direction was Rollins' gun pointed when our hero shot him?

[dreamon]

Great, the student "only" shot two others, so problem solved. In any normal country that would be counted as a failure, not a success to be celebrated.

Seems to me that in England, which has strict restrictions on freedoms such as bearing arms or speech, and is often brought up by anti-Constitution protestors, has plenty of issues.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/03/w...ridge-van.html

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/d...turing-n763286

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/03/22/w...-shooting.html

[broncofan]

Seems to me that in England, which has strict restrictions on freedoms such as bearing arms or speech, and is often brought up by anti-Constitution protestors, has plenty of issues.

Scalia in Heller: “like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” It is “not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.....Nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions on the commercial sale of arms."

By lying you make it clear you depend upon ignorance to make your argument. What Scalia said above does not preclude the regulation of guns. In fact, he explicitly says that conditions on the sale of weapons is permissible under the second amendment.

While we're on the theme of ignorance, why would single data points be more useful than statistics? What is the murder rate in Britain? Are these novel means of killing common enough that with fewer guns just as many people are being killed? Or are they a handful of examples demonstrating that only the most determined killers will find a way to kill without the best means possible, but that others who are less motivated might not if they don't have a killing machine at hand?

Poor guy doesn't understand the Constitution, hasn't read Heller, and doesn't know what a statistic is and why it would be more relevant than a series of examples.

[filghy2]

Seems to me that in England, which has strict restrictions on freedoms such as bearing arms or speech, and is often brought up by anti-Constitution protestors, has plenty of issues.

UK murder rate - 0.92 per 100,000 people. US murder rate - 4.88 per 100,000 people. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

UK gun ownership - 6.2 per 100 people. US gun ownership - 101 per 100 people.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estima...ita_by_country

Similar disparities can be seen for every other developed country. I asked you to explain this before and I'm still waiting for an answer. What is it about these data that you find so hard to understand?

[buttslinger]

The Maryland shooting was on every local channel where I live, all sensationalism, short on facts, I turned it off, and of course yesterday we had the kid's march, hats off to them, it's a cinch the Republicans and Democrats won't fix the problem, maybe the children can. For me, that time between sixth grade and ninth grade was maybe the time I was most alive, it's no accident surging hormones necessitates it's own two year middle school, with teachers trying to keep a lid on the boiling pot. One of my friends I've known almost my whole life reminded me that life had many more demands in School, much tougher than a JOB where they pretend you're an adult and an equal. But it's the same deal, people still get pushed around by the Powers that Be, and ignored by the people in charge who have their own agenda. To be in charge you have to TAKE charge, and that notion is scarier than guns.