March For Our Lives

[Bicycle Bill]

... setting up a compensation system for those injured funded by a tax on sales of guns and ammo (there's your recurring costs) is a step toward doing just that.

Every year I have to pay property taxes on something that has been bought and paid for for almost ten years now; every year I have to spend almost a hundred bucks for a 1" x 2" piece of Scotchlite tape that allows me to use my car on the public highways; every so often (it used to be every four years, now it's every eight) I have to present myself to be retested to prove that I can properly and safely operate said vehicle on said public roads, with additional tests (and fees) to be able to drive other types of vehicles like motorcycles, semi trucks, or taxicabs ... and then the state requires me to pay even more money to get a piece of paper to attest that, despite the fact that the state has examined and certified my proficiency, if I *DO* fuck up and wreck something or hurt or kill someone, they will be able to collect damages.  Do the same things with guns — and remember, the government already does something similar with fully-automatic weapons — and there's your REAL recurring charges.

And despite having all of this — in triplicate, if necessary — you still can't get a snootful or get stoned and drive, and you have to follow certain rules relating to wearing safety gear like seat belts, paying attention (no texting!!), and when, where, or how fast you can drive. THAT certainly seems consistent with that often overlooked "well-regulated militia" codicil.

-"BB"-

[Big RR]

Well try if you want to; I wish you luck.

[Darren]

The controversy over the militia part of the second amendment ended when the Supreme Court ruled in D.C. vs Heller that gun ownership was an individual right just like the first and the others. That's a tough wall to break down by beating your head against it. Even tougher with Gorsuch and others of his ilk that may soon have a seat on the bench.

[Econoline]

I agree—which is why I said it's possible, but not in the foreseeable future (though after Nov. "others of his ilk" may have a harder time making it onto the SC), while outright repeal of the 2A is so unlikely that it ought to be considered virtually impossible.

And while I personally believe that the "militia" part of Heller was wrong, Scalia et al did get something right. From Charlie Pierce's blog:

• One of the more formidable politicians at the state level is Maura Healey, our attorney general here in the Commonwealth (God save it!).[that would be Massachusetts, where Pierce resides] After the Pulse nightclub shooting in June of 2016, Healey took advantage of the escape hatch that the late Justice Antonin Scalia wrote into the Supreme Court’s Heller decision in which the late Justice Scalia specifically stated that the individual right to bear arms that the Court endorsed in that decision was not unlimited.

  “We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”

  
  So, after Omar Mateen killed 49 people in the Orlando nightclub with two different makes of semi-automatic firearms, Healey widened the scope of Massachusetts’s 1998 assault-weapons ban to include most of the AR-15 and AK-47 knockoffs that are so popular among the gun-love crowd. Almost immediately, Healey was sued by the Gun Owners Action League, the NRA’s wilder cousin.On Friday, a federal district judge named William Young gave Healey and the Commonwealth (God save it!) a huge win, and he used Scalia’s opinion in Heller to do it. From Bloomberg:

  “The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional rights to ‘bear arms,’” U.S. District Judge William Young wrote in a decision Thursday in Boston, dismissing a lawsuit over the state law…Young, nominated by former President Ronald Reagan, backed his decision by quoting the late conservative Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion in a landmark 2008 decision that overturned Washington’s ban on hand guns. The ruling expanded individual gun rights but said the right isn’t unlimited.“Weapons that are most useful in military service -- M-16 rifles and the like” aren’t protected by the Second Amendment and “may be banned,” Young quoted Scalia as saying.

  
  A Reagan appointee upholds a gun law and uses a Scalia opinion to do it, and hands a victory to the Democratic attorney general of godless Taxachusetts. And they say there’s no humor to be found in the law.

[Darren]

I wouldn't bank on Scalia's loophole long term. While automatic weapons are currently regulated, there's no guarantee that will continue depending on the make up of the Supreme Court and some of the current issues extant. I can see the original U.S. vs Miller being overturned. While most firearm organizations would not consider that now, that doesn't mean circumstances might not change. We still haven't seen all of the repercussions from Bundy.

[Burning Petard]

You gotta love the way lawyers can reason. Once upon a time, the sawed off shot gun was outlawed for personal possession by federal regs. This went to court and the prohibition was finally ruled ok, because the sawed off shotgun was not a piece of military equipment and thus would not be used by militia. Now lawyers are reasoning that the AR15 is too much like a military weapon that would be used by militia to be allowed as a personal weapon.

Such marvelous twist of thought to get to the predetermined finding. If only similar creativity could be used productively to actually find a way to significantly reduce the indesired deaths.

Then again, perhaps the people who have power in the USofA really want the status quo to continue.

snailgate.

[rubato]

I wonder if the latest scandal involving high-level Russians being feted by the NRA and using the NRA as tools to further the Russians agenda will significantly erode their support.

[rubato]

sue--other than an increase payments to insurance companies, what would mandating insurance on firearms do? ... " .

It would locate the costs with those whose behavior can most change the outcome and provide a motivation to do what they don't do now which is secure their guns. The insurance could have no limit to liability (unlike car insurance) so it would be priced and sold appropriately.

Right now non-gun owners are paying the costs est to be over $100 Billion per year.


yrs,
rubato

[Darren]

I wonder if the latest scandal involving high-level Russians being feted by the NRA and using the NRA as tools to further the Russians agenda will significantly erode their support.

That makes no sense to me. The NRA supports the second amendment which is antithetical to a totalitarian regime. How does that fit the Russian agenda?

[Scooter]

Anything that feeds domestic divisiveness fits the Russian agenda.

[Darren]

I realize the NRA is the quintessential boogieman to some. Given the NRA's success in recent years, I welcome the Russian support. It's time to pass national CCW reciprocity. Thank you Putin! Did he at least get a free mug or some other prize for donating? Where do I send a thank you card?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I wonder if the latest scandal involving high-level Russians being feted by the NRA and using the NRA as tools to further the Russians agenda will significantly erode their support.

I don't think the high level Russians will lose any support. Now if they allied with lib...

[Scooter]

It's time to pass national CCW reciprocity.

No doubt you also believe that slaveowners should have been able to settle in free states with their slaves and maintain ownership of them.

[Darren]

It's time to pass national CCW reciprocity.

No doubt you also believe that slaveowners should have been able to settle in free states with their slaves and maintain ownership of them.

Neither I or my ancestors were into slavery. I'd just like to see Darwin get some help.

[rubato]

The NRA are witless tools of the Russian totalitarians who used them to elect Trump and advance a pro-Russia agenda. Anyone who invites them in is just as stupid as Trump.

[BoSoxGal]

From WashPo:

BOSTON — Assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are not protected by the Second Amendment, a federal judge said in a ruling Friday upholding Massachusetts’ ban on the weapons.

U.S. District Judge William Young dismissed a lawsuit challenging the 20-year-old ban, saying assault weapons are military firearms that fall beyond the reach of the constitutional right to “bear arms.”

Regulation of the weapons is a matter of policy, not for the courts, he said.

“Other states are equally free to leave them unregulated and available to their law-abiding citizens,” Young said. “These policy matters are simply not of constitutional moment. Americans are not afraid of bumptious, raucous and robust debate about these matters. We call it democracy.”

State Attorney General Maura Healey said the ruling “vindicates the right of the people of Massachusetts to protect themselves from these weapons of war.”


“Strong gun laws save lives, and we will not be intimidated by the gun lobby in our efforts to end the sale of assault weapons and protect our communities and schools,” Healey, a Democrat, said in a statement. “Families across the country should take heart in this victory.”

AR-15 assault-style rifles are under increased scrutiny because of their use in several recent mass shootings, including the February massacre at a Florida high school that left 17 people dead.

The Gun Owners Gun Owners’ Action League of Massachusetts and other groups that filed the lawsuit argued that the AR-15 cannot be considered a “military weapon” because it cannot fire in fully automatic mode.

But Young dismissed that argument, noting that the semi-automatic AR-15’s design is based on guns “that were first manufactured for military purposes” and that the AR-15 is “common and well-known in the military.”

“The AR-15 and its analogs, along with large capacity magazines, are simply not weapons within the original meaning of the individual constitutional right to ‘bear arms,’” Young wrote.

Young also upheld Healey’s 2016 enforcement notice to gun sellers and manufacturers clarifying what constitutes a “copy” or “duplicate” weapon under the state’s 1998 assault weapon ban, including copies of the Colt AR-15 and the Kalashnikov AK-47.

Healey’s stepped-up enforcement followed the shooting rampage at a nightclub in Orlando, Florida, that killed 49 patrons. She said at the time that gun manufacturers were circumventing Massachusetts’ ban by selling copycat versions of the weapons they claimed complied with the law.


The Massachusetts assault weapons ban mirrors the federal ban that expired in 2004. It prohibits the sale of specific and name-brand weapons and explicitly bans copies or duplicates of those weapons.

Jim Wallace, executive director of the Massachusetts gun owners group, said Young’s upholding of Healey’s crackdown on copycat assault weapons gives the attorney general “unbridled authority” to interpret laws as she pleases.

“Everyone in the state should be really concerned about that,” Wallace said. “What if the next attorney general isn’t a friend on one of your issues?”

Wallace said he couldn’t yet say whether the group will appeal the ruling.

The U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution allows Americans to have guns in their homes for self-defense, blocking local governments from banning handguns.

But the court last year turned away an appeal from Maryland gun owners who challenged the state’s ban on assault weapons.

Damn, it’s good to be home. Last night I went to the opening Friday of A Quiet Place (excellent film, by the way) and the theater was sold out, jam packed - but I didn’t feel even the slightest bit of nervousness that I used to feel in Montana and Arizona. There just isn’t a widespread gun nut culture here.

[Darren]

The NRA are witless tools of the Russian totalitarians who used them to elect Trump and advance a pro-Russia agenda. Anyone who invites them in is just as stupid as Trump.

That's a new one. Have you passed that thought onto Hillary Clinton? She's still trying to figure out why she lost. Hopefully she'll go on record blaming the NRA. That's a win win if I ever saw one. Hillary continues to look like a fool and the NRA gets more members.

[Big RR]

sue--other than an increase payments to insurance companies, what would mandating insurance on firearms do? ... " .

It would locate the costs with those whose behavior can most change the outcome and provide a motivation to do what they don't do now which is secure their guns. The insurance could have no limit to liability (unlike car insurance) so it would be priced and sold appropriately.

Right now non-gun owners are paying the costs est to be over $100 Billion per year.


yrs,
rubato

I'm not so sure of that rubato; the general liability portion of homeowners insurance would cover the owners use of a gun or negligence (except for intentional torts, which still would not be covered), and so far as I know there is not insurance that covers a third party's unauthorized use of your property (your car insurance certainly does not). True, if you can prove negligence in the way the guns are stored contributed to the damages caused you may be able to get some liability in some jurisdictions, but in most you probably will not. Also, I am not aware of any studies which have shown that even a significant percentage of shootings are due to careless storage, or that the current liability policies people carry through their homeowners and renters insurance don't pay in those cases.

I am sure there are a good number of incidents involving improperly stored guns, but I would think many of those are already covered; if it were a concern, the insurance companies could well charge more if there is a gun in the house (just as they do if other potentially hazardous conditions exist)--that they don't leads me to the conclusion that it's just not that big a problem.

[Scooter]

Perhaps it won't require legislation to bring about sensible gun control after all:

Bank of America to stop lending to companies making assault-type weapons, reports say

Bank of America plans to stop lending money to companies that manufacture assault-style guns that are used for non-military purposes, a top executive told Bloomberg Television on Tuesday.

Anne Finucane, a BOA vice chairman told Bloomberg, “It’s our intention not to finance these military-style firearms for civilian use,” Time.com reported.

It’s the first time an executive at the country’s second-largest bank has publicly announced how it will deal with gun-industry clients since the Feb. 14 shootings at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland that left 17 people dead, according to the online report.

Finucane said the decision by BOA came after “instense conversations over the last few months.”

Other banks and certain retailers have also addressed firearm policies.

Citigroup Inc., in March said it plans to prohibit retail chains that are its customers from offering bump stocks or selling guns to those who haven’t passed a background check or are younger than 21, the New York Times reported.

Among major retailers, Dick’s Sporting Goods announced in late February that it will no longer sell assault-style weapons.

A few more moves like this and perhaps these genocide machines will be a relic of history.

[Big RR]

Nah, they'll just use the other semi automatic rifles that are not on some banned list, and achieve the same results.