Right, say SCOTUS says you can’t restrict ownership of grenade launchers in NJ and the state of NJ says too bad?
Would federal marshals attempt to arrest the governor of NJ? I think we’d have a constitutional crisis. The SCOTUS only has power based on its legitimacy, but the more political it becomes the less legitimate it is.
Maybe not the Governor, but anyone trying to enforce an illegal law.
And if it was announced that this would be happening, I think you’d find that NJ cops, not wishing to serve time in federal prison, would refuse to enforce the illegal NJ law.
I have seen polls that suggest a majority of Americans favour some type of increased restrictions on gun ownership. In a democracy, one would hope that the majority opinion of the people would outweigh the constraints you mention. It is sad if nothing at all can change just because of history!
Yep, I think that there is support, especially in the wake of a tragedy like this, for some common sense changes that don’t just totally fly in the face of the Constitution.
Things like universal background checks and possibly increasing the age to buy a gun to 21. This is where there is room for changes.
Universal background checks AND mandatory safety training AND codified penalties for anybody whose gun is used in a crime or harmful accident due to not being reasonably stored at home (possibly suspension/loss of gun privileges) AND mandatory reporting of guns stolen or lost.
I can’t drive a car until I pass a test and have experience, but I can buy a gun today and immediately use it in many states. Too many gun-owners I know are comfortable pointing their gun at somebody or store them loaded around the house.
One of my thoughts is, “How many friends did he have on Facebook, and why didn’t anyone notice this before the shooting?” Do people normally post shit like this for laughs? Did anyone really know him IRL?
I imagine part of the trouble is the type of people on Facebook all the time are going to be younger and less inclined to read that and immediately say holy **** and call 911
I mean 54% favor a general statement of increased restrictions without any mention of the details.
Other polls I’ve seen show high support for background checks and some minor stuff like that, but anything significantly limiting gun ownership shows pretty consistent majority opposition.
how do these work for an 18yo buyer? they have almost 0 adult background to check.
“All clear, here’s your gun” probably.
That’s a good question and I honestly don’t know the answer.
I would hope that certain juvenile offenses would get you a fail on a background check even if they’re not part of your criminal record. If that’s not a thing, perhaps it should be.
And of course, kids under 18 can be tried as adults for certain offenses.
I know from the preceding comments that there are overwhelming political, legal and cultural obstacles to prevent the US from doing anything meaningful in the area of gun control so am sharing this article just because it is a good read.
My state will seal most juvenile records upon request unless you’ve done some particularly heinous crimes or have >3 offenses.
That’s why the first approach should be an excise tax on guns and ammunition with the funds ear marked to address gun violence in various ways like I described earlier. You don’t restrict ownership in any way shape or form you just put a premium on gun owners to pay for the inevitable gun violence.
I have a feeling if a poll on that specific question were posed it would have more than 60% support and less than 30% opposition.
That explains why all his friends didn’t see it.
So we now have confirmation that police went into the building to get their own children out, while we also have video of parents being pinned to the ground and threatened with tasers by police officers outside to prevent them from doing the same thing.
Good guys with guns is a myth.
…and the current SCOTUS will likely deem such a targeted tax as an unconstitutional infringement on the Second Amendment.
I think there would be slightly greater chance of success by tightening background check requirements, and imposing liability on firearm owners whose weapons are misused when transferred without appropriate checks (including if their weapons are stolen)…but neither of those would likely have prevented Uvalde.
But congress has the power to raise taxes. The SCOUTS would be on even more farcical ground than it currently stands and that is saying something.
I hadn’t heard about the cops getting their own kids out but not other kids. But the guy was ultimately taken out by a US Border Patrol Agent who’d been called in to assist the police. So, a good guy with a gun. Not a myth.
Sadly it seems that not all cops meet the definition of “good guy with a gun” all the time though. We knew that even before the shooting. Which is unfortunate for a plethora of reasons.