Well, we didn't even get through the first page of this destined-to-be-enormous thread before the Buzzword-Bingo drivel began to ooze:
View attachment 355329
There you go scoop, the honor of the first X on my card.
I was going to stop typing here. We've had this thread before. The search function isn't great, but anyone who cares what I think probably already knows.
And then I thought about it a bit, and it occurred to me that a couple things actually have changed recently or are about to change. There's been some court activity lately which has some bearing on this mass shooting and what (if anything) Congress can or will do.
So in the spirit of giving
@caligas a sincere answer, I'll put forth a few thoughts.
1) It appears this guy bought the rifle shortly after his 18th birthday. I've heard a lot of commentary about how an 18-year-old shouldn't be allowed to buy a rifle. Sometimes that commentary is limited to rifles of a darker "assault-ish" complexion, and sometimes it's applied to all rifles.
First, on the federal side, the Gun Control Act of 1968 prohibits persons under 21 from purchasing handguns, and persons under 18 from purchasing long guns. So age limitations aren't a new idea, and they've survived at least some legal scrutiny. Though as we've observed recently, SCOTUS appears to be getting over its shyness when it comes to disposing of logically- and legally-dubious precedent, even if a reversal disturbs the status quo in a big way.
In 2019, California passed a law that prohibited persons under 21 from purchasing semiautomatic centerfire rifles. (Of course, it's idiotic to expect this to reduce their ability to commit murders, when 98%+ of the firearm murders they commit involve handguns it's already illegal for them to purchase.)
Anyway, just a couple weeks ago, a 3-judge panel on the 9th Circuit ruled that law unconstitutional. Last I heard, California's Attorney General was still weighing whether or not to seek en banc review of that decision. Five years ago, it'd have been a no-brainer - of course he would've, because the 9th was freakishly lopsided to the left and an en banc review would've been a guaranteed win. These days, the 9th is a little more balanced, and he needs to weigh how badly he wants to fight this ruling ... with the risk of it eventually reaching SCOTUS, with predictably bad results for other facets of CA gun control.
If anything, I think the legal trajectory we're on is closer to getting the 1968 under-21 handgun ban overturned by SCOTUS, than we are to getting a durable under-21 rifle ban created.
2) SCOTUS will, before July 1st, release its decision in NYSRPA v. Bruen.
We really can't have a gun control discussion without considering the impact this is likely to have.
Since Alito got to write the majority opinion on the abortion case, it seems probable that Thomas is going to get this one. There's no telling how narrow or broad the ruling will be. But Thomas has made no secret that he is tired of the 2nd Amendment being treated like a second-class right by the Court; that he is frustrated by Heller and McDonald being systematically ignored and subverted by states and lower courts; and that the abuse and gamesmanship on the part of NYC that got the predecessor to this case (NYSRPA v. NYC) ruled moot, isn't going to be tolerated now that the Court is 6-3.
The outcome of this case isn't in doubt at all - only the extent of the ruling. Maybe it'll just be a super narrow and esoteric ruling on procedures and standards for the way states issue firearm carry permits and not much will change. But I think Thomas has been itching for a long time to drop the hammer on this subject.
Anyway - to get to the point, after more than a decade in which exactly 0% of gun-related appeals to SCOTUS were granted cert, we're on the cusp of a potentially momentus SCOTUS ruling on the 2nd Amendment. Even the once-liberal bastion of the 9th Circuit is turning a rather jaundiced eye toward some facets of gun control at the state level.
Many people expect that NYSRPA v. Bruen will establish strict scrutiny as the benchmark for evaluating laws that place limits on the 2nd Amendment. Strict scrutiny means that to be upheld, a law must meet three requirements:
1) it must further a compelling governmental interest
2) it must be as narrowly tailored
3) it must be the least restrictive means for achieving that interest
Whether or not SCOTUS goes that way or not, my personal opinion is that any acceptable (to me) new regulation of firearms must meet these criteria.
I confess ongoing cynicism about gun control efforts from the left. Just as the right has effectively used incrementalism and frog-boiling techniques to gradually chip away at abortion rights, with the obvious end goal of a total ban - the left talks about reasonableness and "common sense" but the obvious end goal is a total ban, registration, confiscation. Occasionally the quiet part was said out loud (e.g. Feinstein, Beto). I've lost track of the number of times people on this board have told me, in these discussions that I can relax, no one's going to come take my guns. (Hey, that's on the bingo card too!) Of course they're coming. Of course they are. Just as (of course) the right wants a complete total ironclad ban on abortion. Of course they do.
I honestly don't see how any new gun control laws will possibly be even marginally effective at stopping these events, and consistent with strict scrutiny.
- Universal background checks? Ineffective
- Stronger red flag laws? Prone to abuse, probably ineffective
- Ban & confiscate? Unconstitutional
- Age limits? See the above 9th Circuit decision
So here we are again. Impassioned and (mostly) sincere calls to do SOMETHING ... but most of those somethings won't actually achieve the stated objective. And the somethings that might, are clearly over the line. We're not Australia - emulating their "solution" is just a ridiculous line of discussion.
Here's the answer, but it would take a multi-generational cultural shift. The "it's mental illness" line sort of frustrates me, because it's too simple/glib ... but it's true. But it's not just individuals who might be helped by better healthcare or after-school programs.
It's a deep, cultural illness of discontent and despair. How can anyone look at the overall state of the USA today, and not see it?
Crazy people gonna crazy, but gang turf wars and angry white supremacist replacement-theory dinguses like the Tucker Carlson Shooter who shot up that grocery store in Buffalo, are two faces of the same coin. These people wouldn't exist if they didn't grow up in broken communities.
Gun control is like seeing a couple of rabid dogs, and deciding to pull the teeth out of every canine species and subspecies.
Poverty, despair, dwindling opportunity (blamed on the Other), manipulation misinformation and lies. The decent people on the right side of the political spectrum have mostly no ideas. The decent people on the left side of the political spectrum have mostly stupid ideas.
amp.washingtontimes.com
www.independent.co.uk
