Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

"... being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

A place to discuss regulation, proposed or enacted.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Post Reply
Message
Author
User avatar
HotheadPaisan
Been around awhile
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:19 pm
Contact:

Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#1 Post by HotheadPaisan » Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:52 pm

Yeah, I do think a little regulation is a good thing, and I know that's an unpopular view. Be that as it may, here's the Giffords Law Center gun law roundup for 2017.

http://lawcenter.giffords.org/wp-conten ... -pages.pdf

The document refers to state-by-state bills, as well as gun lobby wins.

I'm hoping for a nuanced discussion here. :wall:
I’m NOT the NRA

dougb
Loquacious
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:25 pm
Location: Southern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#2 Post by dougb » Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:09 pm

I guess i don't see how any of those laws will prevent deaths, by murder or suicide. They might change the weapon or means, but humans managed to kill a lot of people before guns were invented, and suicides are capable of adapting methods. Suicidal doesn't mean stupid.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan

User avatar
harriss
Grizzled Veteran
Posts: 760
Joined: Sun Jul 19, 2015 3:47 pm
Location: western paradise
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#3 Post by harriss » Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:36 pm

Confiscating someone's guns simply because they sought mental health treatment voluntarily is counterproductive. We should also be careful if we believe we are doing someone a favor by reporting them or their caregiver to the state adult care system because we fear for someone's safety. We should never take the consequences of our actions lightly.
Is ignorance bliss? NO! It's suffering. Suffering ends when ignorance ends.

User avatar
Eris
Chatty
Posts: 1729
Joined: Mon May 23, 2016 11:54 am
Location: Houston
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#4 Post by Eris » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:13 pm

Well as for me, I don't see much to object to in either the "safety" laws or the "gun lobby" laws, except for these:
DANGEROUS PEOPLE
CALIFORNIA
AB 785 prohibits hate crime misdemeanants from possessing guns for ten years.
OREGON
SB 719 creates an extreme risk protection order that allows family members and law enforcement to petition a court for an order disarming a person who poses an imminent risk of dangerousness.
The California law seeks to take away someone's rights based on their ideology, and I don't like that kind of thing. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

The Oregon law creates a mechanism by which someone can have their rights taken away because others have a suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future. That's really fucked up, right there. It's a "pre-crime" law.
70+ recreational uses of firearms
1 defensive use
0 people injured
0 people killed

User avatar
CDFingers
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 17220
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#5 Post by CDFingers » Sun Jan 07, 2018 9:37 pm

Eris said it well.

A law was made in response to a very very small number of cases. Turns out rights can be taken away based on ideology.

Zounds.

CDFingers
ImageImage
Like I told you--what I said:
Steal your face right off your head.

eelj
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 14555
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#6 Post by eelj » Wed Jan 10, 2018 12:48 pm

When discussing gun laws state by state it is important too look at the violent crime statistics for each state.

How does Texas stack up to the state of California?

Or how does New Jersey stack up to Minnesota or Wisc? As far as suicide goes how does the US suicide rate stack up to other countries with much more restrictive gun laws?

I don't think that gun laws work at all and thats based on observation since the 60s. What I have observed is a markedly higher interest in different guns by the buying public such as handguns and semi auto rifles plus a huge increase in NRA membership since the start of the 70s.

User avatar
HotheadPaisan
Been around awhile
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#7 Post by HotheadPaisan » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:43 pm

dougb wrote:I guess i don't see how any of those laws will prevent deaths, by murder or suicide. They might change the weapon or means, but humans managed to kill a lot of people before guns were invented, and suicides are capable of adapting methods. Suicidal doesn't mean stupid.
The National Center for Health Statistics shows a steady upward trend in the number of suicides by gun:

https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visuali ... 1999-2014/

I think this is what Giffords is trying to address, not all methods of suicide in general.
I’m NOT the NRA

User avatar
HotheadPaisan
Been around awhile
Posts: 218
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 2:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#8 Post by HotheadPaisan » Wed Jan 10, 2018 10:44 pm

harriss wrote:Confiscating someone's guns simply because they sought mental health treatment voluntarily is counterproductive. We should also be careful if we believe we are doing someone a favor by reporting them or their caregiver to the state adult care system because we fear for someone's safety. We should never take the consequences of our actions lightly.
The state laws I’ve seen vary widely between in terms of inpatient vs. outpatient, etc. Texas has a fairly broad definition, which seems odd for such a pro-gun state.
I’m NOT the NRA

dougb
Loquacious
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:25 pm
Location: Southern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#9 Post by dougb » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:51 am

HotheadPaisan wrote:
dougb wrote:I guess i don't see how any of those laws will prevent deaths, by murder or suicide. They might change the weapon or means, but humans managed to kill a lot of people before guns were invented, and suicides are capable of adapting methods. Suicidal doesn't mean stupid.
The National Center for Health Statistics shows a steady upward trend in the number of suicides by gun:

https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visuali ... 1999-2014/

I think this is what Giffords is trying to address, not all methods of suicide in general.
There is no proof that removing guns (if possible) will lower suicide rates. It may lower suicide by gun, but doesn't touch suicide by rope, chemical, sharp object, fast moving object, or high place. While the trend may be real, the problem may actually be one of more people feeling suicidal and have little to do with guns. Japanese have almost no guns in the general population but have a suicide rate higher than ours. There favorite method is by rope. The Giffords are trying to remove all guns except theirs.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan

dougb
Loquacious
Posts: 2626
Joined: Thu Feb 16, 2012 11:25 pm
Location: Southern Minnesota
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#10 Post by dougb » Thu Jan 11, 2018 10:52 am

dougb wrote:
HotheadPaisan wrote:
dougb wrote:I guess i don't see how any of those laws will prevent deaths, by murder or suicide. They might change the weapon or means, but humans managed to kill a lot of people before guns were invented, and suicides are capable of adapting methods. Suicidal doesn't mean stupid.
The National Center for Health Statistics shows a steady upward trend in the number of suicides by gun:

https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visuali ... 1999-2014/

I think this is what Giffords is trying to address, not all methods of suicide in general.
There is no proof that removing guns (if possible) will lower suicide rates. It may lower suicide by gun, but doesn't touch suicide by rope, chemical, sharp object, fast moving object, or high place. While the trend may be real, the problem may actually be one of more people feeling suicidal and have little to do with guns. We are a practical and lazy people, and guns are efficient. Japanese have almost no guns in the general population but have a suicide rate higher than ours. There favorite method is by rope. The Giffords are trying to remove all guns except theirs.
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.
- Ronald Reagan

User avatar
senorgrand
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 17483
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2011 3:05 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Calif Central Coast
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#11 Post by senorgrand » Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:50 am

Eris wrote:Well as for me, I don't see much to object to in either the "safety" laws or the "gun lobby" laws, except for these:
DANGEROUS PEOPLE
CALIFORNIA
AB 785 prohibits hate crime misdemeanants from possessing guns for ten years.
OREGON
SB 719 creates an extreme risk protection order that allows family members and law enforcement to petition a court for an order disarming a person who poses an imminent risk of dangerousness.
The California law seeks to take away someone's rights based on their ideology, and I don't like that kind of thing. It sets a very dangerous precedent.

The Oregon law creates a mechanism by which someone can have their rights taken away because others have a suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future. That's really fucked up, right there. It's a "pre-crime" law.
Exactly.
Image

Release the tapes!

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 9295
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#12 Post by DispositionMatrix » Thu Jan 11, 2018 12:23 pm

dougb wrote:The Giffords are trying to remove all guns except theirs.
Therein lies the problem--being able to see through the death-by-a-thousand-cuts tactics of gun prohibition groups to the extent "a little regulation" marketed as gun safety is immediately recognized for what it really is.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

User avatar
PiratePenguin
Chatty
Posts: 1303
Joined: Fri Dec 13, 2013 8:39 pm
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#13 Post by PiratePenguin » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:20 pm

HotheadPaisan wrote:[
The National Center for Health Statistics shows a steady upward trend in the number of suicides by gun:

https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visuali ... 1999-2014/
You know what else has been on a steady upward trend? The US population. If you look at the *rate*, they are practically identical. (1.02/100k in 2000 vs 1.05 in 2014)

methodmissing
Been around awhile
Posts: 247
Joined: Wed Nov 29, 2017 5:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#14 Post by methodmissing » Thu Jan 11, 2018 2:43 pm

PiratePenguin wrote:
HotheadPaisan wrote:[
The National Center for Health Statistics shows a steady upward trend in the number of suicides by gun:

https://blogs.cdc.gov/nchs-data-visuali ... 1999-2014/
You know what else has been on a steady upward trend? The US population. If you look at the *rate*, they are practically identical. (1.02/100k in 2000 vs 1.05 in 2014)
Excellent point.
OREGON SB 719
Isn't it reasonable to empower wardens (in the strict definition) to temporarily transfer a ward's firearms if they present an extreme risk to themselves or others?
The Oregon law creates a mechanism by which someone can have their rights taken away because others have a suspicion that they might commit a crime in the future. That's really fucked up, right there. It's a "pre-crime" law.
I read the text of the bill: https://olis.leg.state.or.us/liz/2017R1 ... 9/Enrolled and it's a maximum of 51 days during which the respondent has the opportunity to appear in court and exercise the right of due process.

The list of things for the court is also quite clear and all based upon facts in evidence; a history of violent behavior, drug abuse, convictions, restraining orders, and so forth.

The argument against is hyperbolic and alarmist, and inaccurate to the text of the bill. The petitioner has the burden of proof.

The real question is whether history of violent, uncivil behavior and reasonable certainty of imminent risk of same is enough to temporarily a person's constitutional right to individual ownership (bearing of arms) and force them to argue their fitness before a judge. I'm not capable of making that argument.

User avatar
SpaceRanger42
Been around awhile
Posts: 212
Joined: Sun Sep 10, 2017 11:05 pm
Location: Mountlake Terrace, WA
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#15 Post by SpaceRanger42 » Thu Jan 11, 2018 3:37 pm

I wouldn't focus on the hate crime thing, felony assault is still felony assault. Though I think that people do need to consider that in NC when the Vice reporter followed Chris Cantwell around and back to his hotel room, that asshole had three pistols on him a knife and a rifle in his room. He went to that gathering loaded for bear and has advocated violent action many times. To my mind this is a very good example of Clear and Present Danger. If that isn't enough to make ya think about ideology more seriously, consider this. Do you want a bunch of ignorant racist fucks in your neighborhood packing heat?
Never smile too big, the gods may mistake it for hubris.
Yes, I haz a moose. :D

BKinzey
Chatty
Posts: 1728
Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2014 12:34 pm
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#16 Post by BKinzey » Thu Jan 11, 2018 11:43 pm

SpaceRanger42 wrote:.... Do you want a bunch of ignorant racist fucks in your neighborhood packing heat?
They already are, and some of them have badges. What is more concerning to me is if I want to stay law abiding I am prevented from carrying.

Hasaf
Been around awhile
Posts: 189
Joined: Tue Jul 04, 2017 3:11 pm
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#17 Post by Hasaf » Fri Jan 12, 2018 8:46 am

There was actually something on that list that I could support:
WASHINGTON SB 5552 allows a person to temporarily transfer a firearm without a background check in order to prevent suicide.
I held onto some guns for a friend who was going through a rough patch. When he asked for them back I gave them back (he is doing fine. . . not really; but that particular issue is over with).

As I stated before, a "Gun Control" law that I could support would be a law:
Require county sheriff departments to provide "no questions asked" firearm storage. A person wants the guns out of the house, they take them to the SO. It could be for depression, visiting family that have a bit o' de asshole, or doing some babysitting. . . maybe the self realization that one has a violent temper streak but still likes to go target shooting on weekends, no matter the reason. Drop them off, get a receipt. Want them back, sign them out.

User avatar
highdesert
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 9251
Joined: Thu Nov 25, 2010 4:54 pm
Location: Biggest state on the Left Coast
Contact:

Re: Giffords 2017 Gun Law Roundup

#18 Post by highdesert » Fri Jan 12, 2018 9:17 am

The anti-gun equivalent of the NRA-ILA state updates.
"Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts." - Daniel Patrick Moynihan

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests