New gun regulations in California and Hawaii
July 3, 2016 6:05 PM Subscribe

This past Friday, California Governor Jerry Brown signed new gun control legislation for California, enacting bills that limit magazine capacity to 10 bullets; require a background check for those purchasing ammunition; and restrict the lending of firearms, and other effects from the six bills he signed, while vetoing five others. These laws further set California as one of the top states for gun laws, though gun rights activists area already saying they won't comply with the laws. But California wasn't the only state to act, with a recently passed law Hawaiian law placing gun owners into a national database, which expands the existing federal system known as "Rap Back" to track ongoing criminal history reported on individuals holding positions of trust, such as school teachers.
posted by filthy light thief (165 comments total) 25 users marked this as a favorite

Wiki links: Gun Laws in the United States by state, and specifically gun laws in California and gun laws in Hawaii.
posted by filthy light thief at 6:11 PM on July 3, 2016

“The purpose of the law is to make the business owner responsible for the safety of his or her customers, since their own policies removed the customer’s ability to carry a gun and protect themselves and their families."

posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:11 PM on July 3, 2016 [37 favorites]

The most obvious case of something that has absolutely no business being sold to the general public is a high capacity magazine. Their only practical purpose is mass killing of human beings.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 6:11 PM on July 3, 2016 [17 favorites]

Chocolate Pickle, that sound you're hearing.....that's the sound of me slamming my head into a brick wall in rage and frustration. What the actual fuck1?!!
posted by Fizz at 6:14 PM on July 3, 2016 [18 favorites]

From that "we won't comply" link: "So the only thing is that people will still have guns, but they’ll have them illegally."

That this canard has been trotted out for my entire life, and is so rarely challenged despite legally-purchased guns being the norm in mass shootings, is why I despair over any rational conversation about this.
posted by aspersioncast at 6:16 PM on July 3, 2016 [15 favorites]

So, are we going to start agitating for gun safety legislation at the state level, now? If so, there will eventually be a challenge that will pretty much force the Supreme Court to clarify the 2nd Amendment and set a precedent as to how absolute it ought to be.

Given Congress's state of permanent deadlock, this may be the new way that major legislation gets enacted: legislation by individual states -> challenge heard by SCOTUS -> SCOTUS renders a judgement that either universalizes, bans, or declares it to be within the purview of the states.

Does that sound crazy, or is this the new status quo?
posted by Anticipation Of A New Lover's Arrival, The at 6:23 PM on July 3, 2016 [16 favorites]

¿Por que no los dos?
posted by Splunge at 6:25 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

It may be that we win it at the state by state or city by city, just like we did with gay marriage.

Though given the insane nature of most state legislatures, this will be extremely difficult.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 6:29 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

AoaNLA: The Supreme Court already did that. See "District of Columbia v. Heller" and "McDonald v. City of Chicago".
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 6:30 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]

I agree with pretty much all of that - except for the background checks for ammunition. Making ammo is trivially easy, and all that does is make it more difficult for people that buy ammo legitimately.
posted by Punkey at 6:41 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

“The purpose of the law is to make the business owner responsible for the safety of his or her customers, since their own policies removed the customer’s ability to carry a gun and protect themselves and their families."

we live in the stupidest country with the stupidest people on the stupidest planet in the stupidest universe in the most incredibly fucking moronic timeline possible and i don't like it
posted by poffin boffin at 6:41 PM on July 3, 2016 [157 favorites]

good day sir
posted by poffin boffin at 6:42 PM on July 3, 2016 [32 favorites]

Meanwhile, Tennessee just passed a law that says that if a business owner declares their business to be a "gun free zone", and if a person who has a legal concealed carry license leaves their gun behind and then is shot in the gun free zone, then they can sue the business owner.
“The purpose of the law is to make the business owner responsible for the safety of his or her customers, since their own policies removed the customer’s ability to carry a gun and protect themselves and their families."

could this law be challenged on grounds of public safety? with actual evidence, instead of the delusions of Tennessean legistlators?

or is that the kind of evidence the CDC is not allowed to collect? any california laws passed on the study of gun violence? could california scientists research tennessee gun violence?
posted by eustatic at 6:47 PM on July 3, 2016 [11 favorites]

Punkey: "I agree with pretty much all of that - except for the background checks for ammunition. Making ammo is trivially easy, and all that does is make it more difficult for people that buy ammo legitimately."

While I agree with this for the most part, I can see a way it would work. Assuming that you have a regular local gun shop that you frequent. If you have already purchased a gun from that shop, then you have all the forms on record. Thus ammunition purchase should not be an issue. If, OTOH, you are in a new area and want to buy ammo you should have to show that information. As a gun owner I personally have no problem with that.
posted by Splunge at 6:47 PM on July 3, 2016 [7 favorites]

Making ammo is trivially easy

Making spitballs with chewed up paper to be fired through a hollowed out biro is trivially easy. Every child knows this. Nothing involving gunpowder is ever trivial.
posted by adept256 at 6:48 PM on July 3, 2016 [19 favorites]

we live in the stupidest country with the stupidest people on the stupidest planet in the stupidest universe in the most incredibly fucking moronic timeline possible and i don't like it

while accurate to the spirit of the work, this is a translation of Candide with which I am unfamiliar
posted by beerperson at 6:49 PM on July 3, 2016 [91 favorites]

“It simply makes no sense and it’s a shame that liberals refuse to enact common sense ideas like armed guards at schools and eliminating areas where killers have a lot of options. Hopefully more states make moves like this,” he wrote.

I weep. I fucking weep for this country. I think we're too far gone at this point. I might as well just pack it up and vote for Trump at this point because I'm starting to get morbidly curious about how far down the rabbit hole we can go.
posted by Talez at 6:49 PM on July 3, 2016 [13 favorites]

The most obvious case of something that has absolutely no business being sold to the general public is a high capacity magazine.

Unfortunately that is the easiest thing to produce.

Banning gas powered rifles would be a harder, but higher value, target.
posted by ChurchHatesTucker at 6:51 PM on July 3, 2016

I'm pretty convinced that America has given up on gun control. The lobbyists and the government that those lobbyists support have decided that wealth and power are more important than the safety of American citizens. It is just not going to happen. Such a fucking waste.
posted by Fizz at 6:52 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

“The purpose of the law is to make the business owner responsible for the safety of his or her customers, since their own policies removed the customer’s ability to carry a gun and protect themselves and their families."

If I were to try to find a rational explanation, it would probably involve the fact that the most likely place in the U.S. to be assaulted or murdered is the parking lot at a Walmart.
posted by sexyrobot at 6:57 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

(And not to keep letting Walmart continue to take no responsibility for that)
posted by sexyrobot at 6:58 PM on July 3, 2016

How in hell is Jerry Brown still Governor?

This is from 1979:

I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles and never frowns
Soon I will be President

Carter power will soon go away
I will be fuhrer one day
I will command all of you
Your kids will meditate in school
Your kids will meditate in school

37 years later and he's still Governor?

Please tell me, at least, that the kids meditate in school.

I saw that San Fransico airport had braille signs explaining the paintings, and security guards on Segways, so school meditation must be normal by now, right?
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:02 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

We elected The Terminator as our governor. Give us at least one do-over.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:04 PM on July 3, 2016 [10 favorites]

I gave up on the country after Sandy Hook. If the mass slaughter of children has absolutely zero affect on gun laws or even the rational discussion of those laws then nothing will. It is so incredibly sad.
posted by pixlboi at 7:09 PM on July 3, 2016 [40 favorites]

I think we're too far gone at this point. I might as well just pack it up and vote for Trump at this point because I'm starting to get morbidly curious about how far down the rabbit hole we can go.

no
posted by psoas at 7:10 PM on July 3, 2016 [53 favorites]

How in hell is Jerry Brown still Governor?

He's been governor for a little over 5 years. You're thinking of his earlier incarnation.
posted by psoas at 7:10 PM on July 3, 2016 [7 favorites]

Punkey: all that does is make it more difficult for people that buy ammo legitimately.

Sounds like it could keep people from amassing a lot of ammunition quickly, which seems like a good thing.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:11 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]

and still nothing in FL....
posted by photoslob at 7:14 PM on July 3, 2016

Murder is illegal. But, people keep getting murdered. Just not legally.
posted by thelonius at 7:18 PM on July 3, 2016 [11 favorites]

filthy light thief: "Sounds like it could keep people from amassing a lot of ammunition quickly, which seems like a good thing."

Or it will encourage people to buy more than they normally would so as to avoid having to undergo background checks. IE: if I use 5 boxes annually I would buy them all at once instead of making two or three purchases over the course of the year.
posted by Mitheral at 7:20 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

Ah, point.

Talez: I think we're too far gone at this point. I might as well just pack it up and vote for Trump at this point because I'm starting to get morbidly curious about how far down the rabbit hole we can go.

Except this isn't like spending a weekend reading TVTropes, this is the health, welfare and well-being of real human people.

thelonius: Murder is illegal. But, people keep getting murdered. Just not legally.

It's not murder, it's self defense, or an accident, or road rage. Seriously, how the hell did this get spun EVERYWHERE as road rage? HE SHOT A FOUR YEAR OLD GIRL. WITH A GUN. THE PROBLEM WAS THE ANGRY MAN HAD A GUN.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:22 PM on July 3, 2016 [23 favorites]

I prefer Chris Rock's idea of making bullets cost $1000 each.
posted by Thorzdad at 7:25 PM on July 3, 2016 [17 favorites]

I gave up on the country after Sandy Hook. If the mass slaughter of children has absolutely zero affect on gun laws

s/children/young white children

The US has seen a mass slaughter of children, using firearms, every year for decades and decades if not just forever.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 7:26 PM on July 3, 2016 [7 favorites]

filthy light thief: That would be true if you couldn't buy ammunition by the pallet over the Internet.
posted by Punkey at 7:27 PM on July 3, 2016

Thorzdad: "I prefer Chris Rock's idea of making bullets cost $1000 each."

Because stomping on the rights of poor people; strongly encouraging a black market; and generating yet another war on a noun will make this better.
posted by Mitheral at 7:29 PM on July 3, 2016 [9 favorites]

Does the ammo background check cover reloading supplies? Lots of people reload, but only a very tiny number make their own bullets, and pretty much nobody makes their own gunpowder.

Also lol at closing the bullet button loophole. Nobody, gun nut or not, should have been expecting that to stay unchallenged.
posted by ryanrs at 7:29 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

Caller: it looks like some sort of medical emergency, it's not an accident. But there's an adult holding what looks like an unresponsive child.

That's just the worst thing I've ever read.

.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:35 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

ryanrs: "Does the ammo background check cover reloading supplies?"

Appears to apply only to complete cartridges. Should have just regulated primers.

“ammunition” means one or more loaded cartridges consisting of a primer case, propellant, and with one or more projectiles. “Ammunition” does not include blanks.

Also the regulation requires out of state imports to be shipped to a licenced California ammunition dealer who will do the background check before the transfer.
posted by Mitheral at 7:39 PM on July 3, 2016

I'm pretty convinced that America has given up on gun control.

I'm willing to concede that the gun lobby won the gun debate by keeping it about guns and not ammunition. They realized that guns were protected for the most part, and there was a gun fetish in America willing to get very angry about the idea of taking one away from a psychotic. Ammo, on the other hand, are little explosive devices that do all the killing and maiming. Ammo achieves all of the technological advances that give modern guns a bad report. We could forget all about guns and simply restrict ammo sales to insured buyers; let the insurers decide the risk and let the GOP swallow its market rhetoric. The idea that people can make their ammo is actually a good thing, as long as they can't sell it, and they won't if it means getting fined out of existence. It seems we've fallen for a classic image bias over the years. The gun is visible, while ammo is invisible in action, so we often take it for granted that guns are always loaded not realizing that a separate supply chain and separate purchase put the ammo there. Imagine if land mines were a public threat and we tried to ban shovels first.
posted by Brian B. at 7:40 PM on July 3, 2016 [20 favorites]

When I lived in CA I was proud to call Jerry Brown my governor. The man knows how to govern dammit.

Re: ammo, anything that slows down the process to getting a bunch of bullets and a gun is a good thing. Hell, a waiting period of several days would be a GREAT thing for any sale, in-store or on internet. Forcing a cooling-off period for anyone who's pissed and looking to do something about it seems like a pretty basic tactic.

From that "we won't comply" link: "So the only thing is that people will still have guns, but they’ll have them illegally."

That this canard has been trotted out for my entire life, and is so rarely challenged despite legally-purchased guns being the norm in mass shootings, is why I despair over any rational conversation about this.

It's a shame that logic has no place in the discussion with these people. Because you can just turn that around in any number of ways (well, if we make crossing the border illegal, people will still be crossing the border, but they'll be crossing illegally). Of course, this isn't a rational argument, so it's useless to try.

I might as well just pack it up and vote for Trump at this point because I'm starting to get morbidly curious about how far down the rabbit hole we can go.

Yeah, hell to the fucking no. Just ask Elie Wiesel how far down the rabbit hole we can go.
posted by Existential Dread at 7:44 PM on July 3, 2016 [15 favorites]

Aw maaaaan, you mean people are gonna have to drive all the way to Arizona to buy their ammo and extended magazines?
posted by indubitable at 7:47 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

How in hell is Jerry Brown still Governor?

Jerry Brown left the Governor's office in 83, Ran for Senate and lost, ran for president in 1992 and lost then became mayor of Oakland, then Attorney General and then back into the Governor's office 5 years ago. I mostly know his time in Oakland and second term as Governor.

I try to be a bit objective when it comes to him but love or hate his policies - he's one of the most ruthlessly effective politicians I've ever seen. Both as Mayor of Oakland and Governor he's been able to push through significant policy changes and has left both Oakland and CA better for them.
posted by bitdamaged at 7:49 PM on July 3, 2016 [27 favorites]

AoaNLA: The Supreme Court already did that. See "District of Columbia v. Heller" and "McDonald v. City of Chicago".

Both of which were 5-4 decisions that basically went against most of the judicial thought from US history. Even further, actually, since several of the Founders (Alexander Hamilton among them), were clear that the 2nd Amendment only applied to actual militias. In other words, only those in the state National Guard have an individual right to bear arms. It's not impossible that a newer SCOTUS could invalidate McDonald, Heller, or both.
posted by zombieflanders at 7:51 PM on July 3, 2016 [9 favorites]

It may be trivially easy for a smart, capable person to make their own bullets, IEDs, and car bombs. Luckily for the public, most wannabe killers and terrorists are not the brightest bulbs and usually have severe emotional problems. Low bars may be enough to keep impulsive crazies from jumping them. Nothing will keep a really dedicated and evil person from mass murder (e.g. Anders Breivik).
posted by benzenedream at 8:02 PM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]

It's not impossible that a newer SCOTUS could invalidate McDonald, Heller, or both.

Which of course is a major reason why the Republicans are blocking our duly elected president's supreme court nominee for as long as possible in the hopes that Trump will win and pack the place with corporate far right lunajudges.
posted by Joey Michaels at 8:05 PM on July 3, 2016

Not sure I like this Rap Back thing, but I guess dubious watchlists and LE data grabs are way easier to pass than gun control.
posted by RobotVoodooPower at 8:12 PM on July 3, 2016 [6 favorites]

“The purpose of the law is to make the business owner responsible for the safety of his or her customers, since their own policies removed the customer’s ability to carry a gun and protect themselves and their families."

What gets me about this way of thinking is the fact that these He-man bigots are usually the first in-line to crow about how the youth of today (almost always minority youth or even just people that bend slightly outside of the "norm") is given too much opportunity to feel special. That society coddles them and needlessly inflates their sense of uniqueness, making them believe they deserve too much "for nothing."

Yet these fucking clowns demand society bend to their bizarre hero fantasies. As if they've done anything to earn the right to mow down some threat to their family at an IHOP.
posted by AtoBtoA at 8:13 PM on July 3, 2016 [14 favorites]

Plenty of important Supreme Court decisions have been 5–4, including Obergefell v. Hodges. And the founders had their own disagreements about the right to bear arms.

I ask, who are the militia? They consist now of the whole people, except a few public officers. But I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor.

— George Mason, "Father of the Bill of Rights"

More to the point, I doubt that even a 9–0 decision and clear language in the Constitution about an individual right would convince everyone that guns ought to be allowed. Ultimately some people just don't think an individual right to bear arms is moral, and laws are considered "good" if they hinder gun/ammo ownership and "bad" if they don't. (And vice-versa, of course, for some pro-gun people.)

Not sure I like this Rap Back thing, but I guess dubious watchlists and LE data grabs are way easier to pass than gun control.

Case in point. Personally, I think sacrificing the right to privacy for a slight gain in pragmatic gun control is a terrible idea, but here we are.
posted by Rangi at 8:15 PM on July 3, 2016 [6 favorites]

Mitheral Because stomping on the rights of poor people; strongly encouraging a black market; and generating yet another war on a noun will make this better.

I don't consider gun ownership to be a legitimate right so arguments about guns as a right are just so much noise to me.

But more important, the NRA (with the passive collusion of all gun owners) has closed all other avenues of regulation.

If you'd like to stop people from thinking that a $1,000 per bullet tax is a good idea then start supporting regulation that will a) ACTUALLY ADDRESS THE PROBLEM, and b) protects the non-right you claim is so very important.

Proposals that don't fulfill the requirement of actually addressing the problem are automatically unserious and bring us back to the $1,000 per bullet tax.

If that's what it takes, if it takes pricing poor people out of guns entirely because the NRA won't let us do anything else, then I say sorry poor people guns are for rich people.

I'd personally prefer a system that solves the problem while allowing poorer people to participate in shooting as a hobby. There's nothing inherently wrong with shooting as a hobby, though it certainly isn't for actual *poor* people even in today's hyper NRA environment. It isn't like someone making minimum wage can actually afford a gun and bullets today anyway.

But so far the NRA has shot down (heh) every single other proposal that might seriously make a difference. That's why we're reduced to bullshit about regulating cosmetic features, because it at least nibbles at the edge of the problem and the NRA occasionally permits those laws to be passed.

I still think a backlash is brewing, and crap like the law in Tennessee is adding to it. The guns everywhere people just are not gracious in victory and they seem hellbent on grinding our faces in our defeat until we finally get fed up enough to do something drastic.

So, you don't want thousand dollar bullets, start undermining the NRA and getting some better gun control passed.
posted by sotonohito at 8:20 PM on July 3, 2016 [35 favorites]

I would probably be prepared to accept that the second amendment applies only to muzzle loading firearms. Original intent FTW.
posted by LastOfHisKind at 8:23 PM on July 3, 2016 [12 favorites]

Here's an itemized rundown.

I'm totally on board with the ten round limit for detachable magazines, assault weapon laws, and false report of stolen weapons. Four out of six is not too bad, as legislation goes.

That lending provision is immediately odious. Much better to have had a law that penalized borrowing a gun when you were prohibited from having one, or when you borrowed it with an intent to circumvent some restriction.

Likewise, I'm not looking forward to the implementation of the ammunition background check. You should have seen the run on ammunition when Obama was elected, and that was for no reason whatever. Wait'll you see the nonsense from this bill.

"The act would allow the department to charge a fee not to exceed $50 per person for the issuance of an ammunition purchase authorization or the issuance of a renewal authorization."

Fifty bucks a year, I'm guessing. I used to spend about this much a year on ammunition, at least before the specious Obama-gonna-take-my-guns scare.
posted by the Real Dan at 8:25 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

Plenty of important Supreme Court decisions have been 5–4, including Obergefell v. Hodges.

Every time someone compares the basic human or universal civil rights of a person to the rights of a machine designed exclusively to destroy, it gets creepier. Same thing when they promise that a decision that would have been acceptable to courts for over two centuries will result in bloodshed. Not exactly the most convincing argument aboutgun ownership, really.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:31 PM on July 3, 2016 [13 favorites]

Aw maaaaan, you mean people are gonna have to drive all the way to Arizona to buy their ammo and extended magazines?

Hey, anything that makes it less convenient to do is going to reduce the number of people who do it. That's, like, web design 101.
posted by baf at 8:33 PM on July 3, 2016 [17 favorites]

I doubt that even a 9–0 decision and clear language in the Constitution about an individual right would convince everyone that guns ought to be allowed.

The idea that guns ought to be allowed isn't unusual. Most of the world and what available evidence we have says exactly the opposite.

Ultimately some people just don't think an individual right to bear arms is moral

Most, actually, and certainly not an unlimited right.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:38 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

It's not impossible that a newer SCOTUS could invalidate McDonald, Heller, or both.

I think that's door you do not want to open.

There's what is known as stare decisis which is latin for "already decided". It's a general principle that the Supreme Court follows, which more or less means they are extremely loathe to reverse a previous decision they already made. It does happen, but in general it's very rare because the Supreme Court has a tradition that constitutional law should be rock solid. Normal law can and should change with the prevailing political winds, but constitutional law is the foundation of everything else and it ought to be concrete, not sand.

If you want to overturn Heller, you open the door to having both Roe v. Wade (abortion rights) and Obergefell v. Hodges (legal gay marriage) overturned. Is that something you want to risk?

The pendulum always swings. If you ravage gun rights when you have a liberal majority on the court, then you risk losing decisions you hold dear when there's a conservative majority. And eventually there will be one; it's just a matter of time.

Let's not go there.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 8:44 PM on July 3, 2016 [8 favorites]

If you want to overturn Heller, you open the door to having both Roe v. Wade (abortion rights) and Obergefell v. Hodges (legal gay marriage) overturned. Is that something you want to risk?

Did you just "Nice human rights you have here. Shame if something happened to them..." this thread?
posted by Celsius1414 at 8:46 PM on July 3, 2016 [44 favorites]

I don't know what relevance this has, but the first and last time I shot a gun was at school. In fact there was shooting at school almost everyday. At the gun club's rifle range. This was at an elite private school. To give you an idea, we also had a nine hole golf course.

Where is this school that gave kids guns? Australia. That's right, the place where for twenty years we haven't had a mass shooting. Not since we banned the guns.
posted by adept256 at 8:49 PM on July 3, 2016 [6 favorites]

I can't remember where I first heard it, but this idea has always stuck with me: in a sane world, the Second Amendment could be a valuable guarantor of rights. How should we interpret it in light of a modern nation, with modern weaponry and a professional standing army? Maybe the right to bear arms not being infringed means the eligibility to serve in the military cannot be arbitrarily withheld from groups of people. Maybe a more faithful reading of the right to bear arms says nothing about the right to buy an assault rifle, but a lot about the unconstitutionality of Don't Ask, Don't Tell.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 8:54 PM on July 3, 2016 [11 favorites]

Did you just "Nice human rights you have here. Shame if something happened to them..." this thread?

Like I said, creepy. And the inadvertent implication that gun rights folks would let vengeance in the name of a judicial decision override their aversion to bigotry isn't helping.
posted by zombieflanders at 8:55 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

This is a side point, but "Hawaiian" as an adjective is properly reserved to refer to Hawaiian ethnicity. A resident of Hawai‘i is not necessarily a Hawaiian, so is better referred to as a Hawai‘i resident. A legislative bill drafted in the state of Hawai‘i is not a Hawaiian bill, but a Hawai‘i bill.
posted by flod at 8:57 PM on July 3, 2016 [13 favorites]

Guns are not even useful for preventing tyranny. If the government wants to kill you or a group of you en masse they're not going to round you up and shoot you. They're going to do it surreptitiously through the water supply. You won't even know what's going on before you're dead.
posted by Talez at 8:59 PM on July 3, 2016

then I say sorry poor people guns are for rich people.

i mean i get the idea behind this but the reality is that nothing will change except that native american subsistence hunters will starve to death.
posted by poffin boffin at 9:02 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

I love that there is concern that poor people might not be able to have guns, but no mention of food, shelter, or health care. Truly, we have our priorities straight as a nation.
posted by fifteen schnitzengruben is my limit at 9:05 PM on July 3, 2016 [49 favorites]

Did you just "Nice human rights you have here. Shame if something happened to them..." this thread?

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that stare decisis protects gun rights but it also protects things that liberals hold dear. If we get rid of it, a lot of things become vulnerable. And you can't trash it today and bring it back tomorrow. Once it's gone, it's gone for good.

I don't want that. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the rules of the game. The game shouldn't be "Calvinball".
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 9:08 PM on July 3, 2016 [11 favorites]

I am Governor Jerry Brown
My aura smiles and never frowns
Soon I will be President

We've got a bigger problem now.
posted by TedW at 9:18 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

Remember, folks, once you overturn a decision, the stare decisis fairy dies forever, just like it did in all of these cases.
posted by tonycpsu at 9:19 PM on July 3, 2016 [20 favorites]

What I'm saying is that stare decisis protects gun rights but it also protects things that liberals hold dear. If we get rid of it, a lot of things become vulnerable. And you can't trash it today and bring it back tomorrow. Once it's gone, it's gone for good.

This assumes that it was otherwise intact unless we open the gates in this instance. And I'd love to get in on your politics betting pool if you're saying that the moment a court opened up as 5-4 the other way everything from Roe vs. Wade back to Brown vs. Kansas Board of Ed wouldn't be reversed. They're already putting out a constant feed of cases to try to flip Roe.

Really, we need to repeal the 2nd Amendment. Not practical, of course, but then, slavery used to be impractical to repeal but in the Constitution as well.
posted by CrystalDave at 9:21 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]

I would probably be prepared to accept that the second amendment applies only to muzzle loading firearms.
I would also consider accepting that the first amendment Freedom of the Press only applies to publications printed on paper and the Freedom of Speech does not apply to typed content that is not printed. Right?

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the rules of the game. The game shouldn't be "Calvinball".
I was under the impression it already was.
Many in the GOP, including the 'presumptive nominee' have declared themselves open to overruling Roe v. Wade.
And what tonycpu linked.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:22 PM on July 3, 2016 [5 favorites]

Hell, the only decision we didn't ignore stare decisis in order to fix was Dred Scott.
posted by Talez at 9:23 PM on July 3, 2016

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights are the rules of the game. The game shouldn't be "Calvinball".

Except Heller is a great example of why that ship already sailed. After all, what was that other than overturning 200 years of jurisprudence for the sake of guns are cool?

The modern conservative movement has proven over and over that they have no respect for the unwritten rules and norms that allow government to function.
posted by [expletive deleted] at 9:23 PM on July 3, 2016 [8 favorites]

Gun deaths in the United States so far in 2016: 6,878
Tyrannical regimes overthrown: 0

Just saying.
posted by prismatic7 at 9:26 PM on July 3, 2016 [31 favorites]

sotonohito: "So, you don't want thousand dollar bullets, start undermining the NRA and getting some better gun control passed."

I live in Canada; a US federal $1000 a bullet tax would be great for the local economy. I can by a couple boxes of .308 for $40 each; smuggle it across the boarder and return with a car.
posted by Mitheral at 9:29 PM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear muzzle-loaded flintlocks and pointy knives, shall not be infringed.
posted by pashdown at 9:29 PM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]

I hope the day Hillary's justices get sworn in they bring some black guy who's being executed by a southern state (or California) to the Supreme Court, walk up to the lectern and basically say "Fuck McCleskey v. Kemp. It was a bad decision then and everyone knows it".
posted by Talez at 9:29 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

gun rights activists are already saying they won't comply with the laws
I like to append to the slogan "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns" with "And it'll be so much easier to identify who the outlaws ARE."
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:40 PM on July 3, 2016 [8 favorites]

I know there has been a lot of debate (and consequent bloodshed) over the wording of the second amendment, but for fuck's sake, the second and third words are "well regulated"! If that doesn't justify regulating guns, then I'm not sure why we even have a constitution in the first place.
posted by TedW at 9:42 PM on July 3, 2016 [42 favorites]

If that doesn't justify regulating guns, then I'm not sure why we even have a constitution in the first place.
There's a lot more 'window dressing' in that Grand Old Document than almost all of the Political Establishment would eve want to admit to.

The lack of an explicit "Right to Privacy" has been one of my main complaints ever since my eyes were opened in a Jr. High Civics class, and it just keeps getting more and more relevant.
posted by oneswellfoop at 9:50 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

You forgot the [comment deleted] tag.
posted by aramaic at 9:50 PM on July 3, 2016

The lack of an explicit "Right to Privacy" has been one of my main complaints ever since my eyes were opened in a Jr. High Civics class, and it just keeps getting more and more relevant.

That's what the 9th does. Anything the founders forgot the Supreme Court can give it recognition through the 9th.
posted by Talez at 9:54 PM on July 3, 2016

The lack of an explicit "Right to Privacy" has been one of my main complaints ever since my eyes were opened in a Jr. High Civics class, and it just keeps getting more and more relevant.

I have long felt a constitutional amendment explicitly guaranteeing a right to privacy would be a great idea. But given that we can't even pass an amendment stating that the rights in the constitution cannot be denied on the basis of gender I am not too optimistic for the foreseeable future.
posted by TedW at 10:00 PM on July 3, 2016 [15 favorites]

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear muzzle-loaded flintlocks and pointy knives, shall not be infringed.

'Embedded' reporter at Oregon standoff seeks release while facing federal gun charges
Michael R. Emry, who described himself as an "embedded journalist'' during the standoff at the Malheur National Wildlife Refuge, is asking a judge to release him as he awaits trial on federal weapons charges in Oregon.
...
Emry was arrested in John Day in early May after FBI agents found a machine gun – identified as a fully automatic .50-caliber Ma Deuce Browning M2 – in a travel trailer serving as his home, according to federal prosecutors and court papers.

I've always thought that true consistency with the 2nd amendment would mean the free ownership of fully automatic machine guns, claymore mines, and surface to air missiles.

Although requiring gun owners to have membership in the state national guard works for me.
posted by sebastienbailard at 10:03 PM on July 3, 2016 [4 favorites]

Know who manages to get by without stare decisis, and who has a high court that is 100% free to invalidate its own prior decisions if it determines that they were incorrectly reasoned?

Just about every country in the world.

Heller was decided in 2008. If our courts are so hopeless that they cannot overturn a decision that's only 8 years old, that itself ignored a couple of centuries of legal thought? Then to hell with them.
posted by 1adam12 at 10:22 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

Start a grassroots movement to arm Black people, Latinx people, and queers. You'd get better gun regulation faster than you could blink. (This already happened once, when the NRA was so scared of the Black Panthers that it got the Mulford Act passed in California. Here's an article about that.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:39 PM on July 3, 2016 [16 favorites]

Last year we got a new amendment to the constitution. The ballot return was 61% to 39%.
We took out the {part about concealed weapons}
And added (ammo, etc.; family; unalienable, strict scrutiny etc.)

Towns and counties can still outlaw open carry, I think St. Louis is the only county to do that.
Should have something about misdemeanor domestic violence in there too.

Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, (ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms,) in defense of his home, person, (family), and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; {but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons.} (The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those duly adjudged mentally infirm by a court of competent jurisdiction.)
posted by ridgerunner at 10:43 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

Start a grassroots movement to arm Black people, Latinx people, and queers. You'd get better gun regulation faster than you could blink.

I continue to not understand people who say this without realizing that the regulation would be bad, and that an individual right to gun ownership—to self-defense without relying on police or the state—is most important for marginalized people.

In February of 1967, Oakland police officers stopped a car carrying Newton, Seale, and several other Panthers with rifles and handguns. When one officer asked to see one of the guns, Newton refused. “I don’t have to give you anything but my identification, name, and address,” he insisted. This, too, he had learned in law school.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?” an officer responded.

“Who in the hell do you think you are?,” Newton replied indignantly. He told the officer that he and his friends had a legal right to have their firearms.

Newton got out of the car, still holding his rifle.

“What are you going to do with that gun?” asked one of the stunned policemen.

“What are you going to do with your gun?,” Newton replied.

By this time, the scene had drawn a crowd of onlookers. An officer told the bystanders to move on, but Newton shouted at them to stay. California law, he yelled, gave civilians a right to observe a police officer making an arrest, so long as they didn’t interfere. Newton played it up for the crowd. In a loud voice, he told the police officers, “If you try to shoot at me or if you try to take this gun, I’m going to shoot back at you, swine.” Although normally a black man with Newton’s attitude would quickly find himself handcuffed in the back of a police car, enough people had gathered on the street to discourage the officers from doing anything rash. Because they hadn’t committed any crime, the Panthers were allowed to go on their way.

The people who’d witnessed the scene were dumbstruck. Not even Bobby Seale could believe it. Right then, he said, he knew that Newton was the “baddest motherfucker in the world.” Newton’s message was clear: “The gun is where it’s at and about and in.

posted by Rangi at 10:47 PM on July 3, 2016 [26 favorites]

And if that had happened in 2016, Newton would be "the deadest motherfucker in the world". We've made such progress in 50 years </sarcasm>
posted by oneswellfoop at 10:53 PM on July 3, 2016 [17 favorites]

I continue to not understand people who say this without realizing that the regulation would be bad, and that an individual right to gun ownership—to self-defense without relying on police or the state—is most important for marginalized people.

Rangi - I didn't say that I think such regulation is a good thing, and I don't know why you're inferring it from what I did say. I stated a fact: we live in a bigoted, white supremacist country, and bigots and white supremacists would be in an uproar if marginalized people actually started arming in great numbers.
posted by adrienneleigh at 10:55 PM on July 3, 2016 [1 favorite]

I would probably be prepared to accept that the second amendment applies only to muzzle loading firearms. Original intent FTW.

Ah, this old chestnut. Given the general attitude regarding anything firearm related here, I never thought I'd have a chance to mention this. Too bad it has to be under these circumstances.

Let me introduce you to The Repeating Flintlock Rifle, invented by a close relative of mine, Joseph Gaston Chambers, in the late 1700s, it's development supported by Thomas Jefferson, and patented around 1810, and used in the War of 1812. These came in pistol (5-7 rounds), rifle (13-15 rounds), and a 60 round fully automatic swivel gun version for use on ships, with variants that had pre-loaded, swappable barrels.

That may seem to some to be an irrelevant thing to bring up, and just a weird piece of historical trivia. My point is this: if that was possible over 220 years ago, just consider what applying modern machining and 3D fabrication technologies to create an assortment of modern muzzle loading firearms would do. With the additional feature of easy to make ammunition, requiring nothing more than lead, black powder, wadding, a bullet mold, a stove, and a old cast iron skillet. No need for unreliable flint or primers either, as the ignition of the powder would be controlled by modern electronics.

Of course, at first it would be an expensive oddity, a merging of maker culture and gunsmithing, but they could actually be seen as a marketable item for mass production in a form vaguely similar to this, depending on how progressively stricter regulations affect the industry's civilian market.

I do not think the end result would be the smugly put "original intent FTW" scenario you're picturing.

I am a gun owner. Have been since I was a lad. There are things I agree with on both opposing sides, and things I disagree with. Often those of us in the middle avoid discussing the matter with either because both sides see us as 'the enemy.' I actually am in favor of a number of additional legal restrictions on firearms, but I don't see much use in presenting them here, because I think that debating or defending my personal view on what controls I would support would be more of a derail than anything else.
posted by chambers at 10:57 PM on July 3, 2016 [16 favorites]

Sorry, adrienneleigh, I misunderstood you. I agree that as a prediction of what would happen, you're completely right.
posted by Rangi at 10:59 PM on July 3, 2016 [3 favorites]

Rangi - It's alright. I was probably more annoyed at you than I ought to've been.
In point of fact, I do believe both in a right to bear arms and in the utility of sensible, evenly-applied regulation of firearms (the problem being that literally no regulation in this country is both sensible and evenly-applied, and many are neither).
I also, speaking as someone with training in the social sciences, think that there is a deep sickness in USian culture such that firearm regulation will not and cannot ever be anything even close to a complete answer to the problem of "a subset of USians (and let's not kid ourselves, it's almost always white dudes) frequently decide to go out and murder a bunch of people." (Which is not to say that regulation is useless or hopeless, only that it's at best a very partial solution.)
posted by adrienneleigh at 11:06 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

Part of the problem is how you even define "us in the middle". I'm a gun owner too, but I believe the second amendment is a hopeless anachronism, without the old constitutional ban on standing armies perpetually divorced from its purpose. It has been nothing but a detriment to the civil rights of the people and ought to be eliminated. This I believe.

And that seems rather extreme, but the U.S. is the only major country in the world to have something like it. The moderate middle, taking the long view, is already far removed from the status quo of this country. It is frustrating to try to even have a conversation with people who have managed to so thoroughly construct an alt-reality system around guns, their vocabulary, and their constitutional law, that is self reinforcing and completely exclusionary.
posted by traveler_ at 11:11 PM on July 3, 2016 [7 favorites]

I continue to not understand people who say this without realizing that the regulation would be bad, and that an individual right to gun ownership—to self-defense without relying on police or the state—is most important for marginalized people.

I don't follow this argument at all. It does not seem to me - as an outside observer admittedly - that the non-regulation of guns or ammunition in the US has contributed to the safety or security of marginalized people there. In fact, it seems just the opposite in the wake of the Orlando shooting. Nor does the individual right to gun ownership seem something that is actually respected when it is exercised by minorities. I guess you could say that the problem is that it should be, as should their right to use them when faced with racist police and state officials, but honestly I think you'd be more likely to get the 2nd amendment repealed than have that happen.
posted by lesbiassparrow at 11:50 PM on July 3, 2016 [2 favorites]

I've always thought that true consistency with the 2nd amendment would mean the free ownership of fully automatic machine guns, claymore mines, and surface to air missiles.

That's what this guy just tried:

Aided by a number of gun rights groups, Hollis had pressed a number of other arguments — that anything that is “ordinary military equipment” is protected, that the Second Amendment really exists to allow a rebellion against the government, and that machine guns aren’t really “dangerous and unusual.”

Didn't work.
posted by rhizome at 12:03 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

"a subset of USians (and let's not kid ourselves, it's almost always white dudes) frequently decide to go out and murder a bunch of people."

Almost always just dudes. I cut the below from CNN.

According to data compiled by Mother Jones magazine, which looked at mass shootings in the United States since 1982,
white people committed some 64% of the shootings.
Black people committed close to 16%
while Asians were responsible for around 9%.
People identified as either Latino, Native American and unknown rounded out the study.

Whites make up about 63% of the U.S. population, blacks 13%, and Asians 5%, according to the latest census numbers. Latinos account for some 17% of the total population.
posted by ridgerunner at 12:15 AM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]

Heller ruled that there's a right to a keep a handgun in the home, right? Restrictions on carrying guns outside the home could yet be ruled constitutional. Restrictions on semi-auto rifles as well. Heller left a door open for regulation that hasn't really been tested yet, nothing like as far abortion rights have been tested. A court with an Obama or Clinton appointee could have quite a lot of room to allow meaningful gun regulation without explicitly overturning Heller.
posted by BungaDunga at 12:21 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

Heller left a door open for regulation that hasn't really been tested yet, nothing like as far abortion rights have been tested.

I agree. I expect to see a lot of piecemeal restrictions over the next few years but with the Supreme Court putting the brakes on in terms of substantive restrictions.
posted by Dip Flash at 12:41 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

I live in Canada; a US federal $1000 a bullet tax would be great for the local economy. I can by a couple boxes of .308 for $40 each; smuggle it across the boarder and return with a car.

That's definitely a thing, and NATO signatories all have a nice subset of interchangeable rounds. Of course, transporting these across borders is already illegal, and there will be smuggling across any border between states with uneven regulation.

I still don't think this is the worst approach. I feel like I bring it up in every one of these threads, but it's always so frustrating to me that the onus is on the consumer rather than the manufacturer.

Why on earth should the state not impose corporate taxes on domestic arms manufacture under certain criteria (I mean, I know, gun lobby, let's play what if for a second)? Say maybe just any rifle over single-shot capacity, or any magazine larger than 5 rounds. They would of course pass the cost on to the consumer, but similar to alcohol and tobacco, there's an obvious medical cost to firearm possession that needs to be absorbed somewhere, and it makes a lot of sense to have the people dedicated to this weird anachronism soak up the cost.
posted by aspersioncast at 12:46 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

Has anyone here ever watched the Ken Burns PBS documentary on Prohibition? It's regarded as one of his best, along with his Civil War documentary.

While watching it, I found it interesting that alcohol prohibition was not the conservative/puritan movement I had always assumed, but a part of the progressive movement, along with women's suffrage and the abolition of slavery. Prohibition had it's start in California, incidentally.

Rather than a puritan disapproval of "vice" and libidinous behavior, alcohol restrictions were motivated by several widespread and serious problems. Drunken violent crime, widespread alcoholism, child endangerment, and domestic violence, to name a few. Some groups wanted alcohol banned altogether, other people thought they were just voting on certain restrictions such as only selling beer, but not liquor. So, in a country ostensibly founded on principles of personal freedom (for white men), the Constitution was modified with the 21st Ammendment, making posession or manufacture of alcohol illegal. And, presumably, everyone here knows how that worked out (hint: it made things much worse).

When I've discussed drug legalization with the pro-drug-war crowd, I'm often met with a response of "Well, why don't we just legalize murder, if people are going to do it anyway?" My response is: "Because making murder illegal doesn't cause an increase in murder and violent crime."

These laws being passed in California are using the same "death by 1000 paper cuts" strategy used by the pro-life movement. They've realized they can't overturn the 2nd Ammendment, so they are trying to pass law after law to make firearms as difficult as possible for law abiding people to obtain. Just like marijuana is easier for highschoolers to obtain than alcohol, further prohibitions against legal firearm ownership will only expand the underground markets, making it easier for the criminally minded to obtain guns.

As the saying goes: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."
posted by ethical_caligula at 1:35 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

Just like marijuana is easier for highschoolers to obtain than alcohol, further prohibitions against legal firearm ownership will only expand the underground markets, making it easier for the criminally minded to obtain guns.

This seems like the sort of claim which'd be nice to have a cite for. There's many countries out there which've tested many policies around firearm ownership. Did Australia's post-Port Arthur restrictions "make it easier for the criminally minded to obtain guns"?
posted by CrystalDave at 1:41 AM on July 4, 2016 [17 favorites]

Did Australia's post-Port Arthur restrictions "make it easier for the criminally minded to obtain guns"?

In a word, no.

It's commonly misunderstood, but the post-Port Arthur gun law reforms did not outlaw the ownership of firearms in Australia, but simply restricted them substantially, to the people who could demonstrate a legitimate use for them. The firearms which received the greatest level of restriction were handguns and semi-automatic longarms.

The practical effect of the reforms has been that anyone who can legitimately possess a handgun or auto-loading rifle or shotgun now has onerous requirements to demonstrate the fact that they are a legitimate user, and onerous storage requirements.

Following on from this, there are:
(a) fewer weapons in circulation, that could be used in a mass shooting; and
(b) the people who legitimately possess them have a strong interest in making sure that they get to keep them.

In parallel, the judiciary has taken the approach that illegal possession of firearms, particularly handguns and semi-auto longarms, is a very serious crime, and one worthy of lengthy gaol sentences.

The number of firearms in total circulation has decreased dramatically. The number of semi-auto firearms in circulation has decreased even moreso. Fewer guns in total, fewer guns on the black market. No mass shootings, and a dramatic decrease in firearm use in single victim homicides and in suicides.

[full disclosure: Australian criminal defence lawyer, and licensed firearms owner]
posted by tim_in_oz at 2:04 AM on July 4, 2016 [66 favorites]

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that stare decisis protects gun rights but it also protects things that liberals hold dear

This is pretty silly. Supreme Court decisions aren't overturned frequently but it does happen, and the effect of that in regards to "things liberals hold dear" is a decidedly mixed bag as is the whole history of the court.

I'm pretty middle-of-the-road on gun control - not a "repeal the Second Amendment" guy here - but you're reaching with that one.
posted by atoxyl at 3:03 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

aspersioncast: "Why on earth should the state not impose corporate taxes on domestic arms manufacture under certain criteria (I mean, I know, gun lobby, let's play what if for a second)?"

I'd have no problem with that if it wasn't so hugely punitive to immediately set up a lucrative black market. The antismoking tax wasn't set at $10,000 a pack. Tax bullets at 50% or $0.001 per grain or something. But a ~10,000% tax is so punitive as to have no effect; the only people who would have legal ammunition would be law enforcement. As close to 100% of the consumer market would be served by the black market as to make no difference. So now the law is a) not having the desired result because the market price is much, much less for practically everyone and b) you've created a huge black market with all the societal downsides that comes with. You've also moved all the local ammunition manufacturing offshore.
posted by Mitheral at 3:45 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

And if that had happened in 2016, Newton would be "the deadest motherfucker in the world". We've made such progress in 50 years

No need for it to be 2016. Chicago Police and the FBI drugged and assassinated Fred Hampton in 1969. In an arms raid.
posted by srboisvert at 4:57 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

I continue to not understand people who say this without realizing that the regulation would be bad, and that an individual right to gun ownership—to self-defense without relying on police or the state—is most important for marginalized people.

Probably because the idea that regulation is bad has been disproven over and over, and since a majority of marginalized people want more gun control, they would think that this is an incredibly paternalistic and victim-blaming viewpoint. I mean, I see it a lot: a woman gets sexually assaulted? Wouldn't have happened if she had a gun! An African-American church gets shot up? Wouldn't have happened if they'd been carrying in church! A bunch of nightclubs friendly to LGBT people get shot up? Obviously a couple dudes (and it's almost always dudes) with guns would have been able to easily find the attacker in a loud, dark, venue packed with people!

So sure, if you live in a world that thrives on hypotheticals, I guess it makes sense. But that's not the world we live in. In the real world, even lax gun laws are applied just as unevenly as anything else. In the real world, a black man in an open-carry state got shot to death by police because a racist dude (who is amazingly still a free man) called in a false report and they went in guns blazing. In the real world, a black child in that same state is dead because a cop opened fire without warning, while his sister was treated like an accomplice merely for being there and being black. In the real world, a hotel clerk's racist/Islamophobic sister claimed that an Emirati man was armed and talking about ISIS, causing the police to come in and force him to the ground and knock him out, even though he was just having a nice conversation in his native language. And yet, in another open-carry state, a white guy with an actual gun got to walk around killing people even though someone called it in because, well, ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

And it's not just law enforcement, but the entire legal system itself. Here's a good example: it turns out that legalizing pot in CO and WA had no effect on the racial gap of arrests for possession of it. Arrests went way down, but enforcement was still being applied unevenly. And on top of that, the industry and lobby behind marijuana isn't particularly racist. You won't see NORML putting out flyers that show an ethnically-diverse group of thugs coming for your OG Kush. However, the same can't be said for guns. The NRA, for instance, is perpetually one inadvertently-tweeted 8chan meme from becoming a full-blown white supremacist group. The materials they send to their members portrays PoC as gangsters coming for white families. Members of their management openly display their fantasies about assassinating Obama (and now Clinton), or the sub-humanness of PoC, or their disgust with LGBT people. Their spokesperson went on a rant about "the knockout game" as a reason to arm one's self, although most stories about it have been shown to be overblown and racially-tinged. They have an enemies list made up of most of the major civil rights groups representing marginalized people, including survivors of domestic abuse. Which, not coincidentally, they seem less concerned with than the rights of the abusers and their guns. And the NRA isn't alone, because you can pretty much pick any of the major gun rights groups and find bigotry quite easily.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:03 AM on July 4, 2016 [29 favorites]

I guess the tl;dr of that is, as others point out, that we live in a world where the supremacists and bigots of all types still control a lot of the enforcement and judgement of laws. Seen through that lens, less regulation of guns, like pretty much everything else that's easier for non-marginialized people to have and do, would just be another way to be discriminated against. Another way to be arrested or beaten, and an easier way to be killed in the name of the law. Most marginalized people seem to believe that arming themselves would just make the problem worse, and bring the hammer down quicker and with more force. So far, pretty much all the evidence around both guns and crime in general bears that out. Given all of that, it should be easier to understand why so many of them would rather regulate guns rather than praise God and pass the ammunition.
posted by zombieflanders at 6:11 AM on July 4, 2016 [6 favorites]

Remember, folks, once you overturn a decision, the stare decisis fairy dies forever, just like it did in all of these cases.

A few things.

First, can we not do what the Republicans do and straw man our opponents? Chocolate Pickle has clearly stated that stare decisis isn't permanent. We all know about Brown v. Board of Education, and acting like Chocolate Pickle doesn't is both insulting to him, and either lazy or disingenuous on your (the general you, not specifically any one person) part.

Secondly, it's hard to come up with the actual numbers, but there are 123 overturned cases on that page. By one low balled estimate back in 2012, there have been 30,161 opinions released by the Supreme Court. This means that not even half a percentage point of Supreme Court cases have been overturned. The figure is that 0.0040% of Supreme Court cases have been overturned. This implies to me a certain amount of weight to stare decisis. (And if you ask any judge, they'll tell you the same. Respecting stare decisis is a part of their job description. And we have job descriptions for a reason. Think back to Kim Davis if you want an example.)
posted by Dalby at 7:05 AM on July 4, 2016

Except Heller is a great example of why that ship already sailed. After all, what was that other than overturning 200 years of jurisprudence...

Could someone point out a good LAYMAN'S article explaining this position?

United States v. Cruikshank, Presser v. Illinois and United States v. Miller seem to deliberately sidestep the individual/collective right question in the actual ruling but support the individual right in the opinions. Even Taney's parade of horribles in Dred Scott makes it seem uncontroversial that white people expected to "keep and carry arms wherever they went."

Are there other Supreme Court cases before Heller? Maybe pro individual rights' people are better at getting their opinions out there on the internet.
posted by ridgerunner at 7:07 AM on July 4, 2016

"The act would allow the department to charge a fee not to exceed $50 per person for the issuance of an ammunition purchase authorization or the issuance of a renewal authorization."

Fifty bucks a year, I'm guessing. I used to spend about this much a year on ammunition, at least before the specious Obama-gonna-take-my-guns scare.

Read the bill again. AB1235 supercedes efforts to impose a $50/year purchaser card and replaces it with a transaction tax not to exceed $1 plus instantaneous background check via driver's license.

This actually may allow the appeal on Silvester v. Harris to be dropped/denied (it was found unconstitutional to enforce a 10 day waiting period on a person who already possesses a firearm for purposes of a cooling off period; it was commented that the period is also to allow for time to perform a background check so if we get instant checks then that argument is moot).

It does mean that online sales from out-of-state will no longer be possible, which could become contentious and brought to the courts. It would be good if this particular bill were federal. It would allow commerce but have all states and the feds share the same damn background check system. And $1 tax to go to gun violence research and aid? Heck, man, I buy ammo and I'm totally okay with that. I'd like it more if it were a surcharge per round, which yes, would make ammo cost more, but look: someone buying 100 rounds for the range versus 2,000 rounds for their apocalyptic fantasy both paying $1 doesn't seem as right as 1 cent per round.

I think the reason he signed what he signed had a lot to do with November. Gavin Newsom's Safety for All Act would have been problematic as a ballot proposition in November. Frankly, the California ballot proposition system is a problematic system overall in how it allows majority rule to alter the state constitution; this is how Proposition 8 passed by 52% (Brexit, in comparison, was technically just a "poll"). Thankfully it was overturned five years later, but still, terrible system. Newsom's act had all three of those but, as mentioned, the ammunition tax would have required an ammunition purchaser card for $50/year that is separate from the already existing Firearm Safety Certificate or hunting license a California resident must obtain in order to purchase a firearm.

Since Brown vetoed similar bills in that past, this looks more like a statement about Newsom and his attempt to earn political brownie points with the state voters. Prior to the passing of these bills this was already a contentious issue. Newsom wants to be the next governor. He basically tells Sacramento he has no faith in government and will go for a mob decision. Sacramento kinda sorta smacked him down with these bills by appropriating all the bits that are emotionally driven.

In short, those three bills that neuter Newsom's proposition by getting signed are:
1) A better ammo tax that specifically supercedes Newsom's ammo tax + purchaser card.
2) A bullet button ban that will be replaced by a new bullet button that complies with the new law.
3) A high-capacity magazine possession fine per magazine not to exceed $500 per, but how do you enforce it? high-capacity magazines have been illegal to purchase or bring into the state since 2001 so this affects the few who already possessed them prior to that date.

The proposition still has the following:
1) Some weird thing about how felons can't possess firearms as if it were currently legal.
2) Require owners of a lost or stolen firearm or pay a fine (Brown vetoed a similar bill).
3) Share data with FBI/NICS (I think there are more issues with how the feds keep track of data in the first place).

TLDR; Brown continues to be good at threading the needle and gets high marks from me for keeping to the current understanding of and balancing all constitutional rights. What happened Friday feels more like Sacramento telling Gavin Newsom to shove it... and I am totally okay with that.
posted by linux at 7:17 AM on July 4, 2016

A bit more about the magazine ban: seeing as it's been illegal to purchase/transfer one in California since 2001, this bill is about confiscation. This is precisely the sort of bill that causes more problems than it fixes. The only people who legally own a high-capacity magazine in California are people who were California residents 18 years or older prior to 2001. They cannot give them to anyone else, so these magazines are "stuck" with them. No one else can obtain one legally, period. So what's this bill really about other than a PR move?

This bill just riles up the far right pro-gun people in that it turns the FUD about taking away guns into a distinct possibility as it is specifically addressing magazines that were grandfathered in back in 2001 and are now banned outright 15 years later. It plays to the whole "regulation leads to confiscation" mantra they like to chant and it truly solves nothing in return.
posted by linux at 7:32 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

First, can we not do what the Republicans do and straw man our opponents?

No straw is being burned here. The claim I was responding to was not that precedents are never overturned, but that this ruling in particular would be the one out of over a hundred times that a SCOTUS opinion has been overturned that will "open the door to having both Roe v. Wade (abortion rights) and Obergefell v. Hodges (legal gay marriage) overturned." That's an uncalled for appeal to the emotion of other issues that deserves every bit of the contempt with which it's been received so far.

Of course the Court takes care to rule in ways that uphold prior precedents, but the fact that it's reversed itself many times but, as you say, not often relative to the total number of cases, suggests that overturning any one ruling has very little bearing on how the Court will treat precedents in future, unrelated cases. Likewise, there is no truth to the notion that justices showing deference to stare decisis now will compel future justices to show the same amount of respect to precedent later. It's merely a guideline that, since the Constitution isn't a suicide pact, justices can, will, and should ignore when they believe that an issue was decided wrongly in the past.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:00 AM on July 4, 2016 [7 favorites]

It plays to the whole "regulation leads to confiscation" mantra they like to chant and it truly solves nothing in return.

Unless one believes that people having the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading is a bad thing in and of itself.

You decry cosmetic restrictions because they don't really do anything and get the gun nuts all riled up. You decry functional restrictions because they don't do enough and get the gun nuts all riled up. Given that the election of basically any Democrat anywhere also gets the gun nuts all riled up, maybe the problem is with the gun nuts and continuing to worry about how they'll feel about any measure at all isn't helping.
posted by Etrigan at 8:02 AM on July 4, 2016 [14 favorites]

> " ... I cannot say who will be the militia of the future day. If that paper on the table gets no alteration, the militia of the future day may not consist of all classes, high and low, and rich and poor."

That's an interesting contemporary commentary, but I cannot help but notice that the militia language was indeed kept in the amendment in spite of his objections.
posted by kyrademon at 8:02 AM on July 4, 2016

Could someone point out a good LAYMAN'S article explaining this position?

Cass Sunstein: How the Gun Lobby Rewrote the Second Amendment
Michael Waldman: How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
Dalia Lithwick: The Second Amendment Hoax
posted by zombieflanders at 8:03 AM on July 4, 2016 [7 favorites]

Garry Wills: To Keep and Bear Arms is pretty compelling as well. It predates the Heller / MacDonald cases by some 20 years, but provides context for how the "Standard Model" of 2A interpretation was developed, and how at odds this interpretation is with the historical record.
posted by tonycpsu at 8:10 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

Here's some more:

Jill Lepore: Battleground America
Azmat Khan (interviewing Jeffrey Toobin): How Conservatives “Reinvented” the Second Amendment

And these are academic papers, but they also discuss the changes:

Changing the Constitutional Landscape for Firearms: The US Supreme Court's Recent Second Amendment Decisions
Firearms and health: the right to be armed with accurate information about the Second Amendment
posted by zombieflanders at 8:18 AM on July 4, 2016 [3 favorites]

>It plays to the whole "regulation leads to confiscation" mantra they like to chant and it truly solves nothing in return.

Unless one believes that people having the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading is a bad thing in and of itself.

If high capacity magazines were still legal up to now then sure, I have zero issues with this bill. As since 2001 California already bans the sale and transfer of such magazines, this does so little that it just doesn't seem worth the effort. With this bill you have a situation where a prior law first banned sale and transfer but allowed one to keep a pre-ban high-capacity magazine, then fifteen years later a law is passed that takes back that provision and now your previously grandfathered magazine is illegal to possess.

You decry cosmetic restrictions because they don't really do anything and get the gun nuts all riled up. You decry functional restrictions because they don't do enough and get the gun nuts all riled up. Given that the election of basically any Democrat anywhere also gets the gun nuts all riled up, maybe the problem is with the gun nuts and continuing to worry about how they'll feel about any measure at all isn't helping.

Extreme gun nuts will always get riled up but why not rile them up for something that can do something effective? AB1235 certainly has them angry, particularly since it means private ammunition sales are effectively restricted to the same regulations as private firearm sales (needs to go through a dealer as a middle man so it is recorded), but I have zero opposition to that and applaud it. That's the kind of law I can get behind, particularly versus the similar proposition in Newsom's ballot initiative, which would not be as good.
posted by linux at 8:48 AM on July 4, 2016

Unless one believes that people having the ability to fire more than 10 rounds without reloading is a bad thing in and of itself.

If high capacity magazines were still legal up to now then sure, I have zero issues with this bill. As since 2001 California already bans the sale and transfer of such magazines, this does so little that it just doesn't seem worth the effort. With this bill you have a situation where a prior law first banned sale and transfer but allowed one to keep a pre-ban high-capacity magazine, then fifteen years later a law is passed that takes back that provision and now your previously grandfathered magazine is illegal to possess.

You're saying that you're okay with them being illegal, just not with society changing its mind on whether they should be legal (in any way). You'll forgive me for thinking that this is the tiniest bit disingenuous. It's like claiming to be okay with gay marriage, except that marriage is defined a certain way and we shouldn't change that.
posted by Etrigan at 8:57 AM on July 4, 2016 [4 favorites]

Mitheral I think you're missing the point here. The point is not "woohoo $1,000 bullets are awesome!"

The point is: you pulled out $1,000 bullets as an attempt at a trump card, as a method of channeling the conversation into a more gun friendly direction by proclaiming that increased regulation would be harmful to legitimate gun owners and especially poorer gun owners.

We were, I think, supposed to recoil from such a suggestion and realize how foolish and harmful we were being. It was a stand in for banning and confiscating guns and we were supposed to say "oh, well, of course we don't support *THAT*!"

But the point here is that the exact opposite is true.

So let's strip away the $1,000 bullet and address the core issue:

I, and many other people, would be perfectly content with a program of completely banning all guns and confiscating them through jackbooted raids on gun owners if that's what we're forced to do by the NRA to solve the problem of so many people being shot to death.

Personally I don't favor that. I've got nothing inherently against guns and shooting as a hobby. I'd like to get a solution, like virtually every other first world nation on the planet has, that allows some degree of private gun ownership and hobby shooting, without (and this is the critical part) turning the nation into an armed camp where assholes stomp around carrying guns into Starbucks and occasionally those selfsame assholes engage in mass shootings.

But if the choice comes down to the NRA's program of doing nothing vs banning all guns and kicking in the doors of gun owners to take them away, I'll choose the latter.

So the question is: do you really want to push people into that corner? Or would you rather back the fuck down a little and allow some restrictions and regulations to be put into place that still preserve hobby shooting?

I just want the killing to stop. Or at least drop down to the levels we see in France, the UK, and Germany.

If the NRA and people like you are going to keep pushing the boundaries and forbidding any lesser measures, well, I say let's start polishing up those jackboots.
posted by sotonohito at 9:01 AM on July 4, 2016 [9 favorites]

You're saying that you're okay with them being illegal, just not with society changing its mind on whether they should be legal (in any way). You'll forgive me for thinking that this is the tiniest bit disingenuous. It's like claiming to be okay with gay marriage, except that marriage is defined a certain way and we shouldn't change that.

I'm saying you have a law that bans sale and transfer and it avoided the sticky situation of property confiscation. The law effectively bans high capacity magazines as people who owned them prior to the ban of sale and transfer are the last of them and the issue of confiscation will be difficult to enforce, especially for something as small and portable as a magazine. To ban it now just looks spiteful.

If we were to use gay marriage as an example I would say Proposition 8 is more similar: it defined marriage specifically as being between a man and a woman to get around the loophole of it not being defined other than being between two people.
posted by linux at 9:07 AM on July 4, 2016

The law effectively bans high capacity magazines

If the old law "effectively" banned them, then it shouldn't be a problem to actually ban them, right? The fact that it "seems spiteful" shouldn't enter into it, unless you want to admit that the feelings of the gun nuts are weighing the scale anywhere near the lives of everyone else.
posted by Etrigan at 9:19 AM on July 4, 2016 [3 favorites]

I also think, when we take into account all the black people with toy guns who have been murdered by police officers, the argument that somehow getting *REAL* guns in the hands of more minorities will help advance their rights is completely vile.

Carrying guns in public is one of the purest expressions of white privilege that exists. The reason black people don't do that is because they aren't stupid and they know damn well what will happen if they start stomping around with an AR-15 strapped to themselves: the cops will show up and shoot them dead without asking a single question.

Ask Tamir Rice how well carrying a gun will serve minority rights.
posted by sotonohito at 9:19 AM on July 4, 2016 [22 favorites]

If the old law "effectively" banned them, then it shouldn't be a problem to actually ban them, right? The fact that it "seems spiteful" shouldn't enter into it, unless you want to admit that the feelings of the gun nuts are weighing the scale anywhere near the lives of everyone else.

I think this argument hinges on whether or not you think banning them outright will make people safer. I don't think it will. If I did, then I would think differently. As I don't think it does anything better than what the 2001 law already accomplished, this just looks like a PR move for the politicians.
posted by linux at 9:33 AM on July 4, 2016

You said, and I quote, "If high capacity magazines were still legal up to now then sure, I have zero issues with this bill."

Your goalposts are moving with every comment you make. I'm done trying to kick to them.
posted by Etrigan at 9:38 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

High capacity magazines were banned from sale and transfer in 2001 along with a clause allowing pre-ban magazines so long as they remain in possession of the original owner. Now the law disallows that clause and I don't find that useful as the 2001 law is effective. If the 2001 law didn't exist, then this law would be fine. What goal post did I move?
posted by linux at 9:42 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

I think this argument hinges on whether or not you think banning them outright will make people safer

Not necessarily. Perhaps you believe that private ownership of (all) guns should be very tightly regulated, if not downright banned -- so any restriction is a positive. Whether you believe this makes anyone safer is immaterial. You can be anti-gun (or pro-restriction, if you prefer), even while being cynically resigned to the idea that one state's actions won't make any meaningful difference about the overall ability to buy/own weapons at a macro level -- especially among those who don't care about being law-abiding.

Perhaps you're uncomfortable with the arsenal that is being collected by certain gun nuts, and you're just fucking tired of them calling themselves patriots instead of bullying assholes -- and you want your state to stop coddling them -- and perhaps you want them to be encouraged to move to Arizona (and increase the quality of life in both states?). When one of these dudes stands up and say "I will not comply" and openly walks into a starbucks with a 15-round magazine mounted (or gets pulled over for a traffic violation with it in their gun rack), you want them to be labeled as a "Felon", not a "Patriot".

Because, as a bonus, felons in California lose their rights to own firearms -- for life.
posted by toxic at 10:18 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

The population's attitudes towards guns (among other things) has changed drastically in California since 2001. It's entirely reasonable to revisit this ban, and tightening gun control in general has a lot of support.
posted by toxic at 10:20 AM on July 4, 2016

While it is clearly strategically smart, I dislike the adoption of the anti-abortion strategy (and for a while, anti-marriage equality) of incremental rollbacks using state and local avenues. It is incontestably successful, but there is something kind of gross about leveraging voting power to erode constitutional rights.

With time there will be a set of court decisions that will help delineate the parameters of how much restrictions are allowed, but that will take a lot of friction to get to.
posted by Dip Flash at 10:37 AM on July 4, 2016

Calibers less than 6mm are not legal to hunt with in Colorado. Typical AR-15 etc; .223 = not even legal to hunt with in CO. I like the 2nd ammendment; but the not legal to hunt with in CO is a grand fail in the hunting argument, and the need for ???round #17+ etc in case the deer is getting away argument; JC man; learn how to aim.

Licensing. No license; no gun. Caught with a gun, and person with gun is not licensed; ticket/court time; and gun gets impounded, same as a vehicle would be treated if the driver had no license. No need to register guns, or even claim gun ownership; just licensing that indicates training, and a background check of sorts. Best, and most difficult to argue with, and most legit path to the responsible gun ownership dogma. Licensing.
posted by buzzman at 10:43 AM on July 4, 2016 [3 favorites]

I am a gun owner and I have no problem with a 10 round limit to magazines. However, I don't think it accomplishes anything. I have no problem with instant background checks for buying ammunition. However, I don't think it accomplishes anything.

There are many examples of firearms that are widely regarded as being extremely effective weapons of war that hold less than 10 cartridges. The bolt action SMLE holds 10, the M-1 Garand holds 8. Both fire far more powerful and deadly cartridges than the AR-15 or the AK. Both can be reloaded in 5 or 10 seconds with only a little practice. The Colt model 1911 handgun holds 8. Few people regard it as ineffective.

Apart from the fact that there are astounding quantities of ammunition and reloading components already sold and in private hands, background checks to buy ammo won't work because the US does not require police departments, courts or physicians to report to the state with any kind of uniformity people that should be disqualified from having guns. This needs to be addressed on a national level. That would be a real accomplishment.
posted by Bee'sWing at 11:10 AM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

but the not legal to hunt with in CO is a grand fail in the hunting argument

I don't know Colorado regulations but almost certainly .223 is going to be legal there for other species, particularly "varmints" and predators. Personally I find that kind of hunting to be gross except for livestock protection, but the reality is that it is legal and encouraged.

And each state is different, with many allowing .223 to be used for deer and even sometimes elk, so I don't think that is going to work as a broad regulatory tool.
posted by Dip Flash at 11:13 AM on July 4, 2016 [2 favorites]

Wait for it. Next up; the automobile: Mass destruction device.

Right! Next you thing you know it, the states are going to try to do things like mandate seat belts, test for how well automobiles do in crashes or the like.
posted by el io at 12:04 PM on July 4, 2016 [14 favorites]

Individual cigarrettes are killing hundreds of thousands a year; how dare they go after the innocent less than ten thousand deaths a year by guns argument!

Wait for it. Next up; the automobile: Mass destruction device.

Interesting thought here. Both cigarettes and cars are legal to own, they're just regulated heavily.

If we were serious about guns, we would regulate the hell out of them. You have a right to keep and bear arms, you just don't have the right to do so, say, in a public place, or in a car or in a group of people fewer than a squad of well-regulated militia. Use a gun for hunting? You can only shoot a specific type of gun when hunting. Want a gun in a crowded city? Require that anyone owning a weapon disclose that ownership to their neighbors and community. That way, anyone who does not want to own a gun assumes the risk of "protection" on their own, but is aware that YOU have a gun, and to treat you appropriately.

Nothing wrong with putting laws on the books around gun ownership. Nothing unconstitutional about letting you keep and bear arms, but making it a real pain in the ass to use them outside of strictly regulated activities and environs.

Sure, people who don't wear their seat belts risk dying in a car crash, but hey, cars are safer because of them. People who obey the speed limit, or are reasonable about it are going to be fine with it. Those that break the laws face consequences. Sure, speeders and non-seat belt wearers will still exist, but they are outside of the norm.
posted by Chuffy at 12:25 PM on July 4, 2016 [6 favorites]

Meanwhile, Tennessee just passed a law that says that if a business owner declares their business to be a "gun free zone", and if a person who has a legal concealed carry license leaves their gun behind and then is shot in the gun free zone, then they can sue the business owner.

Genuinely curious, because coming from the UK and working mostly in NYC I have little experience or knowledge of the personal ownership of firearms and their place in society.

Does this apply to government offices is Tennessee? Could I take a gun into a state or federal office? And if I can't, could I sue the state if I'm shot while there?
posted by 43rdAnd9th at 12:27 PM on July 4, 2016

sotonohito: "If the NRA and people like you are going to keep pushing the boundaries and forbidding any lesser measures, well, I say let's start polishing up those jackboots."

First let me address the description of people like me. I'm not sure what you mean by that specifically so rather than say I'm not I'll just throw out some things I am:

I think possesion of a firearm should require a licence.
I think that licence should require training.
I think it should require renewal on some sort of regular basis (every 5 years like in Canada seems to be a reasonable trade off between timeliness and burden).
Getting or renewing a licence should require a background check
Buying ammunition should require presenting a firearm licence.
Some weapons should only be able to used at a licensed range and should be required to be stored there.
All firearms should be securely stored (whether at home or range or storage facility) behind at least one lock. All firearms should additionally require a trigger lock or other individual disabling locking device while in storage. Firearms should be required to be stored unloaded with ammunition stored if not separately at least in a locking container.
Carry whether open or concealed is crazy and should be illegal.

However I also think that bad regulation even if it furthers the goal of banning all weapons if still bad. Foolish regulation is bad. Ineffectual legislation is bad and more so if it can be used as a rallying point by the other side. Regulation that disproportionately effects poor people is bad.

A $1K per bullet tax is pretty much bad for all the reasons outlined about. First and foremost the cost is so punitive that the black market will practically immediately supply everyone with much lower cost ammunition. This black market will side step all regulation on ammunition sales not just the tax. It will enrich organized crime. And it will put otherwise law abiding people in touch with criminals who will be able to supply other banned firearm items. It will allow the pro-firearm side to claim quite legitimately that the purpose of the tax is to defacto ban firearms. It will certainly impact low income hunters more than recreational shooters.

Finally unconstitutional regulation is bad regardless of how one feels about the constitution on that regulation. It's bad when the anti abortionists do it; it's bad when used to enjoin the press; and it is bad when it suppresses the 2nd. It sucks that the US constitutional reform process is so difficult but reform is the correct way to claw back the power of the 2nd. Convincing the supreme court to interpret the 2nd more narrowly will help but you aren't going to eliminate private ownership of firearms in the USA without amending the constitution.

To bring this back to my original statement:

The US constitution (at least as interpreted by the Supreme Court today) makes firearm ownership by citizens legal. A $1000 dollar per bullet tax is very regressive disproportionately impacting poor people. If it were actually to make the price $1000 per bullet it would defacto be banning firearms for all but the most wealthy.
Of course such a law would so strongly encourage a black market as to practically guarantee it because of the very lucrative price differential between production cost and legal cost.
Enforcement actions against the smuggling would create a war on bullets and would be about as effective as the current war on some drugs. This enforcement would also disproportionately impact poor people (of colour).

To sum up: I've got no problem with firearm regulation. The US needs a huge helping of it. I just think that regulation should be workable and at least pay lip service to constitutionality. Things like a 10,000% taxes are neither and dishonest to boot.

To equate it to the car discussion; the anti-car side isn't sound biting a $10,000 a gallon gasoline tax.

Or look at the anti-smoking initiative. Taxes and regulations were set to discourage use (especially initial use by teenagers). But those taxes were set with an eye to not overly encouraging a black market. Not always successfully of course but much more successfully than say a $100 per pack tax would have been.
posted by Mitheral at 12:32 PM on July 4, 2016 [6 favorites]

As someone whose eyebrow was well and truly raised by your earlier comment, I very much appreciate your thoughtful and interest comment above, Mitheral; many interesting points there in the comparison between different "subjects of regulation".
posted by the quidnunc kid at 1:46 PM on July 4, 2016

Okay, I read "Garry Wills: To Keep and Bear Arms" and its a long criticism of the individual right theory and "Changing the Constitutional Landscape for Firearms: The US Supreme Court's Recent Second Amendment Decisions" is about the same plus we don't like Emerson, Heller or McDonald.

Do any of the articles discuss "Heller overturning the last 200 years of jurisprudence"?

Individual right proponents claim in United States v. Cruikshank, the ruling was Black Republicans killed by White Democrats didn't have their 1st and 2nd Amendment rights violated because the 14th's Due Process Clause and the Equal Protection Clause only applied to state actors. Then they quote this part of the opinion,

"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, ..."

In Presser v. Illinois, they claim the ruling was, outlawing a private militia didn't violate the right to keep and bear arms, and quote the part of the opinion,

"It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect."

And United States v. Miller is claimed to affirm, the right to keep and bear arms predates the constitution, is an individual right because Miller and Layton had standing as individuals, and the right includes weapons in common usage but not sawed-off shotguns or machine guns.

Miller makes my brain hurt, if someone said it means the opposite, I couldn't point to the opinion and say nope your wrong.

Plus the claim the above mentioned, Taney's parade of horribles showed people could keep and carry arms wherever they went.

Are there different cases collective right proponents point to or a list of different interpretations of these cases, or do they mean state supreme courts?
posted by ridgerunner at 1:58 PM on July 4, 2016

The comparative statistics about cigarettes and automobiles show how uniquely adept Americans are at killing ourselves and others.

Jerry Brown's "threading the political needle" on guns can't help but remind me how his younger version was governor when California passed Proposition 13 (which ultimately prevented me from ever being able to afford to buy a house in California) and his spineless response to it was a big part of why it became "the Third Rail of California Politics". If "Governor Moonbeam" wouldn't stand in the way of America's Rightward Movement even before Reagan was elected President, then what hope did any of us have? Still, Gavin Newsom has definitely earned my vote when Jerry is termed out in two years.
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:24 PM on July 4, 2016

Justice Stevens, in his Heller dissent, sums up Miller nicely:

"In 1934, Congress enacted the National Firearms Act, the first major federal firearms law.1 Upholding a conviction under that Act, this Court held that, “[i]n the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a ‘shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length’ at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.” Miller, 307 U. S., at 178. The view of the Amendment we took in Miller—that it protects the right to keep and bear arms for certain military purposes, but that it does not curtail the Legislature’s power to regulate the nonmilitary use and ownership of weapons—is both the most natural reading of the Amendment’s text and the interpretation most faithful to the history of its adoption."

Willful misreadings of opinions become the law when the Supreme Court does it. However, Heller is so far out there, I have high hopes it will be overturned soon.
posted by djinn dandy at 2:30 PM on July 4, 2016 [7 favorites]

PZ Myers: I don’t give a damn about your gun specs
posted by hydropsyche at 2:49 PM on July 4, 2016 [5 favorites]

Most of the 'survivalist' type blogs/papers (remember! Society haz collapsed! You might need paper :/ .) recommend at least 1,000 rounds of ammo per caliber of weapon you have.

Regulating ammo is a more or less moot point for ?10? ?20? years past the time date stamp of regulation; and that precludes an absolutely bonkers rush to purchase before the regulation takes effect. A great idea; in a Star Trek type of future universe perhaps, the entire regulation thing; but in reality; ... picture a food panic before a storm hits the coast. Except instead of bread and milk (not a lot of rage over bread and milk, yes?); it is going to be a rust to purchase. Ammo.
posted by buzzman at 3:42 PM on July 4, 2016

Several comments deleted. We've gone around and around the "learn more about guns before saying they should be regulated" point in a couple of other recent heated threads, and it's not going to improve anything to go over the very same ground in here.
posted by LobsterMitten (staff) at 6:07 PM on July 4, 2016 [3 favorites]

The founding fathers were pretty clear about the 2nd Amendment, unfortunately, it wasn't included in the Bill of Rights. Instead it was written by Alexander Hamilton and published in The Federalist Papers (Specifically, number 29, Concerning the Militia).

Anyway, with that in mind, it seems that those citizens who are able to bear arms must also be a part of a militia, run by the state - I guess it would be sort-of like an R.O.T.C. or something, with terms of obligatory service which would vary based on the type of commission or contract the citizen receives. They would serve as active duty or in a reserve status and takes a regular appointment or a reserve appointment. A requirement for number of years, as well as how many must be completed on active duty, in an active reserve capacity would be set by someone, like the Governor or Lieutenant Governor of the state.

Once their term of duty expires, or they retire, they would then turn in their firearms.
posted by Monkey0nCrack at 6:34 PM on July 4, 2016

Anyway, with that in mind, it seems that those citizens who are able to bear arms must also be a part of a militia, run by the state

The definition as used in the Wikipedia article on militias is more how I have always understood the term historically:

It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services). ...

The reserve militia[3] are part of the unorganized militia defined by the Militia Act of 1903 as consisting of every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age who is not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

I am not a historian or constitutional scholar, and that expansive definition of the term certainly had more to do with easy organizing of racial violence against blacks and Indians than anything about resisting tyranny. So while it is funny to say that legal gun ownership needs to go with ROTC membership, it would not be the most historical approach.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:47 PM on July 4, 2016

The definition as used in the Wikipedia article on militias is more how I have always understood the term historically:

It has historically been used to describe all able-bodied men who are not members of the Army or Navy (Uniformed Services). ...

Per the Federalist Papers, the definition the people who wrote the law were using was pretty clearly an organized militia -- not just all the able-bodied men, but the able-bodied men who were willing to submit to some form of state or local management and supervision. Which implies some sort of revocable admission.
posted by Etrigan at 7:28 PM on July 4, 2016 [1 favorite]

Trying to seance out what "the Founding Fathers" wanted or meant is an exercise in futility. They were a factitious bunch often at odds with each other. The Federalist papers were not agreed on by all of "the Founding Fathers" as a baseline, they were a set of policy papers put forth by one faction out of many (and often even then the different authors were at odds with each other).

IIRC the 2nd is a great example of this, with two competing factions being responsible for each of the clauses, each having different aims and goals, and each content to let the amendment be the ambiguous mess it is in order to claim victory and tell their supporters they won.

Trying to settle modern arguments about guns by invoking "the Founders" is either an exercise in futility, or it's an attempt to try and falsely gain some credibility. Either way it just isn't applicable to us today.

We're stuck with the words they wrote in the Constitution, as well as the roughly two centuries of case law that have built up since then. Plus, of course, what we'd like the situation to be, there's nothing inherently moral or correct about the Constitution, recognizing it as a useful but flawed document is not anti-American or wrong. You may recall that once it endorsed slavery and we took that out.
posted by sotonohito at 8:34 PM on July 4, 2016 [9 favorites]

It's hitting the point where I can see article headlines and know the dance steps in the comments section on this topic. There's an article today where yet another accidental gun death occurred at a shooting range, due to the shooter's negligence (forgot he was holding a gun while chasing brass that went down his shirt). The pro-gun guys were just -oozing- with sympathy for him, and "hasn't he suffered enough by losing his kid?" ; the anti-gun guys were calling for him to go to jail, and asking how many dead children were enough, exactly?

And I realized: it still isn't going to change. The steps have become almost -formalized- now, to the point where they're predictable.

That... can't last. It's not a stable situation, and the situation is literally built on dead kids. I keep asking when enough is enough here, that we can start changing things, and I feel like I haven't seen a good answer on it from the pro-gun side.

I realize this argument is one of emotion, and I'm fine with that at this stage, because it is, in fact, folks being killed by violence and negligence that's the problem. Say whatever else you will about the tools and how they're being used, but the problem boils down to "lots of dead folks."

I no longer care what the Founders meant, specifically, by "a well regulated militia" or "shall not be infringed." The simple fact is, we have a problem and it requires solving. I don't think they'd ask us to sacrifice more people on the altar of their intentions, rather than solve our issue. (And frankly, if they would? Fuck those guys. The problem needs solved)
posted by Archelaus at 12:34 AM on July 5, 2016 [6 favorites]

Concerning seances with "Founding Fathers"—I just got completely lost down a rabbit hole reading stuff about Classical Greece and Rome, but in summary: because of the American civil religion it's not a good idea to completely cede to right-wing ideology the ground, within public discourse, of continuity with the 18th-century founding of the U.S. (Especially when people like that are so frequently completely full of shit.)

Besides the militia thing, "keep and bear arms" is not talking about private ownership of artillery or naval mines or stuff like that. At the very least a 21st-century hand-held semiautomatic firearm that can kill people at a faster rate than an 18th-century artillery piece is quite legitimately something that the original government of the United States would have kept out of private hands rather than lumping such weapons in with flintlock rifles, even repeating ones or pepper-box revolvers.
posted by XMLicious at 12:42 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Morning in Machine Gun America
posted by the man of twists and turns at 11:28 AM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

I have some friends that own a farm out in the central valley. When I visit then, one of the things we sometimes do is hunt small game on their property. Rabbits and pheasant mostly. I've passed the California Hunter Safety Course and have a hunting license.

Since I hunt so rarely, I do not own a gun. Instead, I would borrow my friend's 20ga break-action shotgun. I'd also give him $10 or so for the shells. Is this going to be illegal now? If so, that's really dumb.
posted by ryanrs at 6:28 PM on July 5, 2016

Since I hunt so rarely, I do not own a gun. Instead, I would borrow my friend's 20ga break-action shotgun. I'd also give him $10 or so for the shells. Is this going to be illegal now? If so, that's really dumb.

Amazingly, looking at the text of the actual bill, you would indeed be violating the law, unless letting someone use a gun while you are with them is different, in a legal sense, from letting them take it away for an extended loan. My cynical guess is that it will be completely ignored in all situations except when it can be used for additional criminal charges for young men of color.
posted by Dip Flash at 6:33 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

So the upshot of these new gun regulations is that I have to buy a gun?
posted by ryanrs at 6:40 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Amazingly, looking at the text of the actual bill, you would indeed be violating the law

You wouldn't be. Your friend might be. It's not a crime to borrow a gun, it is (sometimes) a crime to loan one.

In practice, if you've got your paperwork in order, and it's a weapon that is appropriate for the hunting that you're doing, and you are not being busted for breaking another law, then the likelihood of any LEO actually asking you if you own that 20 gauge is basically zero.

And of course, if you were asked, you don't have to answer. Beyond the self-incrimination protection involved, a weapon like that does not need to be registered (only handguns and assault weapons), so there's no binding way to prove ownership anyway.

Now, if you were being popped for hunting out of season, and you don't have your license and/or safety certificate, or you happen to share your hunting camp with a 200 acre marijuana grow operation, then it may be a different story.
posted by toxic at 7:43 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

So the upshot of these new gun regulations is that I have to buy a gun?

If engaging in this hobby outweighs the mountain of evidence that having that firearm in your home makes you personally less safe, then yes, you "have" to buy your own shotgun.

On the plus side, that's not the worst reason to own a shotgun. It's just in the 80th percentile or so of bad reasons.
posted by Etrigan at 7:53 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

ryanrs, is the friend from whom you are borrowing the shotgun the same friend you are visiting when you hunt? Assembly Bill No. 1511 only amends §27880 of the California penal code, which is the section that applies when the owner of the gun is not present. It does not amend §27885, which is the section that applies when the owner is present.
posted by RichardP at 8:06 PM on July 5, 2016 [3 favorites]

For that matter, the bill also does not amend §27950, which permits an owner of a firearm to loan a firearm, other than a handgun, to a licensed hunter for use by that hunter for a period of time not to exceed the duration of the hunting season for which the firearm is to be used.
posted by RichardP at 8:14 PM on July 5, 2016 [4 favorites]

Thanks, RichardP. So it looks like I can borrow the gun as before.

Etrigan, the safety risk of owning a gun is not a significant concern for me.
posted by ryanrs at 8:37 PM on July 5, 2016 [2 favorites]

RE: safety. If you aren't buying a gun for "protection" then you can mitigate almost all the risk by not having ammunition for your weapon in your home. Yes if you want to suicide you can then go down to the wal mart and buy some shells mitigating most of the waiting period but you aren't going to get shot by your spouse, dog, or kid with a poorly secured weapon.

Alternatively, around here anyways and I'd guess it is the same there, pay to have your weapon stored off site. Many people store weapons this way at either their range or at a firearm seller that offers this service.
posted by Mitheral at 9:55 PM on July 5, 2016 [1 favorite]

Alternatively, around here anyways and I'd guess it is the same there, pay to have your weapon stored off site. Many people store weapons this way at either their range or at a firearm seller that offers this service.

Big cities probably have those services for people in apartments, but otherwise the only people I know of who have done the off-site storage thing was because of temporarily losing their firearm rights because of legal troubles, or to hide them during a divorce. Mostly people store them with family or a friend, but I've heard of people asking to store their guns at a gun store, too. If laws changed to incentivize off-site storage, you would start to see it everywhere, but otherwise there just isn't any demand for it.

For that matter, the bill also does not amend §27950, which permits an owner of a firearm to loan a firearm, other than a handgun, to a licensed hunter for use by that hunter for a period of time not to exceed the duration of the hunting season for which the firearm is to be used.

Then I am not surprised that the anti-lending bill passed. That is the kind of law that would make me as a gun owner very slightly grumble (because I've borrowed guns before and will probably do so again), but is actually smartly structured to have minimal impact on legal and normal shooting sports. (It's also going to be mostly unenforceable except when other criminal charges are in play, but that's how a lot of laws work.)
posted by Dip Flash at 6:05 AM on July 6, 2016 [1 favorite]

Charlie Pierce: The Difference Between a White Man and a Black Man with a Gun

By the way, for those who will make a point of Sterling's carrying a gun, which has been reported in a number of places, remember that Louisiana is an open-carry state. If he were armed, then, right up until the moment somebody shot him to death, Alton Sterling was exercising his Second Amendment rights in exactly the way the NRA and its noisy apologists have suggested we all should.

Except that we're not all black, the true original American Exceptionalism has come home again.

posted by zombieflanders at 12:26 PM on July 6, 2016 [9 favorites]

That's not what I'm saying. What I'm saying is that stare decisis protects gun rights but it also protects things that liberals hold dear. If we get rid of it, a lot of things become vulnerable. And you can't trash it today and bring it back tomorrow. Once it's gone, it's gone for good.

One of the problems with this argument is that the conservatives on SCOTUS have been pretty willing to crash through stare decisis — including in Heller — in order to achieve ideological victories. Protestations over Calvinball with stare decisis sound like noble appeals to bipartisanship — they only work if both sides adhere to the principle.

In Canada, you cannot own a gun under the age of 18 - you can get a shooting license and borrow one for specific purposes (targets and training, hunting, and shooting competitions) but you cannot own one. Wanna guess what the ratio of joints given at parties/parking lots/parks late at night is to guns offered or used in my life?"

"Bang, bang, pass, motherfucker."

(To be fair, when I tried to buy weed in Vancouver, someone literally just gave me a handful for free, because you couldn't sell drugs in the coffeeshop.)

I am not a historian or constitutional scholar, and that expansive definition of the term certainly had more to do with easy organizing of racial violence against blacks and Indians than anything about resisting tyranny. So while it is funny to say that legal gun ownership needs to go with ROTC membership, it would not be the most historical approach."

I'm not a historian either, but requiring men to be militia-ready was a part of British common law for basically forever. Organizing racial violence against Irish and Vikings, maybe, but militias existed before feudalism. And arguing that the justification of resisting tyranny was a disingenuous cover for racism seems to ignore that the people writing the constitution had just used militias to fight a war of independence from Great Britain. One where one of the grievances was English confiscation of war materiel — the Third Amendment wasn't about racism either, as far as I know.

(Likewise, in some countries with high gun ownership, like Switzerland, militia use is both a tradition and highly regulated.)

"Amazingly, looking at the text of the actual bill, you would indeed be violating the law, unless letting someone use a gun while you are with them is different, in a legal sense, from letting them take it away for an extended loan. My cynical guess is that it will be completely ignored in all situations except when it can be used for additional criminal charges for young men of color."

I'm not a lawyer, and my first guess would have been that it wasn't "loaning" to let somebody else shoot your gun if you're there — I'm not sure I'd think it was a loan if someone else drove my car while I was in it — but on reading through the laws prior to amendment, they specifically exempted things like letting someone you knew use your gun for a hunting or sporting event, and with the only change being that "person known to you" is now restricted to family, essentially. But since part of it is basically prohibiting someone else from having control of the firearm without authorization, I do think that it looks like a violation.
posted by klangklangston at 7:39 PM on July 6, 2016

In other news: Texas college students plan to protest 'campus carry' gun law with dildos
posted by homunculus at 6:37 PM on August 1, 2016 [2 favorites]

Dildos. Hardcore pornography. Satanic symbols. Bags of shit. Just think of all the things we should now be able to carry everywhere, especially into places that annoy state government officials, since guns are so super duper safe and totally fine to carry everywhere.

Extremely loud boomboxes. Drum sets. Jars of chlorine gas.

If guns are legal to carry everywhere, than surely all that stuff is too, right?
posted by sotonohito at 9:27 AM on August 2, 2016

« Older Rufus Wainwright and 1500 singers | Scooby OEDy Doo!!! Newer »

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

MetaFilter

New gun regulations in California and Hawaii
July 3, 2016 6:05 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

New gun regulations in California and Hawaii July 3, 2016 6:05 PM Subscribe

Tags

Share

New gun regulations in California and Hawaii
July 3, 2016 6:05 PM Subscribe