Another shooting, another 10 youth killed, and where is the Republican reaction?

[opinterph]

Freed isn't relevant, as it only applies to a tiny number of weapons*. Haynes is relevant because it invoked a general right to a specific situation; Freed notes that in the situation in question, the law now removes self-incrimination by not allowing the incriminating information to reach prosecuting authorities. Thus, in both cases it is still held that a person cannot be required to provide information that is self-incriminating.



* the National Firearms Act, which was the law of concern, applies only to fully automatic weapons, "sawed-off" shotguns, and "destructive devices" (e.g. bombs); the registration requirement applies only to such items, not to anything else.

Both Haynes v. United States and United States v. Freed involved the National Firearms Act, which requires registration and payment of an associated excise tax on what you are referring to as “a tiny number of weapons,” including such things as short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, machine guns, silencers, and various destructive devices that can be used as weapons. The federal government took an interest in regulating those items because they were being used frequently in the commission of crimes, which adversely affected the public safety / General Welfare of its citizens.

The original wording of the National Firearms Act was defective in that it required the registration of NFA weapons, while failing to address the situation in which convicted felons are not eligible to possess such weapons and therefore could not reasonably comply with the requirement to register them without admitting that their possession of the weapons made them guilty of the crime of possessing an unregistered NFA weapon.

It is important to note that Mr. Haynes had already violated the law by his [unconstitutional] possession of a short-barreled shotgun. His case involved prosecution for his failure to register an NFA weapon.

In Haynes v. United States, the Supreme Court saw his situation much as a “catch-22.” Persons who [illegally] possessed unregistered NFA weapons would, in effect, be pleading guilty to a crime if/when they attempted to comply with the registration requirements for those weapons.

Several years later – after the National Firearms Act was amended to fix that defect – Freed (and other defendants) were indicted for possession and conspiracy to possess unregistered hand grenades. They argued that an expectation for them to comply with the federal registration of such weapons under the National Firearms Act violated their right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that the charges brought under the amended National Firearms Act did not did not violate the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.

It is important to recognize that requiring persons who are prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm to pass a background check carries ZERO penalty if their application is denied – unless the applicant makes false statements on the application form. The intent of the application is to determine if the applicant is eligible to purchase a firearm. There is no self-incrimination involved.

IF, however, the applicant makes a false certification, then he or she commits a crime punishable as a felony under federal law – though prosecutions for making false statements on the application are very rare.

 

[Kulindahr]

http://www.nytimes.com/politics/fir...e-been-more-aggressive-against-oregon-gunman/



I can't get over how insensitive these Politicians have been. And Ben Carson thinks things will play out like a fucking movie.

The insensitive ones are those who disagree with Carson, who think people should just stand and wait to be killed, that others who are willing to engage in protecting others should be prevented from doing so.

Carson merely stated common sense: people who don't want to die shouldn't just stand there, they should try to stop the shooter.

 

[Kulindahr]

The everyone should have guns brigade always imagine themselves the hero of a western shootout.

You really are clueless. A large plurality, if not a majority, want others to carry for their own protection because they have no intention of stepping up unless they themselves are in danger.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Again, mental health is only a part of the problem to this issue. Pushing that as if it is the biggest or only issue, is part of the whole problem. As wrong as it might sound, who says all the individuals who went on mass shootings are people who actually had mental health issues?

I think if it were solely or even mostly a mental health issue other countries would have a similar problem. They don't. Mental health is involved, but I tend to think it usually involves the learned kind. In that vein, how about that specific brand of toxic masculinity that seems t'drive a lot of these shitheels? Tends to be linked to the 'bigger is better' re guns, egos and Internet inches crowd, in all aspects.

- - - Updated - - -

 

[Kulindahr]

I have more fear of being shot by someone playing a "hero" than a nut job just shooting up a place.


Case in point last night before I went to bed a Facebook friend posted a video of two guys trying to rob a place. An old man there had a gun and shot many times in their direction, including after they were out of the building. I noticed though that when he first pulled his gun and shot he was shooting in between two other people. He barely missed those people and who knows where his bullets went out in the street.

Hero types have a tendency to forget the basic rules -- this old man broke two of them, and there are only four!

He also violated the basic premise of self-defense, which is "stop the threat": once they flee, you stop shooting.

 

[Kulindahr]

That's exactly the problem. Imaginary militia types always imagine themselves as Clint Eastwood, regardless of their safety and ability.

"Militia types"? The folks I know who would be willing to be part of an active militia are far more disciplined than that -- indeed, all the Pink Pistols and (back in the day) OSU students I've shot with are far more disciplined than that.

It's less a hero response and more a panic one for gents like the old man.

Good observation -- that's one reason I go gunless on days when I wake up in a state of anxiety.

 

[jbrown329]

Trying to reason with gun nuts.... “Never try to teach a pig to sing; it wastes your time and it annoys the pig.”

 

[Kulindahr]

Again, mental health is only a part of the problem to this issue. Pushing that as if it is the biggest or only issue, is part of the whole problem. As wrong as it might sound, who says all the individuals who went on mass shootings are people who actually had mental health issues?

Oddly, that FBI report cited earlier makes no mention of mental illness, something I figured would at least be provided as background. Estimates I found run from half to three-fourths. But even if it's "only" half, it would be a major step, because half is a big part.

It's also something we should be doing anyway -- and communities that are trying are finding that the programs go beyond cost-effective because of the savings they bring elsewhere! So it's something we owe ourselves as a nation, something that will benefit our communities, as well as something that would make a dent.

John Oliver had some good things to say about this:

 

[Kulindahr]

I honestly don't get this idea where you believe that an armed citizen is likely to shoot an innocent person. It literally just sounds like you're making that comment because you're in favor of more armed citizens and that it is. You are basing that point on nothing at all. Police are trained to handle these types of situations and still make mistakes, get hurt or die in the line of duty. I don't know where you get this idea that a trained or even more-so someone who wasn't trained is more capable. Again, it sounds like a point being made just because it is something you're for, with no logic to back it up.

If these good guys are supposedly stopping these bad guys, then they're doing a pretty bad job of it because I haven't seen anything on it and these mass shootings keep happening. The last couple planned shootings I saw have actually been stopped by the Police, so maybe that is why I trust the Police more than these supposed good guys that do it.

I don't understand what is mind boggling, your post generalizes that all Police Officers are bad Officers because there are ones that abuse their power. Which is weird that you're stating that because it makes your argument worse, if an Officer who is hired by the city to protects its civilians can be corrupt or abuse their power, what is so different then your average armed civilian? Police are ideally supposed to be held by a higher standard and there are still corrupt Officers, why should we believe average armed civilian is any better? Realistically, they are not.

Police shoot the wrong person one the order of five times as often as regular citizens do when in a violent situation. That stands to reason: armed citizens on the scene who see the bad guy don't have to stop to try to figure it out, and thus don't get the wrong person. They also aren't motivated by knowing they'll probably get a paid vacation when they shoot someone, or have a cohort of comrades to cover for them.

 

[Kabluey]

...
Good observation -- that's one reason I go gunless on days when I wake up in a state of anxiety.

To be honest, that you have those days would be a red flag for many.

How do you feel, traveling to other developed countries where you cannot be armed?

 

[Kulindahr]

Both Haynes v. United States and United States v. Freed involved the National Firearms Act, which requires registration and payment of an associated excise tax on what you are referring to as “a tiny number of weapons,” including such things as short-barreled shotguns, short-barreled rifles, machine guns, silencers, and various destructive devices that can be used as weapons. The federal government took an interest in regulating those items because they were being used frequently in the commission of crimes, which adversely affected the public safety / General Welfare of its citizens.

The original wording of the National Firearms Act was defective in that it required the registration of NFA weapons, while failing to address the situation in which convicted felons are not eligible to possess such weapons and therefore could not reasonably comply with the requirement to register them without admitting that their possession of the weapons made them guilty of the crime of possessing an unregistered NFA weapon.

It is important to note that Mr. Haynes had already violated the law by his [unconstitutional] possession of a short-barreled shotgun. His case involved prosecution for his failure to register an NFA weapon.

In Haynes v. United States, the Supreme Court saw his situation much as a “catch-22.” Persons who [illegally] possessed unregistered NFA weapons would, in effect, be pleading guilty to a crime if/when they attempted to comply with the registration requirements for those weapons.

Several years later – after the National Firearms Act was amended to fix that defect – Freed (and other defendants) were indicted for possession and conspiracy to possess unregistered hand grenades. They argued that an expectation for them to comply with the federal registration of such weapons under the National Firearms Act violated their right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court ruled that the charges brought under the amended National Firearms Act did not did not violate the self-incrimination clause of the Fifth Amendment.

It is important to recognize that requiring persons who are prohibited from receiving or possessing a firearm to pass a background check carries ZERO penalty if their application is denied – unless the applicant makes false statements on the application form. The intent of the application is to determine if the applicant is eligible to purchase a firearm. There is no self-incrimination involved.

IF, however, the applicant makes a false certification, then he or she commits a crime punishable as a felony under federal law – though prosecutions for making false statements on the application are very rare.

So in response to Haynes, Congress amended the NFA so it would only apply to people who could lawfully possess a firearm. So criminals can't be prosecuted for not following the requirement to register. So for background checks to conform to that, they can only apply to those who can lawfully possess a firearm -- and thus criminals can't be required to engage in them; in fact, anyone obtaining a firearm with criminal intent can't be required to engage in them. So the result of the two cases is that criminals can't be required to engage in a background check. They can only be prosecuted for doing so and lying.

BTW, an applicant who is denied gets denied in a gun store. That's in front of other people. Is their testimony also excluded?

 

[Kulindahr]

To be honest, that you have those days would be a red flag for many.

How do you feel, traveling to other developed countries where you cannot be armed?

I don't travel to places where the value of my life is so lowly regarded, where it is considered the property of the state rather than mine.

 

[evanrick]

Does anyone else see that this gun debate is an extension of republican cronyism?

Republicans don't give a damn about the constitution, but when it comes to their AGENDA, conservatives will gladly trot out LIBERAL VALUES in defense of their defenseless positions on guns, abortions, and pro-corporate socialism.

Republicans and their gun toting ways are not serious about the 2nd amendment and they never have been, nor are they serious about owning guns, they just want to have their cake and eat it too and pretend (and actually believe) they are 'law abiding patriots' when they actually have NO CLUE what the Constitution stands for and are anything but patriots.

Being a bible thumping gun carrying member of the NRA makes you the worst kind of American, a person with no respect for liberal principles, no respect for liberty that applies to everyone no matter their religion, and their actions compromise the liberty of millions of other Americans who dont take their radical views.

These radicals have always opposed individual rights, it wasn't for the demands of the anti-federalists that a bill of right be included in the constitution, and its 99% of what makes the constitution what it is today.

Nobody gives a flying fuck about the federalist papers or the federal government or separation of powers, without the bill of rights we would have no country and nothing to hold back the courts no matter how many times separation is used, and it still doesn't always work.

Without those liberal principles we would have no moral compass.

If republicans are so upset about their 'rights' then why are they not upset about the NSA or TPP or corporate welfare or attack on voting rights and voter fraud which disenfranchises them as much as the people they hate?

Republicans never point to the constitution and say, yes it say i can own guns, because it doesn't. The right to bear arms lies within the bill of rights which was added after the corporate coup against the articles of confederation.

Its no surprise that modern day republicans do not understand they are abusing their own freedom by using the constitution as a blank check for whatever immorality they see fit.

Ask where the republican reaction is? This is the result of republicans, all of them.

 

[Kabluey]

I don't travel to places where the value of my life is so lowly regarded, where it is considered the property of the state rather than mine.

You're less likely to be shot in every other developed country.

Do you not feel valued unless there's a risk of you being shot?

 

[Mitchymo]

Interesting you refer to that, because right near the start the report states:

"This is not a study of mass killings or mass shootings, but rather a study of a specific type of shooting situation law enforcement and the public may face."

This is in recognition that the report doesn't include incidents which are not essentially a threat to the police or public. Drug/gang related mass shootings for example. Or domestic incidents where a mass killing occurs due to murder-suicide involving family or neighbours only. Furthermore, the report INCLUDES incidents where the victim toll fails to qualify as 'mass'.
It appears to me, that you have jumped on the slightest thing mentioned in the report, that enables you to be dissmissive of it, as evidenced by one of your latter comments (i will note it shortly).

No, you flat out lied about what I've said here -- no assumptions involved.

There is absolutely no difference in the ASSUMPTION that i made, to the assumptions that you make about liberals WANTING people to be unable to defend themselves. Your assumption IS a flat-out lie, since such a suggestion goes against the ideological purpose for gun control in the first place.
My assumption however, was based on your own opposition to practical means of regulation. It was an observational point on your focus appearing to be damage limitation rather than prevention. I can concede that my assumption was a little unfair, but it was drawn from a reasonable observational point. You and your whole 'they don't want people to be defended' couldn't be any more UNREASONABLE.

It's almost always civilians with guns ending these incidents -- no military involvement needed.

This is how i know you didn't bother to study the report.

Just over 56% of conclusions were initiated by the SHOOTER (40% suicides, 16% waiting for arrest, or fleeing the scene).

Then, police action, take second most common means of conclusion, followed thirdly by UNARMED civilians.

So much for citizens with guns being the answer. It is citizens with guns that are the problem.

 

[rareboy]

So now that Ben Carson has blamed the victims....we have passed another one of the milestones in getting to the point of nothing being done once again about America's paranoic and pathological gun problem.

Called it again. Although traditionally, it falls to the NRA to blame the victims after a shooting.

It is like it just gets easier and easier each time

 

[otters]

So now that Ben Carson has blamed the victims....we have passed another one of the milestones in getting to the point of nothing being done once again about America's paranoic and pathological gun problem.

Called it again. Although traditionally, it falls to the NRA to blame the victims after a shooting.

It is like it just gets easier and easier each time

Well, one must suppose Dr Carson was his own hemispherectomy guinea pig.

 

[MakeDigitalLove]

The insensitive ones are those who disagree with Carson, who think people should just stand and wait to be killed, that others who are willing to engage in protecting others should be prevented from doing so.

Carson merely stated common sense: people who don't want to die shouldn't just stand there, they should try to stop the shooter.

Saying that these people were "standing and waiting to be killed" is so fucking messed up to me it is unreal. His views and your views are distorted and unrealistic. Ben Carson can stand up and tell people all this bullshit, because it is easy to do when not in this situation. I would bet someone like Chris Mintz wasn't someone who had a hero complex and sat around preparing for a mass shooting, he did what he did because the situation happened and he reacted. That is a hero and it is incredibly insulting and insensitive for people like Ben Carson who are attempting to take the spotlight away from actual real heroes, who more than likely don't even think of themselves as ones.

Police shoot the wrong person one the order of five times as often as regular citizens do when in a violent situation. That stands to reason: armed citizens on the scene who see the bad guy don't have to stop to try to figure it out, and thus don't get the wrong person. They also aren't motivated by knowing they'll probably get a paid vacation when they shoot someone, or have a cohort of comrades to cover for them.

Your arguments only reveal that there is a serious need for reform when there are gun enthusiasts who have a distorted view of reality like this.

 

[Kabluey]

...Your arguments only reveal that there is a serious need for reform when there are gun enthusiasts who have a distorted view of reality like this.

I have to agree. There reasons given by pro gun carriers tend to emphasize the reasons to strengthen controls. There's a worrying amount of disassociation from reality and paranoia involved.

 

[rareboy]

The key word is paranoia.

The US has been a highly neurotic and paranoid nation from the outset.....a nation founded and forged on fighting off existential threats both real and imagined.

The truth is.... lot of ammosexuals out there suspect that they wouldn't pass the mental health or other tests required to own firearms.

So they have manufactured this great myth about the right to bear arms while ignoring the part about the well regulated militia.

And the gun nuts out there are so limited in their experience of the rest of the world that they don't even see how obviously infantile the outright refusal to implement reasonable and rational controls on access to weapons and ammunition appears to the rest of the civilized world.

And of course, guns are one of the only things that the US still manufactures...so it is a huge economic issue as well.

Eventually, in the dystopian hellscape being created by the oligarchs and plutocrats in the US....I suspect we'll see little kids running around with Kalishnikovs as people fight to make their way across the desert to Gastown.