Depends on how much SCOTUS changes in the next 4-8 years. That horrifically bad Chicago handgun case could be definitely overturned.
My father in law is a big gun nut. My mother in law might have borderline personality. It terrifies me that they're gonna get into a fight one night and things are gonna get out of hand. Even if she got stripped of her right to a gun, she'd still have access to them.
"Intentionally or knowingly" in the criminal context is talking about the required mens rea. There is nowhere in the U.S. where "murder" is not a crime. Homicide may not be criminal, but murder always is.
How many people in Indiana, the breadbasket of America's breadbasket, do you think rely solely on hunting for their food?
Yeah, that's the thing. There is not a ban on guns coming and there is not going to be a door to door round up of guns. Both of those are fucking insane ideas and no one is actually trying to do them.
Or a a correct interpretation of That would give states a lot more power to regulate and control who has access to guns.
This is where I believe your father in law must be held to a standard higher than expected of "normal" individuals. He must act in a way to secure his firearms if he legally wants to own them. He must take preventative measures to ensure his wife never can access them when suffering from effects of the mental illness. It is the exact same thing the mother of the Sandy Hook shooter should have been required to do. Her failure to secure her firearms are in my eyes what ultimately led to his actions. Yes he suffered from mental illness, but his mother making it readily accessible to her firearms was the ultimate failure. For him to be allowed to exercise his rights should come with additional requirements. He is free to enjoy his second ammendment as long as it is worth going through the extra "trouble" as some would call it.
Yeah we've repeatedly asked him to put the guns somewhere that she can't access them, but she wants to be able to protect herself in case someone breaks in while he's gone. If you know anyone with borderline personality you know she's going to win that battle. It's her world and he's just living in it. I keep telling them, statistically you are in way more danger with those things in the house than without them.
I honestly don't see a way for us to control this problem without an all out ban on semiautomatic rifles and handguns. I know that's not gonna happen and I'm all for regulations that try to deal with the problem, but I don't think they'll accomplish anything at all.
I think that safe keeping of firearms is a way bigger issue than mental issues. Unless you consider being an idiot a mental issue. Id bet that there are more unprotected firearms in houses than people who are mentally unstable that have access to guns.
I think people are emotional reactionary creatures in general that shouldn't have a method of killing someone with them at all times. Mental health is such a moving target that it's never going to accomplish anything. You can be a perfectly reasonable person fully capable of owning a gun. Then you lose your job and wife and two months later you're a fucking lunatic. The mental checkups would have to be constant to work. And some government shrink telling you you can't own a gun is so much more big brotherish than banning them altogether.
Well, and I know this will go over like a lead balloon, but we could tax the hell out of them and charge yearly excise taxes. If there is no tax paid, possession becomes illegal, and we could enhance punishment for anything done with a gun with no excise tax paid.
The problem I see with this is you open it up to criticism that denies the right to protect yourself to poor and lower income individuals.
I'm wondering when and where in American History did anti-gun sentiments become a thing. I'm pretty sure that this is the only Amendment that draws so much attention.
The amendment would put the right to hunt and fish on par with other constitutional rights. If it's unsuccessful, it doesn't change the status quo, which in Indiana means a fuckton of hunting. Alabama passed a similar amendment a few years ago and it did literally nothing.
Gun registries are in effect in several areas of the country. Anyone recall the area, believe it was somewhere in New York, that some outfit published the addresses of all gun owners after they gained a copy of the gun registry?
Probably, but I don't think the physical and emotional attachment to the 2nd is as deeply rooted with the 14th.
You say that now, but taking away your guns would be nothing compared to taking away your citizenship.
Your place of birth only guarantees you citizenship because our constitution (specifically the 14th amendment) says it does.
Its on the ballot on a lot of states. Not sure why people think its needed. The language in it specifies that hunting will be the primary form of wildlife management, which for me is the only interesting part of that bill. Could have some ramifications in the future.
So the idea would be wildlife control would have to be based around only hunting? What is the goal of this legislation? What is the issue today they are trying to solve?
I'm not really sure what the ramifications will be. An old colleague pointed that out to me on the IN and KS ballot initiatives. It saying in the constitution that the primary method for management is hunting could come in down the line when people are trying to propose alternate methods for managing populations (sterilizations, relocations etc.) that require some funding. Reached out to some coworkers in KS about it and no one really knows yet. Not sure what the point is, SC passed theirs a while ago in response to the hysteria that Obama was coming for their guns.
What if the wildlife attempting to managed is classified as a threatened or endangered species? You can't legally manage that wildlife through hunting.
"Well Regulated" at the time of the writing of the constitution referred to something being properly equipped; or in good working order.
Right, I don't know what the ramifications of that language would be. Kinda surprised something like that was put into the bill, I guess if its mandated they think hunting will never be outlawed because we have to use it for management? I don't think T&E species would be included because they aren't game animals.
With Trump promising to strengthen the 2nd Amendment, I'm afraid we're no closer to being able to stop shit like this: http://www.wsbtv.com/news/local/atl...school-in-sandy-springs-on-lockdown/465608680 Cliffs: School teacher is placed on leave after being confronted about sending inappropriate texts and emails to former students. School teacher leaves this meeting and drives to Bass Pro Shops. School teacher purchases gun and ammunition. School teacher drives back toward the school and loads his new gun. Officers pull him over, thankfully (though I have no idea how they knew). Also not sure what he was actually arrested for.
Why would we want to stop stopping people from shooting up schools? Somehow I don't think that's really in Papa Trump's agenda.
Seems relevant to the discussion at hand. Also caught 3 trout on the fly less than a mile away from this school on Sunday. Fun fact for you.
\ Look I think you will struggle to ever find someone who feel like the ability for a mentally unstable individual should have immediate access to a firearm. My question is simple, how do we avoid this type of shit happening? Would a waiting period have limited the threat? Or would the individual have waited the time frame and then continued with his plans to harm someone. It is a very tricky situation. I apologize if my response was insensitive. Honestly, if I were president I would devote an incredible amount of resources for psychologists to study individuals and their motives to see what level of effort they were willing to go through to commit these acts. There has to be a balance with this where individuals who wish to harm others are discouraged and innocent citizens can enjoy the freedoms of the 2nd amendment.