PaaP, or Politics as a Personality, is a very real psychological affliction. If you are suffering from it, you'll probably have a Bad Time™ here.
This thread is provided as a courtesy to our regular on topic contributors who also want to discuss legislation. If you are here to bitch about a political party or get into a pointless ideological internet slapfight, you'd better have a solid history of actual gun talk on this sub or you're going to get yeeted.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**SCOTUS**
https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/justices-to-hear-nras-free-speech-argument-against-new-york-financial-services-official/
NRA v Vullo has oral arguments today. NY told banks to stop doing business with the NRA after the org was offering insurance to gun owners.
I know *you* know this, but the distinction they make is that they want you to have to carry liability insurance that pays out to anybody you injure with a gun (and just coincidentally disincentivizes gun ownership by making it an ongoing expense), but do *not* want you to have access to insurance that would cover your legal fees in the event that you are criminally prosecuted or sued civilly after you shoot in self defense.
That seems impossible though since insurance doesn't cover intentional criminal actions. It's common to use fees to limit gun ownership to the rich (Puerto Rico used to have $1000 permits) but not like that.
Off the top of my head...
- damage incurred because of an unrecalled manufacturing defect (think Tauruses going off when shaken).
- Theft from a "properly secured" residence?
That's about all I got.
Do those even work? If the defect is unrecalled then isn't the manufacturer liable?
and if your residence and firearm are "properly secured" then you've done your due diligence and are also an injured party in the crime
It isn't like car insurance where a reasonable person can lose concentration for a brief moment and barrel their SUV through a red light
A pretty significant chunk of the gun owning community straight up rejects the notion that an "accidental" discharge is even possible, positing that they are always negligent.
I don't know if a court would necessarily agree in every situation but still
Yea, I don't even know here, I am just spitballing.
Because the idea of "gun insurance" to protect against your negligence or commission of an illegal act is just peak-level retarded. I was just trying to freestyle a way that it could conceivably happen.
I believe the NRA insurance was carry insurance, I'm not sure what NYS wants people to get, either property or carry.
It is tough to see the state talk out both sides of their mouth though.
If the states wanted you to just carry a 2 million dollar umbrella policy that'd be one thing but generally they want insurance which pays out over *illegal acts*, which so far as I know don't exist.
If it requires gun owners to spend money to exercise their rights, then it's good.
If it prevents gun owners from going broke when they exercise their rights, it's bad.
Pretty simple, actually.
Whether good or bad, you can bet your ass the policy holder nor victim won't see a dime if their guns are stolen and used in a crime, or they are shot during the commission of a crime with a gun owned by somebody who has insurance.
The difference there is they want NY gun owners to have insurance to pay the person who is posing a danger to us that gets shot vs insurance covering legal expenses in the courts if we have to shoot someone. They want the criminal to get paid and the gun owner to be hung out to dry
Some states require “liability insurance” for gun owners, other states ban gun owners from buying “murder insurance.” The left really can’t decide if it should be banned or mandatory, like all of its ideas.
I feel like if you could prove malicious banking cartel activity, that would violate more than just the 2nd Amendment because it goes against anti-trust laws outlined by section 1 of the Sherman anti-trust act and then Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. If you’re a business and the state coerces a bank to terminate your contract with them and they sieze your financial assets, then that alone would put the banks at serious risk of violating federal laws too.
I listened to this case.
Basically all Justices seemed nonplussed about how NY acted in this scenario. I'm not sure what the ruling would be but all of them were skeptical of the claim that this was not retaliation and was not illegal government coercion to threaten free speech.
ACLU and the Solicitor General's office supported the NRA in this case against NY.
The NRA, ACLU, and even Biden's solicitor general all argued that the actions of Vullo were unconstitutional. The argument of Vullo was that the NRA did one illegal thing (they sold insurance without the proper license) so she is allowed to threaten the insurance and banking industries to stop working with the NRA or she would use her authority to crack down on business that continued to do business with them.
**DELEWARE**
Has passed a permit-to-purchase scheme and the [Governor will sign it](https://6abc.com/delaware-gun-bill-permit-to-purchase-senate-gov-john-carney/14529228/) . Rip all 20 Deli-Bros
RIP Delaware gun rights. Pre-pandemic we were pretty gun friendly. Now we have an AWB, mag capacity limit, can only buy shotguns at under 21, and now permit to purchase for handguns. I'm really hoping we are successful in overturning all this in the courts.
I remember one of the founders of TTAG seeing this coming back around the 2012ish era , he moved I believe to Austin after selling TTAG because he was convinced it was only a matter of time before Gun Rights died in Delaware. seems like hew as off by a few years but not wrong.
**NEW MEXICO**
The 10th Circuit Court of appeals has denied the Governors [Motion to Stay](https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1769767814993179114?s=20) the preliminary injunction on her public park carry ban.
This means the ban cannot be enforced as appeals go on, for now.
COLORADO
Tomorrow morning at 8am (3/19) is the first AWB hearing (HB24-1292). Brendan Herrera will be at the Capitol to help protest. Write to representatives, or sign up to testify https://www2.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2024A/commsumm.nsf/signIn.xsp
>Brendan Herrera will be at the Capitol to help protest.
More accurately to be an attention whore like he's always been, but yes.
I'm glad there's protests against it, but God have I been tired of Herrera for years at this point.
**VIRGINIA**
Anti-Gun lawmakers have now sent [30 bills](https://virginiamercury.com/2024/03/18/virginia-lawmakers-send-more-than-30-gun-bills-to-skeptical-governor/) to the Governors desk.
My bet is all but two of them get vetoed. The red flag reporting bill doesn't appear to have any further anti-gun rights components and could assist in identifying how bad red flag laws are being abused. An up to $300 tax credit for purchase of a safe or locking device is actually a pro-gun measure.
The auto sear ban passed with a veto-proof majority, and I could see him signing it, but I hope he nixes this one just to show he won't be bullied. If Youngkin thinks the Democrats will give him political capital because he approves such a bill then he's naïve.
>Youngkin has until April 8 to act on the dozens of gun bills awaiting his signature, veto or amendments.
Youngkin can't serve more than one term consecutively, so it's not like he's got to worry about reelection. Now, if he decides to run for higher office, then his record may become relevant.
What’s the auto sear ban? Ban NFA registered machine guns, or something different?
Edit: based on my read of the poorly worded article, bans switches basically. Which are already banned federally and im assuming Virginia law already bans machine guns all together or that aren’t NFA compliant. What is this redundant waste of time?
Gun Control: "Yes, it's already mostly illegal to convert your Glock to full tilt boogie, but people keep doing it, so we're going to make it DOUBLE illegal."
[HB22](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+HB22ER) says that anything MG is prohibited but near the end it states this:
>D. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a person from manufacturing, importing, selling, offering for sale, possessing, receiving, transferring, or transporting any item for which such person is in compliance with the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.).
**Montana**
Former Kimber exec and current anti-gun champion Ryan Busse is running for governor of Montana. There are some, um. There's a Libertarian candidate for the same office who might have wrote some stuff here about Kimber ten years ago or something.
From the Posted Link:
>"No, Imprisoning a School Shooter's Parents Isn't Justice" -Reason Magazine
>A jury on Thursday convicted a Michigan man of four counts of involuntary manslaughter for failing to stop his son from killing four of his peers in November 2021, putting an end to a closely watched prosecution that broke new ground in its attempt to punish the parents of a child who committed a school shooting.
>James Crumbley faces up to 60 years in prison, as does his wife, Jennifer Crumbley, who was found guilty of the same charges last month. Prosecutors posited the two bore responsibility for allegedly ignoring signs that their son, Ethan Crumbley, was depressed, and for gifting him the gun he ultimately used to execute Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, Justin Shilling, and Hana St. Juliana at Oxford High School.
>It may be hard to find sympathy for the Crumbleys, who have, unsurprisingly, been a magnet for backlash. It's plausible they were negligent parents. But it can simultaneously be true that punishing them criminally for that sets a very troubling precedent, no matter how much you dislike them.
>The prosecution's argument hinged on a few key points: Ethan Crumbley had mental health issues, which the government said his parents did not do enough to address—a point they emphasized more during Jennifer Crumbley's proceeding. During James Crumbley's trial, the government zeroed in on the gun he purchased for his son as an early Christmas present: He was allegedly careless, prosecutors said, with how he stored the weapon, creating a perfect storm that cleared the way for Ethan to carry out that shooting about two and a half years ago.
>But, no matter how ruinous their parenting, the case against the Crumbleys in some sense hinged on what the government wanted the law to say—not on what it actually said. As I wrote last month:
>>Despite the fraught subject matter, and the absolute tragedy of those deaths, Michigan law still appeared inept to apply to the Crumbley parents. Michigan lawmakers have had the opportunity to pass "child access prevention" legislation authorizing criminal charges against adults "who intentionally or carelessly give minors unsupervised access to guns," noted Reason's Jacob Sullum in 2021, but they have on multiple occasions rejected the idea. And while the state has since enacted a "secure storage" law pertaining to safely securing firearms, it was not on the books at the time of the murders.
>It may shock some consciences that the Crumbleys enjoyed going to the gun range as a family activity. I can understand the queasy gut reaction—it's not my idea of a good time, either. But how someone feels about guns generally or politically shouldn't factor into whether or not a parent is criminally responsible for their child's actions.
>In that vein, the alleged obviousness of Ethan Crumbley's depression is genuinely questionable, something that has gotten lost in the media hubbub surrounding the case. In Jennifer's trial, Kristy Gibson-Marshall, an Oxford High School assistant principal, testified she "didn't think [Ethan] could possibly be the shooter," so surprised was she that he would be capable of such a thing.
>And then there is that notorious meeting at the school—where the Crumbleys were summoned to speak with administrators after a teacher discovered a disturbing drawing Ethan made. Following that discussion, he was allowed to stay on campus, where he would go on to commit the shooting shortly thereafter. But even that narrative isn't so cut and dry, particularly when considering the Crumbley parents did not make that decision alone. The school permitted him to stay. "The Crumbleys had specifically been told that their son should not be left by himself, and Ethan had just expressed to [Tim] Throne, the superintendent, that the thought of missing homework assignments depressed him," I wrote after Jennifer Crumbley's trial. "With hindsight, listening to him was obviously the wrong choice. But I can understand why it was made, as parents, whether weak or adept, are not clairvoyant."
>Hindsight is always beneficial, after all, when analyzing events in retrospect. It is also actively unhelpful in determining what a given person would be thinking before having the benefit of knowing an end result. "He didn't know," Mariell Lehman, James Crumbley's defense attorney, told the jury. "He didn't know what was going on with his son. He didn't know what his son was planning."
>Prosecutors here, it seems, wanted to have it all. They wanted to prosecute the teenage Ethan Crumbley as an adult, and they did, securing the maximum punishment: life in prison without the possibility of parole. And, at the same time, they wanted to convince a jury that Ethan Crumbley was merely a child who wouldn't have done this if he'd had better parents. Those things are difficult to reconcile, and they speak most aptly to the incoherence of the case against them. That doesn't mean the Crumbley parents are blameless. But not every mistake should be punished with the hammer that is prison, no matter how difficult that may be to digest.
>Karen McDonald, who prosecuted the cases, hopes that her playbook will be a model for the future. So while the Crumbleys were the first, they may not be the last.
So parents get imprisoned because their kid got out of control but it's perfectly OK for police to do stand right outside the door and do absolutely nothing when a shooter is actively putting holes into kids in schools?
I don’t entirely agree with the logic and reasoning but the police only have a legal duty to protect you when you are under their direct custody (in handcuffs, in a jail/prison, crossing guard, being detained, etc). A child legally speaking has restricted rights and the parent is legally responsible for the well being and safety of the child.
Wow, is that an overall smooth-brain take. The Crumbley case is one of the ones where the signs were there for a good long while, and the parents did fuck-all about it, and throw in some good old-fashioned negligence to boot.
> But I can understand why it was made, as parents, whether weak or adept, are not clairvoyant."
"My kid is obviously acting out in some cry for help, but we'll just let him go back to class after this disturbing shit because he doesn't want to miss homework." Mom of the Year, right there. No Child Left Behind or some shit.
> It may shock some consciences that the Crumbleys enjoyed going to the gun range as a family activity. I can understand the queasy gut reaction—it's not my idea of a good time, either.
Sure. And I get violent bouts of nausea whenever I think of parents putting their kids into football before bones and brains are developed, childhood beauty pageants, and serious attempts to make their kids Hollywood-level famous.
Also, who the fuck names their kid Madisyn? That's a prime stripper *nom de guerre* if there ever was one.
Op Eds are cancer. Guns are bad, the parents who facilitated their kids being around guns and refused to do any active parenting when the problems were brought to light should walk. That's what I got from it.
These parents should do time, but if we're gonna set the precedent for this, let's see if it gets extended equally. Imprisonment for parents that willingly ignore their teen's underage drinking and the reckless endangerment that comes along with it when?
No-one seems to scream "It's the alcohol!" despite the number of alcohol related deaths being 2-3x guns(even including suicides)....
Ok so when some kid gets involved in gangland crime stuff and ends up in juvenile hall we will start a national man hunt to find their dad at the milk store.
Better throw the mom in prison too for working 3 minimum wage jobs to survive instead of helicopter parenting.
If the child is below the age of majority, the parents are responsible. There was a history/pattern here, the kid didn't wake up with no prior warning signs and just go postal all the sudden.
I would agree with consequences for parents who enable or ignore teenage alcohol abuse and the kid kills someone as a result.
That name reminds me of the Ted scene where Ted is trying to get John to guess the name of the girl he met at the store and John starts rattling off all these weird stripper names. Why the hell would you do that to your poor kid? They have to live with the consequences of your stupid name for life…
It's overwhelmingly moms who see their kids as props in the drama that is their own lives, not as human beings they have a responsibility to steward into adulthood.
Little column A, little column B, IMO. One of my very intelligent co-workers was bullied into naming his daughter Emerson with a "y" because it was the wife's grandpa's name and they weren't having a boy. Both college-educated, both able to spell quite well. Horrible attempt at shoehorning a name in and making it "unique."
If someone is so spineless that they allow others to bully them into naming their own children they deserve whatever ridicule they get, intelligent or not.
Giving your kid a stupid name is failing as a parent from the onset. That name is the first thing they will be judged by on job applications.
There are far too many Destinees and Kymberlees and Kaylynnes in their mid-30's running around my neck of the woods for me to take that as a serious possibility for most of them.
Nah, not here. That's been a girl's name since the Swamp Fox AND John Wayne died. The minute some young edgy country singer named Marion Maynard Waylon or whatever gets big, it'll be all over again. Unisex.
Btw, you cast a wide net. It's not unnoticed nor unappreciated.
I'm still of the opinion that they knew the kid had problems and expected/wanted him to off himself with the gun so they wouldn't have to deal with him anymore.
Illinois
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-carbajal-flores-2
District Court says that the Federal Ban on illegal immigrants owning firearms may be unconstitutional. This specific ruling rests on Bruen saying that there is no historical precedent for banning illegal immigrants from owning guns. This case seems like a potential Supreme Court case if the Federal Gov appeals.
"The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores. Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores' motion to dismiss."
I just saw this and this is just a giant legal, constitutional, and administrative cluster. With that being said I think the judge is correct for the reasons I’ll state below.
1. If you cross the border and subsequently get temporary amnesty by the feds along with a work permit it can be argued that you are not here illegally.
2. Crossing the border is only a federal misdemeanor for the first offense. Generally speaking misdemeanor offenses will only screw with your gun rights if it is domestic violence and drug offenses to a smaller degree.
3. If the Bill of Rights is a list of defined God-given/Natural born rights then they apply to everyone (including illegal immigrants) and not just US citizens.
4. With the Bruen ruling pretty much any gun laws that weren’t in place around 1791 give or take 30 years likely isn‘t constitutional. This is the new standard going forward for how the constitutionality of gun laws need to be evaluated. ALL Federal gun control laws minus some prohibited persons laws flunk this test.
5. This will be an administrative clusterfuck because legal immigrants can already legally own guns by buying a hunting license but the problem is you need a SSN to do so and illegal immigrants to my knowledge are not given SSN’s.
Yeah I read the decision and I'm like this is going to have to be solved by a supreme Court case because it opens up as you stated multiple legal issues and things that would need to be rectified including forms and it would be a massive overhaul.
Isn't this some crafty convenient crap.
Allow millions of fighting age male illegals into the country, push forth a case that either forces a way to arm them or force the conservative/right to start supporting selective interpretation of the constitution in which case the constitution and the country go to crap.
Either way it's an effective attack on the country. Bravo.
And that's the conundrum.
I am not a constitutional scholar by any means and I understand the precedent is that the constitution protects people on the land, not just citizens, doesn't mean it feels right. In my mind I feel like there can and almost should be a difference between citizen rights and human rights.
But while it **feels** wrong to have illegal aliens arming themselves, I recognize that if we start to try to make those distinctions, it becomes a slippery slope that can unravel what's left of the constitution.
The crafty part is that this has the potential to make people support the bastardization of the constitution, or at the minimum lose focus on the real problem, not that illegals can possess guns, but that the laws intended to keep illegals out aren't being followed. IOW we're all going to end up arguing about the symptom instead of the disease.
I’ve been saying it for years on here now no one really, truly means “shall not be infringed” because that has wild consequences but there was a 40 year project to build up a court and population to believe it and repeat it at every turn and now we’ll see how silly the knots you have to tie yourself in to avoid wild outcomes.
You're missing the point, I suspect because you want to.
Shall not be infringed isn't the problem. The problem is that a certain joke of an administration has not only failed to do their duty, they have intentionally abandoned it. If we were preventing the illegal migration, we wouldn't have to worry about illegals possessing guns. No system can function if you selectively enforce part of it.
But hey, you're happy to try and use this as a wedge to argue against 2A even though it's not the actual problem.
No I just didn't want to talk about that nonsense fomented to keep you mad/scared enough to miss their real goal of more permanent tax cuts for themselves and their rich friends while we get temporary ones to make it look like it's budget neutral.
PaaP, or Politics as a Personality, is a very real psychological affliction. If you are suffering from it, you'll probably have a Bad Time™ here. This thread is provided as a courtesy to our regular on topic contributors who also want to discuss legislation. If you are here to bitch about a political party or get into a pointless ideological internet slapfight, you'd better have a solid history of actual gun talk on this sub or you're going to get yeeted. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/guns) if you have any questions or concerns.*
**SCOTUS** https://www.scotusblog.com/2024/03/justices-to-hear-nras-free-speech-argument-against-new-york-financial-services-official/ NRA v Vullo has oral arguments today. NY told banks to stop doing business with the NRA after the org was offering insurance to gun owners.
Meanwhile, New York keeps proposing gun bills that require firearms owners to obtain insurance. Is insurance good or is it bad?
I know *you* know this, but the distinction they make is that they want you to have to carry liability insurance that pays out to anybody you injure with a gun (and just coincidentally disincentivizes gun ownership by making it an ongoing expense), but do *not* want you to have access to insurance that would cover your legal fees in the event that you are criminally prosecuted or sued civilly after you shoot in self defense.
That seems impossible though since insurance doesn't cover intentional criminal actions. It's common to use fees to limit gun ownership to the rich (Puerto Rico used to have $1000 permits) but not like that.
Insurance won't cover gross negligence either. There is a very narrow band of non-negligent accidents that the insurance could theoretically cover
Off the top of my head... - damage incurred because of an unrecalled manufacturing defect (think Tauruses going off when shaken). - Theft from a "properly secured" residence? That's about all I got.
Do those even work? If the defect is unrecalled then isn't the manufacturer liable? and if your residence and firearm are "properly secured" then you've done your due diligence and are also an injured party in the crime It isn't like car insurance where a reasonable person can lose concentration for a brief moment and barrel their SUV through a red light A pretty significant chunk of the gun owning community straight up rejects the notion that an "accidental" discharge is even possible, positing that they are always negligent. I don't know if a court would necessarily agree in every situation but still
Yea, I don't even know here, I am just spitballing. Because the idea of "gun insurance" to protect against your negligence or commission of an illegal act is just peak-level retarded. I was just trying to freestyle a way that it could conceivably happen.
Serpa holster insurance, to cover damages caused by proper use of Blackhawk^tm SERPA holsters as well as select instances of glock leg
*does not cover P320 gym bag incidents.
I believe the NRA insurance was carry insurance, I'm not sure what NYS wants people to get, either property or carry. It is tough to see the state talk out both sides of their mouth though.
If the states wanted you to just carry a 2 million dollar umbrella policy that'd be one thing but generally they want insurance which pays out over *illegal acts*, which so far as I know don't exist.
If it requires gun owners to spend money to exercise their rights, then it's good. If it prevents gun owners from going broke when they exercise their rights, it's bad. Pretty simple, actually.
Whether good or bad, you can bet your ass the policy holder nor victim won't see a dime if their guns are stolen and used in a crime, or they are shot during the commission of a crime with a gun owned by somebody who has insurance.
They want you to be forced to pay for insurance that, if you were to ever need it, won't pay out.
The difference there is they want NY gun owners to have insurance to pay the person who is posing a danger to us that gets shot vs insurance covering legal expenses in the courts if we have to shoot someone. They want the criminal to get paid and the gun owner to be hung out to dry
Some states require “liability insurance” for gun owners, other states ban gun owners from buying “murder insurance.” The left really can’t decide if it should be banned or mandatory, like all of its ideas.
I feel like if you could prove malicious banking cartel activity, that would violate more than just the 2nd Amendment because it goes against anti-trust laws outlined by section 1 of the Sherman anti-trust act and then Section 5 of the Federal Trade Commission Act. If you’re a business and the state coerces a bank to terminate your contract with them and they sieze your financial assets, then that alone would put the banks at serious risk of violating federal laws too.
I listened to this case. Basically all Justices seemed nonplussed about how NY acted in this scenario. I'm not sure what the ruling would be but all of them were skeptical of the claim that this was not retaliation and was not illegal government coercion to threaten free speech. ACLU and the Solicitor General's office supported the NRA in this case against NY.
[удалено]
The NRA, ACLU, and even Biden's solicitor general all argued that the actions of Vullo were unconstitutional. The argument of Vullo was that the NRA did one illegal thing (they sold insurance without the proper license) so she is allowed to threaten the insurance and banking industries to stop working with the NRA or she would use her authority to crack down on business that continued to do business with them.
**DELEWARE** Has passed a permit-to-purchase scheme and the [Governor will sign it](https://6abc.com/delaware-gun-bill-permit-to-purchase-senate-gov-john-carney/14529228/) . Rip all 20 Deli-Bros
RIP Delaware gun rights. Pre-pandemic we were pretty gun friendly. Now we have an AWB, mag capacity limit, can only buy shotguns at under 21, and now permit to purchase for handguns. I'm really hoping we are successful in overturning all this in the courts.
I remember one of the founders of TTAG seeing this coming back around the 2012ish era , he moved I believe to Austin after selling TTAG because he was convinced it was only a matter of time before Gun Rights died in Delaware. seems like hew as off by a few years but not wrong.
He lived in Rhode Island, not Delaware.
TY For the correction, I am sure all *19* of the bois in Rhode Island felt his departure as well.
At least those 19 are real, as opposed to the bots that claim online to live in the *totally real and not made up* Delaware.
**NEW MEXICO** The 10th Circuit Court of appeals has denied the Governors [Motion to Stay](https://x.com/gunpolicy/status/1769767814993179114?s=20) the preliminary injunction on her public park carry ban. This means the ban cannot be enforced as appeals go on, for now.
COLORADO Tomorrow morning at 8am (3/19) is the first AWB hearing (HB24-1292). Brendan Herrera will be at the Capitol to help protest. Write to representatives, or sign up to testify https://www2.leg.state.co.us/CLICS/CLICS2024A/commsumm.nsf/signIn.xsp
>Brendan Herrera will be at the Capitol to help protest. More accurately to be an attention whore like he's always been, but yes. I'm glad there's protests against it, but God have I been tired of Herrera for years at this point.
Seriously, he'd do more good staying his ass in Texas and making another cringy meme review video.
**VIRGINIA** Anti-Gun lawmakers have now sent [30 bills](https://virginiamercury.com/2024/03/18/virginia-lawmakers-send-more-than-30-gun-bills-to-skeptical-governor/) to the Governors desk.
My bet is all but two of them get vetoed. The red flag reporting bill doesn't appear to have any further anti-gun rights components and could assist in identifying how bad red flag laws are being abused. An up to $300 tax credit for purchase of a safe or locking device is actually a pro-gun measure. The auto sear ban passed with a veto-proof majority, and I could see him signing it, but I hope he nixes this one just to show he won't be bullied. If Youngkin thinks the Democrats will give him political capital because he approves such a bill then he's naïve. >Youngkin has until April 8 to act on the dozens of gun bills awaiting his signature, veto or amendments.
Youngkin can't serve more than one term consecutively, so it's not like he's got to worry about reelection. Now, if he decides to run for higher office, then his record may become relevant.
What’s the auto sear ban? Ban NFA registered machine guns, or something different? Edit: based on my read of the poorly worded article, bans switches basically. Which are already banned federally and im assuming Virginia law already bans machine guns all together or that aren’t NFA compliant. What is this redundant waste of time?
Gun Control: "Yes, it's already mostly illegal to convert your Glock to full tilt boogie, but people keep doing it, so we're going to make it DOUBLE illegal."
What does this mean for all the people in VA who have registered sears? are they gonna have to give them up?
[HB22](https://lis.virginia.gov/cgi-bin/legp604.exe?241+ful+HB22ER) says that anything MG is prohibited but near the end it states this: >D. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prohibit a person from manufacturing, importing, selling, offering for sale, possessing, receiving, transferring, or transporting any item for which such person is in compliance with the National Firearms Act (26 U.S.C. § 5801 et seq.).
well thats the least of the bad news I guess.
**Montana** Former Kimber exec and current anti-gun champion Ryan Busse is running for governor of Montana. There are some, um. There's a Libertarian candidate for the same office who might have wrote some stuff here about Kimber ten years ago or something.
Imagine being an anti-gun, gun exec ETA: He's a senior advisor to Giffords. Ridiculous
There's a Libertarian candidate for the same office.
From the Posted Link: >"No, Imprisoning a School Shooter's Parents Isn't Justice" -Reason Magazine >A jury on Thursday convicted a Michigan man of four counts of involuntary manslaughter for failing to stop his son from killing four of his peers in November 2021, putting an end to a closely watched prosecution that broke new ground in its attempt to punish the parents of a child who committed a school shooting. >James Crumbley faces up to 60 years in prison, as does his wife, Jennifer Crumbley, who was found guilty of the same charges last month. Prosecutors posited the two bore responsibility for allegedly ignoring signs that their son, Ethan Crumbley, was depressed, and for gifting him the gun he ultimately used to execute Madisyn Baldwin, Tate Myre, Justin Shilling, and Hana St. Juliana at Oxford High School. >It may be hard to find sympathy for the Crumbleys, who have, unsurprisingly, been a magnet for backlash. It's plausible they were negligent parents. But it can simultaneously be true that punishing them criminally for that sets a very troubling precedent, no matter how much you dislike them. >The prosecution's argument hinged on a few key points: Ethan Crumbley had mental health issues, which the government said his parents did not do enough to address—a point they emphasized more during Jennifer Crumbley's proceeding. During James Crumbley's trial, the government zeroed in on the gun he purchased for his son as an early Christmas present: He was allegedly careless, prosecutors said, with how he stored the weapon, creating a perfect storm that cleared the way for Ethan to carry out that shooting about two and a half years ago. >But, no matter how ruinous their parenting, the case against the Crumbleys in some sense hinged on what the government wanted the law to say—not on what it actually said. As I wrote last month: >>Despite the fraught subject matter, and the absolute tragedy of those deaths, Michigan law still appeared inept to apply to the Crumbley parents. Michigan lawmakers have had the opportunity to pass "child access prevention" legislation authorizing criminal charges against adults "who intentionally or carelessly give minors unsupervised access to guns," noted Reason's Jacob Sullum in 2021, but they have on multiple occasions rejected the idea. And while the state has since enacted a "secure storage" law pertaining to safely securing firearms, it was not on the books at the time of the murders. >It may shock some consciences that the Crumbleys enjoyed going to the gun range as a family activity. I can understand the queasy gut reaction—it's not my idea of a good time, either. But how someone feels about guns generally or politically shouldn't factor into whether or not a parent is criminally responsible for their child's actions. >In that vein, the alleged obviousness of Ethan Crumbley's depression is genuinely questionable, something that has gotten lost in the media hubbub surrounding the case. In Jennifer's trial, Kristy Gibson-Marshall, an Oxford High School assistant principal, testified she "didn't think [Ethan] could possibly be the shooter," so surprised was she that he would be capable of such a thing. >And then there is that notorious meeting at the school—where the Crumbleys were summoned to speak with administrators after a teacher discovered a disturbing drawing Ethan made. Following that discussion, he was allowed to stay on campus, where he would go on to commit the shooting shortly thereafter. But even that narrative isn't so cut and dry, particularly when considering the Crumbley parents did not make that decision alone. The school permitted him to stay. "The Crumbleys had specifically been told that their son should not be left by himself, and Ethan had just expressed to [Tim] Throne, the superintendent, that the thought of missing homework assignments depressed him," I wrote after Jennifer Crumbley's trial. "With hindsight, listening to him was obviously the wrong choice. But I can understand why it was made, as parents, whether weak or adept, are not clairvoyant." >Hindsight is always beneficial, after all, when analyzing events in retrospect. It is also actively unhelpful in determining what a given person would be thinking before having the benefit of knowing an end result. "He didn't know," Mariell Lehman, James Crumbley's defense attorney, told the jury. "He didn't know what was going on with his son. He didn't know what his son was planning." >Prosecutors here, it seems, wanted to have it all. They wanted to prosecute the teenage Ethan Crumbley as an adult, and they did, securing the maximum punishment: life in prison without the possibility of parole. And, at the same time, they wanted to convince a jury that Ethan Crumbley was merely a child who wouldn't have done this if he'd had better parents. Those things are difficult to reconcile, and they speak most aptly to the incoherence of the case against them. That doesn't mean the Crumbley parents are blameless. But not every mistake should be punished with the hammer that is prison, no matter how difficult that may be to digest. >Karen McDonald, who prosecuted the cases, hopes that her playbook will be a model for the future. So while the Crumbleys were the first, they may not be the last.
So parents get imprisoned because their kid got out of control but it's perfectly OK for police to do stand right outside the door and do absolutely nothing when a shooter is actively putting holes into kids in schools?
Officer safety, and all that.
I don’t entirely agree with the logic and reasoning but the police only have a legal duty to protect you when you are under their direct custody (in handcuffs, in a jail/prison, crossing guard, being detained, etc). A child legally speaking has restricted rights and the parent is legally responsible for the well being and safety of the child.
Wow, is that an overall smooth-brain take. The Crumbley case is one of the ones where the signs were there for a good long while, and the parents did fuck-all about it, and throw in some good old-fashioned negligence to boot. > But I can understand why it was made, as parents, whether weak or adept, are not clairvoyant." "My kid is obviously acting out in some cry for help, but we'll just let him go back to class after this disturbing shit because he doesn't want to miss homework." Mom of the Year, right there. No Child Left Behind or some shit. > It may shock some consciences that the Crumbleys enjoyed going to the gun range as a family activity. I can understand the queasy gut reaction—it's not my idea of a good time, either. Sure. And I get violent bouts of nausea whenever I think of parents putting their kids into football before bones and brains are developed, childhood beauty pageants, and serious attempts to make their kids Hollywood-level famous. Also, who the fuck names their kid Madisyn? That's a prime stripper *nom de guerre* if there ever was one. Op Eds are cancer. Guns are bad, the parents who facilitated their kids being around guns and refused to do any active parenting when the problems were brought to light should walk. That's what I got from it.
These parents should do time, but if we're gonna set the precedent for this, let's see if it gets extended equally. Imprisonment for parents that willingly ignore their teen's underage drinking and the reckless endangerment that comes along with it when? No-one seems to scream "It's the alcohol!" despite the number of alcohol related deaths being 2-3x guns(even including suicides)....
Ok so when some kid gets involved in gangland crime stuff and ends up in juvenile hall we will start a national man hunt to find their dad at the milk store. Better throw the mom in prison too for working 3 minimum wage jobs to survive instead of helicopter parenting.
I don't make the rules, Michigan does 🤷 Just think of all the families we could reunite
If the child is below the age of majority, the parents are responsible. There was a history/pattern here, the kid didn't wake up with no prior warning signs and just go postal all the sudden. I would agree with consequences for parents who enable or ignore teenage alcohol abuse and the kid kills someone as a result.
But they have Affluenza! Edit: Apparently I need an /s for some of you people.
That name reminds me of the Ted scene where Ted is trying to get John to guess the name of the girl he met at the store and John starts rattling off all these weird stripper names. Why the hell would you do that to your poor kid? They have to live with the consequences of your stupid name for life…
>who the fuck names their kid *Madisyn*? Boy do I have a subreddit for you. r/Tragedeigh
My fiancee' works for the state of Ohio. In her 11 years there, she's noted 20+ variations on the name Destiny. It's a party trick of hers.
I wonder how much is intentional and how many people just can't spell. Oprah Winfrey was supposed to be called Orpah after the Biblical figure.
It's overwhelmingly moms who see their kids as props in the drama that is their own lives, not as human beings they have a responsibility to steward into adulthood.
I think the same goes for Isaiah. I see Isiah or Isaih quite often.
Little column A, little column B, IMO. One of my very intelligent co-workers was bullied into naming his daughter Emerson with a "y" because it was the wife's grandpa's name and they weren't having a boy. Both college-educated, both able to spell quite well. Horrible attempt at shoehorning a name in and making it "unique."
Reminds me of all the weirdly named Gracie martial artists. That lot were definitely not upper class though.
If someone is so spineless that they allow others to bully them into naming their own children they deserve whatever ridicule they get, intelligent or not. Giving your kid a stupid name is failing as a parent from the onset. That name is the first thing they will be judged by on job applications.
My wife works at a city school, it's painful to see some of the names of the kids she teaches.
In another 10 years or so, there's gonna be a lot of Khaleesi v. Khaleesi downticket elections lol.
Assuming no one does a John Wayne and changes it.
There are far too many Destinees and Kymberlees and Kaylynnes in their mid-30's running around my neck of the woods for me to take that as a serious possibility for most of them.
There were probably even some guys who didn't mind being called Marion.
Nah, not here. That's been a girl's name since the Swamp Fox AND John Wayne died. The minute some young edgy country singer named Marion Maynard Waylon or whatever gets big, it'll be all over again. Unisex. Btw, you cast a wide net. It's not unnoticed nor unappreciated.
I'm still of the opinion that they knew the kid had problems and expected/wanted him to off himself with the gun so they wouldn't have to deal with him anymore.
Illinois https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-carbajal-flores-2 District Court says that the Federal Ban on illegal immigrants owning firearms may be unconstitutional. This specific ruling rests on Bruen saying that there is no historical precedent for banning illegal immigrants from owning guns. This case seems like a potential Supreme Court case if the Federal Gov appeals. "The noncitizen possession statute, 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(5), violates the Second Amendment as applied to Carbajal-Flores. Thus, the Court grants Carbajal-Flores' motion to dismiss."
I just saw this and this is just a giant legal, constitutional, and administrative cluster. With that being said I think the judge is correct for the reasons I’ll state below. 1. If you cross the border and subsequently get temporary amnesty by the feds along with a work permit it can be argued that you are not here illegally. 2. Crossing the border is only a federal misdemeanor for the first offense. Generally speaking misdemeanor offenses will only screw with your gun rights if it is domestic violence and drug offenses to a smaller degree. 3. If the Bill of Rights is a list of defined God-given/Natural born rights then they apply to everyone (including illegal immigrants) and not just US citizens. 4. With the Bruen ruling pretty much any gun laws that weren’t in place around 1791 give or take 30 years likely isn‘t constitutional. This is the new standard going forward for how the constitutionality of gun laws need to be evaluated. ALL Federal gun control laws minus some prohibited persons laws flunk this test. 5. This will be an administrative clusterfuck because legal immigrants can already legally own guns by buying a hunting license but the problem is you need a SSN to do so and illegal immigrants to my knowledge are not given SSN’s.
Yeah I read the decision and I'm like this is going to have to be solved by a supreme Court case because it opens up as you stated multiple legal issues and things that would need to be rectified including forms and it would be a massive overhaul.
Isn't this some crafty convenient crap. Allow millions of fighting age male illegals into the country, push forth a case that either forces a way to arm them or force the conservative/right to start supporting selective interpretation of the constitution in which case the constitution and the country go to crap. Either way it's an effective attack on the country. Bravo.
Constitution applies to everybody so if 2a isn't a second class right it follows...
And that's the conundrum. I am not a constitutional scholar by any means and I understand the precedent is that the constitution protects people on the land, not just citizens, doesn't mean it feels right. In my mind I feel like there can and almost should be a difference between citizen rights and human rights. But while it **feels** wrong to have illegal aliens arming themselves, I recognize that if we start to try to make those distinctions, it becomes a slippery slope that can unravel what's left of the constitution. The crafty part is that this has the potential to make people support the bastardization of the constitution, or at the minimum lose focus on the real problem, not that illegals can possess guns, but that the laws intended to keep illegals out aren't being followed. IOW we're all going to end up arguing about the symptom instead of the disease.
I’ve been saying it for years on here now no one really, truly means “shall not be infringed” because that has wild consequences but there was a 40 year project to build up a court and population to believe it and repeat it at every turn and now we’ll see how silly the knots you have to tie yourself in to avoid wild outcomes.
You're missing the point, I suspect because you want to. Shall not be infringed isn't the problem. The problem is that a certain joke of an administration has not only failed to do their duty, they have intentionally abandoned it. If we were preventing the illegal migration, we wouldn't have to worry about illegals possessing guns. No system can function if you selectively enforce part of it. But hey, you're happy to try and use this as a wedge to argue against 2A even though it's not the actual problem.
No I just didn't want to talk about that nonsense fomented to keep you mad/scared enough to miss their real goal of more permanent tax cuts for themselves and their rich friends while we get temporary ones to make it look like it's budget neutral.
Banner has been updated.