After the eighth school shooting in seven weeks – some gun control proposals

Puts things in perspective.
Lets not take rights away from law abiding citizens in first world countries

 

Yes, there was plenty of reasonable suspicion warranting investigation, and they should have kept him under close surveillance. That might have turned up something, but in the absence of something more, there was no basis for an arrest. Maybe if they had interrogated him, which they could have, it would have scared him off. Who knows? The other question is what was the extent of their investigatory resources and the other demands on them. We live in an era of budgetary constraints even for law enforcement. As I said, Tso Sun supplied the essential ingredient: he mentioned a specific school on a specific date and warned a friend not to be there.

 

Yeah, that definition is kind of elusive, isn't it? I wonder why.

 

Your first statement contradicts your second statement. So, is it that AR-15s have never been listed as assault rifles, or is it that they are listed in some states as an assault weapon because of a pistol grip and other factors?

Since I've already provided a list of mass shootings that show that pistol grips really have no bearing on the deadliness of the AR-15 in a mass shooting scenario, and that pistols are pretty much on par with them, let's look at the other factors that allegedly make an AR-15 an assault rifle. So what's next on the list?

 

No. I've looked it up, and it turns out that a written or verbal threat to do bodily harm is a felony, and in some cases, a terrorist threat.

 

Right. And when the person who knew Cruz called the FBI and reported him (that being their second tip), the FBI knew who he was and where he was. From that point, the intended school would probably be the one that he attended and was bullied in. The FBI admitted that the information they received should have been assessed as a potential threat to life, but that they failed to act. They understand and acknowledge their failure. Others have difficulty accepting that.

 

"self defense" with a gun is a lie. real life just plain don't work that way. and a right? you have a right to own an automobile too. and its no violation of that right to have to take a driving test before being allowed to drive one on a public road. but really no NEEDS to own a gun, if you can own tasers and pepper spray, which you also can legally in the state where i live.
also the u.s. constitutional right, is for "a well regulated malitia" to "keep and bear arms". a bunch of nazi nuts in idaho does NOT constitute "a well regulated malitia".
i have a legal right to be 100% autistic too, and to starve to death doing so.

 

Well then I guess we should ban all guns. I'm not sure if the criminals who like their guns will turn them in, but maybe they'll see the light and come to their senses. Hope is a wonderful thing.

 

Still not enough for more than a follow up investigation. The first tip was that he wanted to be a school shooter someday. The second tip was about "Cruz’s gun ownership, desire to kill people, erratic behavior, and disturbing social media posts, as well as the potential of him conducting a school shooting." Potential isn't actual. Unlike Tso Sun, he didn't say he was going to shoot up a specific school at a specific time. Without that, there could be no arrest--only an investigation. What would they arrest him for? Since he hadn't shot anyone yet, it could only be attempt. The elements required to make out a case for attempt vary from one jurisdiction to another, but at minimum there has to be a substantial act. Federal law, unlike state law, has no general crime of attempt. The requirements vary with the specific crime attempted. But under no definition is it enough just to say you want to do something someday, even if you have lots of guns, and a history of erratic behavior and disturbing social media posts.
https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42001.pdf
Attempt: An Abridged Overview of Federal Criminal Law

 

The "assault weapon" label just means that the gun has scary looking cosmetic features (like a pistol grip) that there is no justification for banning.

 

There is no important governmental interest served in restricting any of those features. Therefore any such restrictions are unconstitutional.

 

Wrong. People have the right to have guns for personal self defense.

It is a violation of our rights, however, to restrict access to pistol grips without any justification.

So why don't we take guns away from police officers and send them out on patrol armed only with tasers and pepper spray?

That is incorrect. The right includes ordinary citizens having guns for personal self defense.

 

The leading case is District of Columbia v. Heller 554 U.S.570 (2008) in which the Court makes clear: "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues... Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56. What specific weapons you keep and carry will be worked out in the first instance by lawmakers and ultimately by the courts. Restrictions can't be imposed "without any justification", but the "rational basis" test used to determine the reasonableness of the justification gives a strong benefit of the doubt to the lawmakers' judgments.

 

Exactly.