Is it time to talk about guns?

No. he wasn't an ex-Muslim either. He was an ex-Iranian, naturalized Norwegian Islamist arrested for terrorism. And he seemed to be "successful" enough with the guns.

 

Get the dust-bunnies while you are there

 

Our northern neighbors are cutting into our action too...

Five males shot, two dead as bullets fly at Oshawa bar | Toronto Sun

 

Do you really believe that the SC decision was a magic wand and now it's okay to tuck a nine in your belt and pretend you're good to go?
Please point out where I said anything remotely close to "illegally carried firearms are the only ones used involved in shootings ".
But since they are predominantly used that way, why are you not behind punishing severely the people who dare do it in our country ?

 

Yes, it definitely was. Without those, he would've been impotent to act.

Just the facts: The Oslo London Pub shooter is Zaniar Matapour, age 42. Iranian Kurd, a former refugee, now a Norwegian citizen. He has a known history with violent behavior, drug use, and mental health problems, and he's also been in contact with some notable figures from the Norwegian muslim communities. He has extreme islamic views and made anti-gay threats on social media prior to the shootings, but no real motive is known at this time. He was on a police watch list.

So, overall, just the type of guy whom you don't want to have guns, and in Norway, no way in a million years would he have been allowed to have legal firearms with that rap sheet. Not after Breivik. The weapons that he used are 100% illegal, and unfortunately it would seem that he had the connections in the drug world to acquire them. Either that, or his muslim buddies arranged for him to have them, since a connection to islamic terrorism is under investigation. Matapour will be charged with terrorism.

 

https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/local/article262883738.html


A 21-year-old Cabarrus County man illegally sold drugs, assault-rifle parts and more than 100 machine-gun conversion kits on Snapchat, federal prosecutors said. Herbert Brooks

Humphries III was sentenced in federal court in Greensboro Friday to 11 years and two months in prison, according to a U.S. Department of Justice news release. Humphries was convicted of two counts of possession of a firearm by a felon and a count each of unlawful possession of an unregistered firearm and distribution of cocaine hydrochloride, prosecutors said.

Humphries was barred from having any firearms because he was a felon at the time of his arrest, according to court documents. He had multiple felony convictions in Union County, including for drug distribution, according to the news release.

 

So did they have bans against felons owning firearms in the eighteenth century? I'm sure they didn't have anything about selling assault rifle parts and machine gun conversion kits. If we're supposed to go by normal eighteenth century controls, as the Supremes say, maybe he was wrongfully convicted under laws that were unconstitutional under the Sacred Second Amendment..

 

If your way of thinking is accurate then everyone that was convinced on a gun charge will soon be let out of the correctional facilities.

 

Good question. My understanding is that we must go by the standards of the eighteenth century, and that public safety can no longer be invoked as a reason for limiting the sacrosanct rights of the individual gun owner beyond normal eighteenth century norms and standards, whatever those were.

 

If they were to apply it retroactively, and apply it to supplying gun parts, that could logically follow. It will keep new generations of lawyers busy trying to figure out where to draw those lines and reinvent the wheel. But in principle, that would seem to be the implication. We hope that common sense prevails and that jurists of good judgment will draw the line somewhere to protect public safety. But the Supreme Court has banned considerations of public safety when it comes to packing--beyond traditional norms of the eighteenth century. Of course, the so-called "police power" of state and local authorities to protect the health, safety welfare and morals of the community was well-established by the eighteenth century--rooted in English and European common law doctrines of sic utere tuo ut alienum non lades (use that which is yours so as not to injure others") and salus populi suprema lex esto ("the welfare of the people shall be the supreme law"). Michael Willrich (2012)Pox But the power wasn't fully developed until the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and is obviously one which Justice Thomas and his ilk thinks is somehow subordinate to the Second Amendment individual right that the Court discovered in 2008. I think the Justices should go back to wearing powdered whigs and be done with it.

 

The broader implications of the Court's recent decision on guns have yet to be determined. NRA ideologues will say it will make folks in the blue states much safer, especially in densely populated cites like New York. Those of us with better judgment and common sense will be concerned. Some of the more paranoid or conspiratorial minded may suspect that the Court's decision is a right wing plot to cause chaos in the more densely populated blue states. Riding the subway will be a more dangerous experience. And since the Supremes have eliminated public safety as a legitimate basis for regulating packing, there will be nothing the New Yorkers can do but take it. Time will tell. And it's not just bad guys with guns that are the problem. Scared good guys with guns can be dangerous too. Some folks feel threatened if a person of a different race looks at them funny. (See the Karen thread in these forums.) The founding fathers couldn't have conceived of urban areas of such magnitude, nor of firearms with such firepower that could be concealed in a purse or pocket. Chief Justice John Marshall, who was around when the Second Amendment was adopted, warned:“we must never forget, that it is a constitution we are expounding.”--meant to endure through the ages, and therefore adaptable to the conditions of changing times. The originalists on the Court seem to have forgotten that, to our peril.

Strange how states rights are so important where reproductive rights are concerned, but mean nothing at all where the newly discovered (2008) individual Second Amendment right is concerned.

 

Yes, Interesting.
at a glance, some of these places are where reproductive rights are most threatened.

 

an Illegal gun is a crime waiting to happen. In NY where Pistol permits are rare, Illegal guns meet the demand.
Let us see how this plays out.

 

https://oag.ca.gov/system/files/media/legal-alert-oag-2022-02.pdf

To All California District Attorneys, Police Chiefs, Sheriffs, County Counsels, and City Attorneys


First, effective immediately, issuing authorities should no longer require proof of good cause for the issuance of a public-carry license. Issuing authorities may still inquire into an applicant’s reasons for desiring a license to the extent those reasons are relevant to other lawful considerations, but denial of a license for lack of “good cause” now violates the Second and Fourteenth Amendments under the Supreme Court’s decision in Bruen.

 

https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2022-07_Directive Clarifying Requirements For Carrying Of Firearms In Public.pdf

Directive Clarifying Requirements For Carrying Of Firearms In Public

Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision that impacts New Jersey’s permitting law but does not eliminate our overall permitting requirements. Under current New Jersey law, an individual can obtain a carry permit only if they can demonstrate to the reviewing officer that the applicant satisfies mandatory statutory requirements: (1) is “not subject to any of the disabilities which would prevent him or her from obtaining a permit to purchase a handgun or a firearms purchaser identification card,” (2) is “thoroughly familiar with the safe handling and use of handguns,” and (3) “[h]as demonstrated a justifiable need to carry a handgun.” N.J.S.A. 2C:58-4; N.J.A.C. 13:54-2.4. The decision in N.Y. State Rifle & Pistol Assoc. v. Bruen, No. 20-843, prevents us from continuing to require a demonstration of justifiable need in order to carry a firearm, but it does not prevent us from enforcing the other requirements in our law.

 

Yeah... That's what the new SCOTUS ruling is all about. "I wanna" is a good enough reason to carry.