Shredding of reasonable gun control laws by courts

glenlogie said:
The grand jury looked at the circumstances and made a decision.
Click to expand...
And you think that was a fair decision given the circumstances?
What circumstances would justify what he did - shoot at a fleeing man in a public place with other people around.
 
vibise said:
So why wasn't that shooter charged for killing that little girl?
Click to expand...
Since you do not have access to all the information the grand jury had, since you are not an objective person when it comes to guns, your criticisms of this particular case can be ignored.
 
vibise said:
And you think that was a fair decision given the circumstances?
What circumstances would justify what he did - shoot at a fleeing man in a public place with other people around.
Click to expand...
unlike you, I do not like to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking.
 
vibise said:
Our well armed society is full of dead bodies, and the pile gets bigger every year.

And we hear stories all the time like . . .
Click to expand...
Yes you do! You ever wonder why you only hear these very atypical stories that almost never happened yet there are dozens of people shot every week and places like Chicago that you hear nothing about? Democrat politicians don't enforce laws against violent crime. That's a big problem because that's the primary responsibility of elected officials. What do they do? Well they make sure that you got stories to read which make up an infinitesimally small percentage of firearm related incidents in this country so that you're not focused on the 99% of gun violence which is a direct result of Democrat politicians not doing their job, which is to enforce the laws against crimes, and in particular criminals. Not law abiding citizens!
 
Thistle said:
The alternative is to have the police come and draw a chalk outline around her body. The idea that the authorities are going to collect enough of the 300 million guns in America to resolve this problem as you seem to think is possible is insane. A well armed society is a very polite society.
Click to expand...
Ensuring that women have guns for "protection" is a dumb idea.

A few years ago a woman was being abused by her ex. She got a gun, and the next time he showed up she pulled out the gun and shot away from him into a wall to show she meant business. She was arrested and got a sentence of 20 years.

www.cnn.com

Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case | CNN

A judge sentenced a Florida woman to 20 years in prison Friday for firing a warning shot in an effort to scare off her abusive husband.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

How about this scenario:
Cops respond to a call and find a dead man and a woman with a gun. The woman says "he tried to kill (or rape) me so I shot him". The cops say:

a - Good job, lady!

b - You're under arrest.
 
glenlogie said:
unlike you, I do not like to engage in Monday morning quarterbacking.
Click to expand...
The decision has to do with Texas laws that make it hard to prosecute someone like this:

the grand jury’s decision was not a surprise as prosecutors’ efforts in this case had little chance of success, according to a legal expert.

Texas law “gives very, very broad self-defense rights for people carrying guns, even if the person makes a mistake,” said Sandra Guerra Thompson, a law professor at the University of Houston Law Center...
Click to expand...

Rick Ramos, the attorney for the Alvarez family, said Wednesday that Earls’ actions were reckless and he questioned whether Earls was capable of carrying a weapon as his lawyers had indicated in court records that he had suffered from mental illness before the shooting.

But Thompson said issues of mental illness would not have made a difference in this case as Texas does not have red flag laws that would allow law enforcement or family members to ask a judge to order the seizure or surrender of guns from someone who is deemed dangerous, often because of mental health concerns or threats of violence. Last year, Texas lawmakers expanded gun rights by letting people carry handguns without first getting a background check and training.
Click to expand...


So in Texas, if you make a mistake and kill a bystander, that is OK.
Also even though the shooter had a history of mental illness, that would not have prevented him from having a gun in Texas as there are no background checks or red flag laws there.
 
vibise said:
Domestic abuse is mentioned in the very first sentence of the decision, which I also quoted in the OP. Another quote from that decision:



Domestic abuse was not only mentioned in this decision, it is the central matter. The question answered by this decision was whether a statute that removes guns from domestic abusers under restraining orders is constitutional. Amazingly, the judge decided that domestic abusers who threaten their wives with death by gun should be able to keep their guns, and that the law removing those guns is unConstitutional!

This is the direct link to the decision which was also linked in the quote I provided:

Click to expand...
Are you arguing for pre-crime legislation?

ie. Predicting that someone “might” commit a crime with a gun?

Beware of the slippery slope, vibise.
 
DeSanto said:
Are you arguing for pre-crime legislation?

ie. Predicting that someone “might” commit a crime with a gun?

Beware of the slippery slope, vibise.
Click to expand...
If someone, like the person in this court case, has a history of firing his gun in anger and a history of domestic violence, then the likelihood of a gun crime goes way up.

Your alternative is what? Access to guns without background checks and reasonable restrictions?
 
vibise said:
Ensuring that women have guns for "protection" is a dumb idea.

A few years ago a woman was being abused by her ex. She got a gun, and the next time he showed up she pulled out the gun and shot away from him into a wall to show she meant business. She was arrested and got a sentence of 20 years.

www.cnn.com

Florida woman sentenced to 20 years in controversial warning shot case | CNN

A judge sentenced a Florida woman to 20 years in prison Friday for firing a warning shot in an effort to scare off her abusive husband.
www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

How about this scenario:
Cops respond to a call and find a dead man and a woman with a gun. The woman says "he tried to kill (or rape) me so I shot him". The cops say:

a - Good job, lady!

b - You're under arrest.
Click to expand...
Provs that in every case where a woman shoots her husband she will be arrested
 
vibise said:
The decision has to do with Texas laws that make it hard to prosecute someone like this:






So in Texas, if you make a mistake and kill a bystander, that is OK.
Also even though the shooter had a history of mental illness, that would not have prevented him from having a gun in Texas as there are no background checks or red flag laws there.
Click to expand...
Monday morning quarterbacking
 
vibise said:
If someone, like the person in this court case, has a history of firing his gun in anger and a history of domestic violence, then the likelihood of a gun crime goes way up.
Click to expand...
So you are arguing for pre-crime legislation? You think our constitutional rights should be violated if there’s a “likelihood” that someone “might” commit a crime????

I bet you would also push for the “Great and Powerful AI” to be the decider of who the “potential” criminals would be.
vibise said:
Your alternative is what?
Click to expand...
Does “innocent until proven guilty” ring a bell???
vibise said:
Access to guns without background checks and reasonable restrictions?
Click to expand...
It’s slippery slope argument, vibse. Next thing you know, angry parents at a school board meeting are labeled domestic terrorists and can’t pass a background check.

Can you see where this is heading?

Or are we already there?
 
Last edited:
DeSanto said:
So you are arguing for pre-crime legislation? You think our constitutional rights should be violated if there’s a “likelihood” that someone “might” commit a crime????

I bet you would also push for the “Great and Powerful AI” to be the decider of who the “potential” criminals would be.

Does “innocent until proven guilty” ring a bell???

It’s slippery slope argument, vibse. Next thing you know, angry parents at a school board meeting are labeled domestic terrorists and can’t pass a background check.

Can you see where this is heading?

Or are we already there?
Click to expand...

The person at the center of the court case in the OP did this:

Over a six-week stretch from December 2020 to January 2021, Rahimi took part in five shootings around Arlington, Tex. He fired an AR-15 into the home of a man to whom he had sold Percocet. The next day, after a car accident, he pulled out a handgun, shot at the other driver and sped off — only to return, fire a different gun and flee again. Rahimi shot at a police car. When a friend’s credit card was declined at a fast-food restaurant, he fired several rounds into the air.
Click to expand...
Plus he had a restraining order for domestic abuse which means he should not have had guns.

Well, he didn't kill anyone, but don't you think his irresponsible actions endangered people? Are you really saying this guy should have a gun?

Should anyone and everyone have a gun?
 
vibise said:
You are not talking about the relevant court case. You are referring to a different court case, which you would know if you had actually read my posts and linked to the decision that is the basis of this thread. A link I provided twice. It was NOT a SCOTUS case.
Click to expand...
So, if you didn't mean Breun, you shouldn't have said,

Vibise said:
So this court decided that in light of the SCOTUS Bruen decision...
Click to expand...
 
Mike McK said:
So, if you didn't mean Breun, you shouldn't have said,
Click to expand...
My whole OP was focused on a specific case and I provided details of that case.
Yes, it was based on Bruen, but that is not what I was talking about.

So what do you have to say about the case in the OP. I provided links to it twice in this thread.
 
vibise said:
Post 11, second sentence.
Click to expand...
No where in that post does he mention giving guns to women. He says the 2nd amendment avails women of that opportunity. It sounds like you do not trust that women can respond correctly to an abuser
 
vibise said:
The person at the center of the court case in the OP did this:


Plus he had a restraining order for domestic abuse which means he should not have had guns.

Well, he didn't kill anyone, but don't you think his irresponsible actions endangered people? Are you really saying this guy should have a gun?

Should anyone and everyone have a gun?
Click to expand...
Again you cannot comprehend a middle ground
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top