United States & Gun Control discussion.

Just to follow up my above, a post of mine from 2015.

A

Post in thread 'United States & Gun Control discussion.'

Regarding militias, and this is a long post so you’ve been warned.

I think we frame the “militia” argument against beliefs and values of the 21st Century instead of the 18th or even the 14th centuries. Our Founding Fathers had a “liberal arts” education. There wasn’t much of a Major or specialized path, a college degree back then was “You need x classes to graduate” which meant they had a little of this and that. Law school wasn’t a necessity; you worked/ studied under a lawyer admitted to the bar and then took your test. Education was different back then.

Why this matters is it allows...
  • Like
 
§246. Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

(b) The classes of the militia are—

(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and

(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

1916 Language

Title 32 Exceptions - 32 U.S. Code § 313 - Appointments and enlistments: age limitations

(a)To be eligible for original enlistment in the National Guard, a person must be at least 17 years of age and under 45, or under 64 years of age and a former member of the Regular Army, Regular Navy, Regular Air Force, or Regular Marine Corps. To be eligible for reenlistment, a person must be under 64 years of age.

(b) To be eligible for appointment as an officer of the National Guard, a person must—
(1) be a citizen of the United States; and
(2) be at least 18 years of age and under 64.
Click to expand...


So for like I guess the millionth time, the regulations of the militia are fairly simple. Every male that is between 17 and 45 and is a citizen. No Congress has ever even attempted to amend this language to make it only the National Guard.
 
AWP said:
People reading the Bill of Rights without understanding the history behind them...

The Founding Fathers knew what they were doing and had a firm grasp on mankind's evolution, to include weapons.
Click to expand...

There is a 'however': Several of the early states/former colonies had some gun control and regulated who could and could not have guns, but to your point, they were vocal (as evidenced by the laws at the time) about requiring a militia.

Even then with the language of 2A they were letting states make their own rules regarding gun laws.
 
So...in Typical Texas fashion.....

Texas lawmakers passed SB 1596, which would legalize short-barrel firearms under state law. These weapons, often called "sawed-off" shotguns, are already federally legal with restrictions. The bill now heads to Gov. Greg Abbott, who will decide whether to sign it into law.

Texas House passes bill to legalize short-barrel firearms

So, Texas has legalized suppressors that are built in Texas (no test cases yet), and now looking to do away with SBR/SBS restrictions.....

Interesting times.....
 
Kraut783 said:
So...in Typical Texas fashion.....

Texas lawmakers passed SB 1596, which would legalize short-barrel firearms under state law. These weapons, often called "sawed-off" shotguns, are already federally legal with restrictions. The bill now heads to Gov. Greg Abbott, who will decide whether to sign it into law.

Texas House passes bill to legalize short-barrel firearms

So, Texas has legalized suppressors that are built in Texas (no test cases yet), and now looking to do away with SBR/SBS restrictions.....

Interesting times.....
Click to expand...

Do you think this is an effort to eventually get it before the Supreme Court or otherwise cause the Federal gov't to rule on suppressors/ SBRs? Pass the law and wait for the almost guaranteed lawsuit to halt its implementation so that it then goes to the courts?
 
Kraut783 said:
So...in Typical Texas fashion.....

Texas lawmakers passed SB 1596, which would legalize short-barrel firearms under state law. These weapons, often called "sawed-off" shotguns, are already federally legal with restrictions. The bill now heads to Gov. Greg Abbott, who will decide whether to sign it into law.

Texas House passes bill to legalize short-barrel firearms

So, Texas has legalized suppressors that are built in Texas (no test cases yet), and now looking to do away with SBR/SBS restrictions.....

Interesting times.....
Click to expand...

Reminds me of the Montana 30-20-104. Prohibitions, MCA.
 
AWP said:
Do you think this is an effort to eventually get it before the Supreme Court or otherwise cause the Federal gov't to rule on suppressors/ SBRs? Pass the law and wait for the almost guaranteed lawsuit to halt its implementation so that it then goes to the courts?
Click to expand...

Probably...kinda like legalizing weed in several states and able to tax it. Still federally illegal....but the feds are ignoring/allowing it.
 
Meanwhile I carry special insurance to cover legal costs in case I shoot someone defending my family and home. Because I'm guaranteed charges and have to fight hard to not end up in jail.
Jury acquits teen who claimed self-defence in fatal Toronto school shooting, saying he carried gun because his neighbourhood was ‘like Iraq'
Click to expand...

A Toronto jury on Friday acquitted a 20-year-old man of second-degree murder, accepting his claim that he fired four shots in self-defence, believing the victim — 18-year-old Jefferson Guerrier — was “lunging” at him with a knife outside a high school in the city’s east end.
The fatal shooting just as classes were ending for the day on Halloween in 2022, drew widespread attention due to the proximity to students, one of whom filmed the incident on their cellphone.

Jurors, who deliberated for about a day before returning to the downtown courtroom Friday afternoon, also found the man not guilty of reckless discharge of a firearm that resulted in his brother being shot.
The man was 17 at the time and was tried under the Youth Criminal Justice Act. His identity is covered under a standard publication ban; he remains in custody and returns to court next week to address a remaining firearms charge.
“We are all very relieved,” defence lawyer, Kristen Dulysh, co-counsel with Jocelyn Heaton, wrote in an email to the Star.
The prosecution and defence agreed that the chain of events leading to the shooting began with an argument between the accused and a younger female student who took offence at the lyrics of a rap song he was listening to.
There was no question Guerrier — who wasn’t a student at the school, near Markham Road and Hwy. 401 — had a knife while the accused, a student, had a firearm. In her closing address earlier this week, Crown attorney Bev Olesko called him “the most dangerous person” at the school that afternoon.
Last month, the then-teen testified he initially thought Guerrier, who was wearing a ski mask, had a gun because he was “speed walking” toward him and his hands were in his pockets. The defence position was that Guerrier and two others came to the school to fight — though Olesko said there was no evidence of that. The victim didn’t know either the accused or the young girl from the initial altercation.
The accused testified he showed Guerrier he had a pistol tucked into his waistband in the hope he would realize “it’s a real gun.”


Instead, Guerrier started “lunging at me,” causing him to grab his pistol and pull the trigger.
“I was just trying to protect myself,” he told court.
After firing the first shot, the defendant fell backward and fired three more times, one of the bullets striking his brother. “It was just like an instinctual reaction,” he told the jury. “I thought I was going to die ... I just wanted him to stop lunging towards me and swiping the knife.” Three shots hit Guerrier. A projectile also struck the accused’s brother, who had surgery and survived.
The Crown’s position is that Guerrier lunged at the accused in an attempt to disarm him.
“It is Mr. Guerrier who was defending himself,” Olesko said in her closing remarks. “It makes absolutely no sense that Mr. Guerrier attacks ... (the accused) with a knife when it is very clear” he had a gun.
“There is simply no contest between a gun and a knife — the person with the gun is always going to come away as the victor.”
Like many murder trials these days, video footage was key evidence. It included a cellphone video that captured the shooting — although both sides offered differing interpretations of what jurors were seeing. (The girl who recorded the video testified she took out her phone to record because she thought there was going to be a regular fight.)


After the shooting, the teen fled the scene. His wounded brother started to run with him before going to the hospital. The teen ran into a ravine and threw the gun into Highland Creek, and arranged for a friend to pick him up at a bus stop.
On the stand, he explained he didn’t turn himself in right away because he knew “no one would believe me,” that he had acted in self-defence.
A key question for the defence to answer was, why did a teenager with no criminal record have a gun?
The accused testified he spent some of his childhood in Iraq, where there is a tradition of people shooting guns in the air at weddings and funerals. His “lenient” uncles let him shoot guns when his dad wasn’t around.
In Canada in his early teens, he learned about rising gun violence and deep-rooted local tensions, “the politics,” among local youth clashing with other neighbouring communities.
“It made me think OK, my neighbourhood is not as safe and not as stable as I thought ... like Iraq,” he testified last month.

A negative interaction with police led him to feel unprotected, he told the court. He and his brother were also shot at while walking his dog. So when a friend offered him a gun, he took it to protect himself, he said.
Canadian law allows for self-defence — but only under specific conditions and with proportionate force. Jurors were asked to consider whether his fear justified his actions, and whether his conduct was “reasonable,” in the circumstances.
In her closing address, Dulysh told the jury a reasonable person cannot be expected to know exactly what course of conduct or how much force is necessary when defending oneself. Jurors needed to factor in his young age and the “physical vulnerability” of falling backwards as he was shooting.
She pointed to her client’s testimony.
“When you’re in the moment, everything happens within a blink of an eye. You don’t have time to think,” he told court. He said, unlike the videos jurors watched throughout the trial, “you don’t have time to go frame by frame in the moment. It’s everything just happens quick.”
Click to expand...

http://archive.today/biOBw
 
ThunderHorse said:
Sounds like this didn't go well...but also, this make me look at Shawn Ryan crosseyed and on put in the bin territory.
Click to expand...

His Conservative guests far outweigh any Liberal guests. He offered Harris an opportunity to go on his show leading up to the election during a time when he had JD Vance, Tulsi Gabbard, Kash Patel, Donald Trump, Joe Kent, RFK Jr., and Vivek.

Yup, dude's gone full liberal, send him to the bin.
 

Similar threads

Locksteady
White House to host UFC Fight Event on 250th Anniversary of US Independence
Replies
1
Views
185
RackMaster
RackMaster
Muppet
Loss
Replies
13
Views
551
Dame
Dame
Ooh-Rah
Anyone familiar with Aphantasia?
Replies
17
Views
991
Topkick
Topkick
G
Hey
Replies
2
Views
152
Kaldak
Kaldak
The Quartermaster
Hello again all
Replies
17
Views
593
Dame
Dame
Back
Top