Massachusetts A.G. on Concealed Carry After Bruen

From guidance issued Friday:

• It remains unlawful to carry a firearm in Massachusetts without a license….
• Licensing authorities should continue to enforce the "prohibited person" and
  "suitability" provisions of the license-to-carry statute….
• Licensing authorities should cease enforcement of the "good reason" provision of the license-to-carry statute in response to Bruen. Authorities should no longer deny, or impose restrictions on, a license to carry because the applicant lacks a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm. An applicant who is neither a "prohibited person" or "unsuitable" must be issued an unrestricted license to carry.

• Licensing authorities may continue to inquire about the reasons why the applicant wants a license, but may only use that information to assess the prohibited person and suitability requirements of the statute. They may not use that information to deny or restrict a license for lack of a sufficiently good reason to carry a firearm.
• The FID [Firearms Identification] Card Process Is Unaffected by Bruen. Because there is no "good reason" provision for issuance of an FID card, licensing authorities should continue to process and issue FID cards exactly as they did prior to Bruen….

The [Massachusetts concealed carry] statute instructs that a "determination of unsuitability shall be based on: (i) reliable and credible information that the applicant or licensee has exhibited or engaged in behavior that suggests that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety; or (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety." …

Thanks to Dr. Ed for the pointer.

Comments

[Michael P]

How long before a federal court points out that "existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety" give way too much discretion to government officials? Or, independently, that it's arbitrary and capricious to restrict issuance of FID cards when they allow carrying a subset of what is licensed by a License To Carry?

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Everyone wants to be able to prevent violent felons from legally carrying concealed handguns…just like sex offenders right to free movement can be restricted.

[Bored Lawyer]

Did you even read the OP? The license can be denied on much less than being a convicted violent felon. Which makes the sex offender analogy inapt. You need a conviction to get on the sex offender list.

You are right that no one (or almost no one) would object if these laws merely denied licenses to convicted felons, at least for violent felonies. They go much farther than that, allowing denial based on a bureucrat's assessment of how dangerous the applicant is, even without a conviction. That's the rub.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I thought it was funny during ACB’s confirmation hearing when that senator thought he had a “gotcha” with her on RKBA with respect to felons and when it was her turn to respond she said he was a felon for making orthotics without a license.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"he was a felon for making orthotics without a license"

We've allowed too many offenses to be categorized as felonies. That is a problem, but a separate problem from this one.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

The state must have a very powerful podiatrist lobby. 😉

[Michael P]

Felons, whether violent or not, are already broadly prohibited from possessing firearms. Bruen did not even suggest those laws are on shaky grounds.

MA apparently currently disqualifies people for misdemeanors as minimal as Shoplifting Over $100 (c. 266, § 30A), which seems unlikely to stand. It's not clear -- at least to me, based on some Internet searching -- whether the "may create a risk to public safety" is strictly limited to such convictions, plus similar history like involuntary commitment for mental health reasons.

[John F. Carr]

A lot of offenses that Massachusetts classifies as misdemeanors are considered felonies under federal gun control laws because you can go to the county jail for more than a year. The federal government does not recognize the partial restoration of rights that you can get from the state. State law says you can have your right to possess a long gun restored, but federal law says you can't have a long gun unless your right to have a pistol is also restored. Caron v. United States, 524 U.S. 308. I think you might get a different outcome these days if you found a challenger who was disqualified as a result of a conviction for negligent driving and was eligible for state restoration of rights.

[MatthewSlyfield]

"You need a conviction to get on the sex offender list."

I think you need to take a harder look a some of the things people of the sex offender lists were convicted of.

[Bored Lawyer]

So? What's your point?

You still need a conviction, which means you need proof beyond a reasonable doubt at trial, or a guilty plea.

That's a lot more than some paper pusher deciding you're a danger based on a few vague facts. If you think some of the offense don't belong there (and you need to be specific), then you can take some off..

[MatthewSlyfield]

It's not about the level of proof. Its about the ridiculousness of some of the charges that can land people on state sex offender lists.

There are people on some state sex offender lists for the high crime of urinating in public.

[Kazinski]

So how did they get you?

[Brett Bellmore]

Even if you'd rather joke about it, it's true. The 'sex offender' list is a combination of everything from pedophile rapists to guys who thought nobody was looking when their bladders got too full out of range of a bathroom, and everything inbetween. It's crazy.

[MatthewSlyfield]

They didn't get me. I've never been convicted (or even charged) with any criminal offense, but thanks for trying.

[jimc5499]

Several years ago there was a rumor about Gay Men meeting in the restrooms of a State Park to have sex. This created an uproar and the restrooms were promptly closed. Then the rumor changed to them meeting along the trails to have sex. The Police put together a Task Force to patrol the trails. They never found anybody having sex but, they did cite numerous people for public nudity because they relieved themselves in the woods. A year or two later the local "Sex Registry" isn't having the desired result. Not enough people were committing crimes that would place them on the registry and people were questioning the need for it. Somebody in the District Attorney's Office came up with the idea to put the people with the "Public Nudity" citations on the registry. They went before a Judge who was against it until they said that it was a State Park and there could have been children present. Then he agreed to it. It took a couple of years to get that straightened out. There never was anybody caught having sex on the trails and the people who were cited, were only cited because they CLOSED THE RESTROOMS because of the rumor. That was in the late 90's and they still haven't opened the restrooms.

[DaivdBehar]

"suitability"

No patriotic Americans will be licensed.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Someone has to complain in court first.

[Josh R]

That was my initial reaction too, but then I read footnote 1 of the opinion:

Three States—Connecticut, Delaware, and Rhode Island—have discretionary criteria but appear to operate like “shall issue” jurisdictions. [...] Although Connecticut officials have discretion to deny a concealed-carry permit to anyone who is not a “suitable person,” see Conn. Gen. Stat. §29–28(b), the “suitable person” standard precludes permits only to those “individuals whose conduct has shown them to be lacking the essential character of temperament necessary to be entrusted with a weapon.” [...] Rhode Island has a suitability requirement, see R. I. Gen. Laws §11–47–11, but the Rhode Island Supreme Court has flatly denied that the “[d]emonstration of a proper showing of need” is a component of that requirement.

I'm not certain the footnote endorses the revised Massachusetts regulations, but at the very least it suggests that it might.

[MatthewSlyfield]

I read it as suggesting that it will come down to how a suitablity provision is actually applied in practice. Some will pass muster, but other won't.

If it get's used as permission for open-ended discretion by licensing officials it probably won't pass muster.

[Sidney r finkel]

It is important that Roe was over-turned at the same time there was a massive increase in the ability to carry guns in public. If abortions were allowed to continue there might not be enough babies and children for the newly allowed public carry gun owners to shoot and kill.

[PeteRR]

If you were aiming for incoherence, congratulations you hit it dead center.

[Don Nico]

What an asshole comment!

[Krychek_2]

Well, it’s not a comment I would have made, but I did like a sign I saw at a demonstration: if you don’t like abortion maybe you could ignore it like you do mass shootings.

[Michael P]

Mass shootings are generally illegal. That's hardly ignoring them.

[Krychek_2]

Not ignoring them would be taking steps to make it harder for them to happen.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The best way to do that is get rid of gun-free zones and allow more concealed carriers. I've posted this before; a repeat can't hurt.

There is a reason so many mass shootings happen at schools -- they are gun-free zones. Take that away, allow armed teachers, and mass school shootings will vanish within weeks or months as news reports show how suicidal and ineffective they have become.

Read or skim this article. Shooters stopped by civilians killed far fewer victims, because the stoppers were on the scene, whereas police had to be called, dispatched, arrive, coordinate, assess, and finally act cautiously. One begins to suspect there's a reason Mother Jones and the police ignore shootings with fewer than 4 victims.

I compiled and analyzed 100 shootings, noting my methodology, and I am now prepared to present my findings, complete with links to the data.

* The average number of people killed in mass shootings when stopped by police is 14.29

* The average number of people killed in a mass shooting when stopped by a civilian is 2.33

The way to stop school shootings is simple:

* Get rid of gun-free zones.

* Let staff and teachers carry on the job. Open, concealed, doesn't matter.

Making carry mandatory isn't necessary, as shown by the statistics above, and it offends my sense of liberty, reduces the employment pool, and many people are not very good with guns.

Another bit of related research: https://crimeresearch.org/2019/05/major-new-research-on-school-safety-schools-that-allow-teachers-to-carry-guns-havent-seen-school-shootings-during-school-hours/

[Krychek_2]

I’ll agree to arm teachers if you’ll agree to disarm prospective school shooters.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"to disarm prospective school shooters"

Show us your crystal ball.

The FBI has been identifying them, and ignoring them, for years. You've had your chance for that to play out and it isn't working. Either three-letter-agency ineptitude, or their counsel tells the agents "yeah, this kid is messed up, but we don't have probable cause."

[Krychek_2]

By focusing on the weapons, not the individuals. Other countries probably have as many unhinged nuts as we do. They don’t have our mass shootings because they don’t allow anyone to buy military grade firepower.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

They do have mass shootings. The US is not unique in this.

[Michael Ejercito]

So Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa do not exist?

Then who invaded the Ukraine this year?

The Kromaggs?

[Krychek_2]

The problem with Brazil, Jamaica, et al. is criminal gangs, which requires a separate solution than the problem we're discussing. Show me a country in which lone nuts routinely shoot up schools, malls and now a Fourth of July parade in numbers approaching ours.

[Nisiiko]

You focus on the weapons, not the individuals, you take away the rights of all because you liberals can't control your screwup kids. No thanks.

[tkamenick]

Zero mass shootings are carried out with military grade firepower, you obviously don't know what you're talking about.

[Michael Ejercito]

Gangs are the problem.

I have known this for over thirty years.

[The original jack burton]

"military grade firepower"

Always the fastest and easiest way for a poster to share with us he is willfully and deliberately ignorant about firearms

[Stephen Lathrop]

TOJB — Krychek_2 is plenty smart enough to know already that gun nuts cherish the largely meaningless distinction between semi-automatic and fully automatic. He ignored it because it makes sense to ignore it. What reasonably defines military grade firepower is far more about a specific combination of factors: any kind of automatic or semi-automatic operation; plus interchangeable magazines; plus low-recoil ammunition with light-weight cartridges and sufficient muzzle energy to kill human targets efficiently. Before firearms with that combination of attributes were engineered and adopted for military and civilian use, this nation did not experience frequent mass-casualty attacks by deranged spree killers.

Your response with gun pedantry to Krychek_2's comment is a reliable field mark to identify a gun advocate with an ideological, non-practical approach to gun issues. It also suggests you yourself have little real-world experience using guns to kill, whether in military service, or by hunting game.

Is it your advocacy that the nation should simply accept repeat mass shooting sprees in public places as an unavoidable cost of gun freedom?

[Brett Bellmore]

By focusing on weapons, not individuals, you toss any concern about rights and innocence out the window, and deprive many thousands of their liberty for every person who might have done something wrong you inconvenience.

You'd never treat a right you didn't hate that way.

[Brett Bellmore]

Stephen, strangely enough, actual militaries also obsess about such details. Why, it's almost as though the details you disdain actually do have to do with military utility.

[Nisiiko]

Rifles with those characteristics have been readily available since the early 1950s. You have no idea what you're talking about.

[Stephen Lathrop]

By focusing on weapons, not individuals, you toss any concern about rights and innocence out the window, and deprive many thousands of their liberty for every person who might have done something wrong you inconvenience.

Bellmore — I oppose any notion that there can exist a categorical, "innocence," which policy, as opposed to criminal law, can recognize. Criminal law is about particularity. Policy is about generality.

Fair policy requires treating everyone alike, not setting up pre-existing notional categories to suggest some exist who are legitimately entitled to escape enforcement of generally applicable laws. It is an abomination that Bruen time and again makes reference to, "law-abiding," citizens. It shows prejudiced, outcome-oriented thinking used to justify the decision. Any such person who existed today could be in the guilty-as-hell category tomorrow. That is a particularized contingency which general policy cannot be required to accommodate. The more time passes, the more the distinction between categories blurs.

Beyond that, nothing I suggest would deprive anyone of a right to bear arms sufficient for self-defense, in any setting. My suggestions would in fact make everyone, including would-be gun carriers, safer. Why isn't adequate self-defense, plus a safer nation for gun carriers and everyone else, enough to satisfy the Constitution? By any measure, any policy which could achieve that objective would better fulfill the purpose of a right to self-defense than any other alternative which did not.

If you find yourself tempted to reply with subject-changing blather about licensing printing presses, or some such, please save the effort. Subject-changing analogies usually example more prejudiced, outcome-oriented thinking.

People who cannot reply to a challenge within the terms which specifically apply to the challenge usually do not deserve to be taken seriously. Given that gun carrying confers a life-and-death power, instantaneously dependent solely on the judgment of the person with the gun, it cannot be analogized to any other right. None of the others do that or anything like it.

What are you even doing here? It is evident that you do not want to discuss gun rights rationally. You just want to scream, "My rights!" over and over, to shut down discussion. That is neither constructive nor wise.

[Michael Ejercito]

Is it your advocacy that the nation should simply accept repeat mass shooting sprees in public places as an unavoidable cost of gun freedom?

So you want to give up your civil rights because you fear the street thug and the gangbanger.

What makes you think the cops will only go after the street thug and gangbanger?

What makes you think the cops will even go after the street thug and the gangbanger?

[ravenshrike]

Sure, anyone taking modern psychotropic drugs prescribed by a psychiatrist or doctor loses their guns. Problem solved. Any psychiatrist or doctor that prescribes said drugs that goes on to have more than one patient who attacks and tries to kill multiple people while on said drugs loses their license.

[Kazinski]

Your problem is that you seem to think the Krychek rule is sound constitutional doctrine:

'If I don't think it should be a right, then it's not a right'

Now that's probably not much worse than the 3 main theories of 2nd amendment nullification.

1) The 2nd only protects the right to be armed in a militia.

2. Scalia when he recognized a right to self defense completely erased the rest of the text and outlawed arms suitable to the militia ("weapons of war")

3. The Breyer doctrine, there is is an individual right but it's completely subservient to any state, local, or national governmental whim.

[Michael P]

Still wrong. Look at the Biden administration's approach to immigration law if you want to see an example of systematically ignoring crime.

[Krychek_2]

BUT WHAT ABOUT!!!!!

But let’s talk about something that is actually on point. What happens when abortion rights supporters decide that they too have Second Amendment rights against what they consider tyrannical government and go on the offensive against people enforcing abortion bans. On what principled basis, other than that you disagree with them, will you tell them they’re wrong? You may find that genie should have been made to stay in the bottle.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"go on the offensive against people enforcing abortion bans"

Then they would be shooting peace officers. That offers questionable PR value.

[Krychek_2]

If PR were the goal you’d have a point.

[Michael P]

Dude, everybody wants to prosecute mass shooters. Everybody also wants to figure out effective ways to protect against more mass shootings, they just disagree on appropriate ways to do that. That's not ignoring the issue. To the contrary, a lot of leftists really do oppose immigration law -- they mostly realize they can't repeal it, so they settle for ignoring it.

What happens when pro-abortionists try to conduct 150th-trimester abortions of their political opponents?

[Krychek_2]

But a lot of people on your side care less about preventing mass shootings than they do about making sure anyone can own military grade firepower. It’s a matter of priorities. Dead kids is a price you’re willing to pay for gun rights.

[Michael Ejercito]

The dirty little secret is that the street thug and the gangbanger use civil rights to facilitate their crimes.

They peaceably assemble to plan, plot, and prepare their robberies and drive-by shootings.

They peacefully bear arms to and from the scenes of robberies and drive-by shootings.

They use their freedom from unreasonable searches and seizures to conceal evidence that they committed, or are about to commit, a robbery or a drive-by shooting.

They use their right to a fair trial, their right to an attorney, their right to due process of law, to escape judgment for committing robberies and drive-by shootings.

They use their freedom from cruel and unusual punishment to avoid the punishment that they deserve for committing a robbery or a drive-by shooting, even if they are judged guilty consistently with their other rights.

Without the Constitution protecting these rights, the cops can judge street thugs and gangbangers guilty and give them the punishment that they deserve.

Do you support the concept of civil rights?

[Michael P]

Well, I certainly won't argue over the unquoted perspectives of people who you may have simply imagined.

[Krychek_2]

Michael P, let's cut to the chase: Would you support banning large magazines if it would reduce mass shootings by 50%? If your answer is no, then quit pretending that I'm making up that your side has decided as a matter of priorities that dead children are less important than gun rights.

Michael E, in addition to exercising all those civil liberties, they probably also had breakfast, but that's not an argument to ban breakfast restaurants because one has nothing to do with the other. And I'll bet that if you google "logical fallacies" you're smart enough to find the one you just committed.

[DonP]

"Military Grade Firepower"? Wow!! Spoken like someone that has no idea what that means, but really liked the bumper sticker on the Prius ahead of you at the stop sign.

Let's set aside the facts of select fire and ask what you actually think "Military Grade" is? Scary black rifles? Chain saw bayonets"? Semi-auto firearm technology is over a century old. No military in the world issues semi-auto rifles to it's troops. The US gave it up around 1954.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Would you support banning large magazines if it would reduce mass shootings by 50%?"

Why the hell should we feel obligated to answer really stupid questions?

First of all, there's no sensible reason to think it would. You're talking about crimes. They're committed by criminals. You know, people who don't obey laws? So, how's a law against owning "large magazines" going to effect somebody who's already willing to commit mass murder? "Damn, I'd love to lay bodies down in windrows, but I'd have to break the law to get a good sized magazine, guess I'll take up knitting instead." says no homicidal moron.

But, secondly, hell, no, and for good reason.

Mass shootings are one of the rarest ways to die there is. And what you mean by "large" magazines are actually normal sized magazines.

So, what you're really asking is, "Would you take a major hit to a civil right, effecting millions of people, in order to speculatively reduce an already rare cause of death?"

And if we said "yes"? Why, you'd come back for another bite. And another. And another. I'd rather not start that cycle.

My 'large' magazines aren't hurting anybody, because I'm not homicidal. I suggest you bugger off, and start thinking of approaches that don't involve attacking civil liberties, and that maybe target more common causes of death. If you really give a damn about deaths.

But, of course, if you don't really care about saving lives, you'll concentrate on ways of saving as few lives as possible in ways that motivate as many people to stop you as possible, so you can feel all superior as you succeed in saving no lives, because you're at best moral posturing.

[Nisiiko]

In addition to Brett's excellent reply to your stupidity, there is no magical reason why 10 rounds should be the line in the sand. New York tried 7, until they were told that the magazines they wanted people to use didn't exist. Canada requires a maximum of 5.

Face it, what you people don't like are people being able to have any semi-automatic firearm.

[Michael Ejercito]

Would you support banning large magazines if it would reduce mass shootings by 50%? If your answer is no, then quit pretending that I'm making up that your side has decided as a matter of priorities that dead children are less important than gun rights.

Absolutely not.

Banning such magazines will mean that gangs will have 100% of the large magazine market.

We all know what happened as a side effect of banning cocaine and heroin.

Michael E, in addition to exercising all those civil liberties, they probably also had breakfast, but that's not an argument to ban breakfast restaurants because one has nothing to do with the other. And I'll bet that if you google "logical fallacies" you're smart enough to find the one you just committed.

It is not a logical fallacy.

I explained exactly how the street thug and the gangbanger use civil rights protections to facilitate their crimes.

Do you really think a right to a fair trial is worth the risk of a gangbanger getting acquitted of charges of doing a drive-by shooting on a bunch of kids?

[Michael P]

Michael Ejercito, that just goes to show how as a matter of priorities, civil rights of criminals are more important than dead children to people on Krychek's side.

... according to a certain brand of totalitarian leftist thinking, at least.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Why the hell should we feel obligated to answer really stupid questions?

Bellmore: "My rights! MY RIGHTS! I forbid discussion about my rights!"

[Michael Ejercito]

I am perfectly willing to discuss how the street thug and the gangbanger use our civil rights to facilitate their crimes.

[Nisiiko]

They're not wrong. Might equals right. Everyone has the right to try to overthrow a government they don't like, but if you are not successful, you'll be a traitor.

[Kazinski]

Well I guess they are setting an example now with the Jan. 6th trials and hearings.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is certainly harder now for John Mohammed to do a mass shooting.

Care to guess why?

[Rossami]

Mass shootings are already incredibly rare. Anything you do to make them even more rare will inevitably sweep up innocents as false positives and collateral damage.

[Happy Miser]

"States Rights" lol.

[Dan Schiavetta]

The people's voice will continue to (try to) be heard as to the security of the free state they live in, despite efforts by the gun industry and its puppets on the Court to force guns into places where the people don't want them.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Apparently your objection is that the people do want to take guns where the elite don't want them.

[Dan Schiavetta]

“Elite”= majority of the voters in those places, mostly nonwhite.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

As measured by whom? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. You've shown nothing.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ok
Check the news today from Chicago

And note the Chicago restrictions recently vacated by the Court

[Toranth]

Are you claiming that the Illinois shooter was a concealed carry holder, with legally purchased weapons, who was previously unable to get those weapons until the Supreme Court ruling last week?

That's quite the claim, considering the shooter has not been arrested, or even positively identified, yet. And I seriously doubt that your fantasy will be true in any part.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

And he could have been acting in self defense like Rittenhouse…maybe someone tried to take his gun??

[Dan Schiavetta]

Why outlaw murder? Was he part of a militia attacking a possible terrorist? Self defense? Who knows? All we know is he had a phaser and phasers are within the 2A protections. Right?

[Michael Ejercito]

You really do hate civil rights.

I mean, I get it.

You fear the street thug, you fear the gangbanger.

Sadly and tragically, too many people have compelling reasons to fear the street thug and the gangbanger.

Ask yourself this.

Once you give up your civil rights, what makes you think the cops will only go after the street thug and the gangbanger?

What makes you think they will even go after the street thug and the gangbanger?

[Dan Schiavetta]

Not responsive.

Ownership of a gun was never recognized as a civil right. Until 2008.

[Brett Bellmore]

That's simply a lie. Maybe you're just unknowingly repeating a lie, but it's still a lie.

It would be more accurate to say that it was, for a few decades of the 20th century, a fad among a certain segment of legal academics, to deny that it was a civil liberty.

[Brett Bellmore]

In fact, from Bruen:

"Writing for the Court in Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393
(1857), Chief Justice Taney offered what he thought was a
parade of horribles that would result from recognizing that
free blacks were citizens of the United States. If blacks
were citizens, Taney fretted, they would be entitled to the
privileges and immunities of citizens, including the right
“to keep and carry arms wherever they went." Thus, even Chief Justice Taney recognized (albeit unenthusiastically in the case of blacks) that public carry was a component of the right to keep and bear arms—a right free blacks were often denied in antebellum
America.”

[Sebastian Cremmington]

I wonder why Taney didn’t use the language from the 2A?? And remember he wrote that before the 14A…so does that mean the right to keep and carry arms is independent of the 2A?? Such a head scratcher. 😉

[Michael Ejercito]

To be blunt, it was a myth made by several legal academics to justify suppression of private gun ownership.

And while I recognize that the rank-and-file fear the street thug and gangbanger (and too many of them have compelling reasons for this fear), the leadership of the anti-gun cult do not care about the threat of violence from the street thug and the gangbanger.

Michael McBride (who was on record in 2012 as supporting a ban on assault weapons) found that out after he and some pastors met with officials in the White House. "There was no political will in the country to address inner-city violence". Despite him personally speaking with FJB, the White House declined to endorse Operation: Ceasefire, which had a proven track record of reducing criminal homicides by 60%.

He was presented with a red pill that day; I hope he took it.

The leadership is basically fighting a culture war against White men in red states, as well as wanting to disarm normal people to diminish their ability to resist what they really want to do.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Justice Taney—-the right to keep and carry arms as enshrined in the Second Amendment that applies to all Americans!! I don’t know who is dumber—Justice Taney or Justice Thomas?!? 😉

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Brett, isn’t it strange that Americans apparently had the right to keep and carry arms in 1869?? So why were Heller and McDonald even necessary?? Is “keep and bear” superior to “keep and carry”…such a head scratcher. 😉

[Sebastian Cremmington]

This is so f’ing hilarious!! We had the right to “keep and carry” this whole time…and Volokh used his big brain to get us the right to “keep and bear”!! Him and Kerr didn’t use their brain power to design a space ship but instead used their brain power to get a right to “keep and bear” when we already had the right to “keep and carry”. This is hilarious!

[Aubrey LaVentana]

BRIEF OF THE BLACK ATTORNEYS OF LEGAL AID, THE BRONX DEFENDERS, BROOKLYN DEFENDER SERVICES,ET AL. AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF PETITIONERS

[Nisiiko]

So what? The majority of voters in California told the elite that they didn't want "marriage" licenses going to men who liked to shoot off in another man's lower intestine, and were told by a homosexual judge Walker that they couldn't.

[Absaroka]

I grew up right at the end of Jim Crow, so that's a familiar refrain.

Bold prediction: in a few years people in MA/CA/NY will realize what the rest of the country knows already - there aren't really any downsides to liberal permitting - and we'll wonder why we made such a fuss.

Heh - I live in WA, which has had shall issue since the early 1960's. As the CCW wave swept the country in the '90's, the subject would come up that some state had gone shall issue. I'd innocently ask what they thought would happen if WA went shall issue. Usually the person would be absolutely sure there would be nonstop shootouts, they'd be afraid to go to work, etc. Then I'd ask 'Did you know that WA has been shall issue since 1962 or so, and 10% of the adult population has a permit?'. It really put some people on tilt.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Ok when there is no longer a racial divide on the issue, and one actually sees nonwhite people in the gun rights crowd, and the racial impression Otis McDonald got when he met the gun rights people who were funding his case is dispelled, I’ll think about agreeing with you.

[Brett Bellmore]

"and one actually sees nonwhite people in the gun rights crowd, "

I'm reminded of a gun rights rally I attended in Lansing in 1994; The black militia out of Detroit had an amazing color guard display, but strangely appeared in none of the media reports.

Can't see what you're determined to be blind to.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

You might look into the Black Panthers in the 1960s.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Yep, the ones Reagan attempted to disarm by taking a dump and wiping his ass with the 2A.

Btw, why is everyone jumping to the conclusion that this mass shooter is a murderer?? He could have been acting in self defense like Rittenhouse. Also, even if he did murder a few people doesn’t he still have the right to self defense with a gun?? And shouldn’t he be allowed to carry his gun into the court room during his trial?? We can’t let Pritzker and his ugly cousin relegate the 2A to a second class right!! Btw, Pritzker and his cousin could be identical cousins and have their own TV show even though one is a female. 😉

[Flight-ER-Doc]

He was being attacked by parade goers, while he was on a rooftop some distance away?

You truly are a special kind of stupid, are you not?

[The original jack burton]

"You truly are a special kind of stupid, are you not?"

It really is the best that they can do.

[Sebastian Cremmington]

Btw, why are they having a press conference when the suspect is still at large??

[Aubrey LaVentana]

"when there is no longer a racial divide on the issue"

The racial divide on this issue rests clearly among the antis. When you listen to someone other than suburban wine moms on this topic, you'll maybe see you're on the wrong side of history.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Citation?

Look up the New York (white) Libertarian Party’s “give toy guns to kids coming out of school” project and watch the (black) parents’ reaction.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

https://duckduckgo.com/?q=growth+in+gun+ownership+racial+minorities&t=newext&atb=v230-1&ia=web

[Dan Schiavetta]

Look it up. Can you?

[Aubrey LaVentana]

the racial divide is yours.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Look it up.

[Jerry B.]

If you cite something, it's on you to provide the source, or a link.

[rsteinmetz]

One thing I've been aware of for some time is that the media seem to focus on white shooters. The seem to ignore shootings involving non-whites, which are frequent, bloody and often involve illegal guns. They often seem to ignore the desire of many communities of color for greater public safety.

[Kazinski]

Look up Black Guns Matter.

[Kazinski]

I had to explain the gun laws to a friend who is a bar and restaurant owner in Seattle. He didn't realize that it was legal for someone who was concealed 9r open carrying to come into the restaurant area to eat or drink.

I explained the bar area was off limits when carrying, but the simple rule is anywhere in his restaurant kids can go, then guns can go. He was a long time bar and restaurant owner but the issue never came up until he saw something in the paper that made him wonder.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Absaroka — You imply long-standing laxity for Washington state gun law. An on-line look at the law suggests it is more stringent than anything most pro-gun advocates would approve. Parts of it will probably have to be thrown out on account of Bruen.

Also, gun prevalence is hard to measure. A RAND study and database purports to show cautiously-asserted gun prevalence rates per state. On that basis, 11 states, all red-state and rural, show household gun prevalence of 50% or greater. All other states are ranked at less than 50%.

Washington state is shown at 34% household gun prevalence. Washington, because of the disproportionate population residing in the Seattle area, counts as a heavily urbanized state. Except for that area, as I am sure I do not need to tell you, the rest of the state is largely rural. It makes sense, in terms of trends known from other areas, to suppose the Washington state gun prevalence is heavily weighted toward those rural areas, and thus less relevant to generalizations such as:

. . . in a few years people in MA/CA/NY will realize what the rest of the country knows already - there aren't really any downsides to liberal permitting - and we'll wonder why we made such a fuss.

Bruen may deliver a previously thinly-tried experiment with what happens when you increase gun prevalence in uniformly densely-populated urbanized states, such as New York, Connecticut, Rhode Island, New Jersey, or Massachusetts. Those feature disproportionately greater per-capita opportunities for hostile personal interactions.

We may already understand some of what to expect by reference to the notorious crime statistics attributed to urban gang sub-cultures found in many densely populated areas. I am not suggesting we should expect that culture to be replicated among people who are not habitual criminals.

I am suggesting it is likely that increased gun prevalence, if it happens, will likely degrade the well-established record of nation-leading gun safety from states such as those densely-populated ones, which have achieved that record in the presence of stringent gun laws.

[Artifex]

You have to love the chutzpah of this illiberal bullshit. It is sarcastrian narrative writing at its best.

You are scared of guns. If you can't impinge on others liberty to force them to make you comfortable, then it is you that is being oppressed and wronged. Nice framing there. This is the argument of pretty much every bully that ever lived.

[Dan Schiavetta]

Obsession with size
Is a poor disguise.

[Don Nico]

Your preference, not the law is what is important. Got it.

[Absaroka]

From Bored Lawyer above (I didn't want to derail that subthread): "You are right that no one (or almost no one) would object if these laws merely denied licenses to convicted felons, at least for violent felonies. They go much farther than that, allowing denial based on a bureucrat's assessment of how dangerous the applicant is, even without a conviction. That's the rub."

I'd go farther than that. Imagine we get in a time machine and go back decades to when the permit business started, and sheriffs, even in MA/NY/CA used their discretion wisely, approving maybe 95+% of applicants who weren't prohibited persons. The few denials were for genuinely good reasons - someone who was a mean drunk with obvious anger management problems, who as he hands over the paperwork asks 'How long will it take to get the permit, because I've had it up to here with taking crap off of people'.

If they had done that, I don't think the absolutism - that everyone who doesn't have a felony conviction must be given a permit - would have found fertile ground. The sheriff's absolutism in denying almost everyone has led to absolutism requiring permits for almost everyone, and society is worse off for it.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

The sheriff's absolutism in denying almost everyone has led to absolutism requiring permits for almost everyone, and society is worse off for it.

This repeats with abortion; if pro-abortionists had limited abortion to before the quickening, say, they probably could have kept Row v Wade. But they kept pushing it right up to birth, and got the predicted backlash.
It also repeats with political correctness and wokism. When they pushed it to include sex lectures, puberty blockers, and irreversible surgery to kindergartners, in spite of having previously been against female genital mutilation and even Jewish circumcision, they got the predicted backlash.

All these prove what James Madison said:

If men were angels, no government would be necessary. If angels were to govern men, neither external nor internal controls on government would be necessary.

[bernard11]

Every bad thing that conservatives do is the fault of liberals.

if pro-abortionists had limited abortion to before the quickening, say, they probably could have kept Row v Wade. But they kept pushing it right up to birth, and got the predicted backlash.

This is patent nonsense. Just listen to what the anti-abortion people say about when life begins. And Casey did not push abortion rights up until birth.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

I didn't mention Casey; I said pro-abortionists.

There are plenty of conservative examples, but none from the last week or two.

[bernard11]

Yes. Some people do push that.

They weren't making much progress.

And their view is no more extreme than the views of those who make no exceptions whatsoever.

[SKofNJ]

I think you're right, but I don't think that outside of Mayberry, R.F.D. and Sheriff Andy, that's the way it works in the real world. Give a person discretion and he will exercise it according to his personal preferences. Whatever he thinks ought to be is what he will think is a wise exercise of his discretion.

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

Also ... regarding this ...

Imagine we get in a time machine and go back decades to when the permit business started, and sheriffs, even in MA/NY/CA used their discretion wisely, approving maybe 95+% of applicants who weren't prohibited persons.

Alas, it was never that rosy. Only the proper kinds of whites got permits, even at the beginning. Some of the politicians involved even bragged about that being the purpose.

[Soronel Haetir]

That was the point The commenter was saying "imagine changing even that very early discretionary licensing regime into one where the discretion existed but that it was exercised sparingly rather than as a near-blanket 'no'".

[Á àß äẞç ãþÇđ âÞ¢Đæ ǎB€Ðëf ảhf]

No he did not. You mangled that quote so severely it is no longer a quote.

Imagine we get in a time machine and go back decades to when the permit business started, and sheriffs, even in MA/NY/CA used their discretion wisely

The only part you got right was "Imagine". Everything else you quoted is a figment of your imagination.

[Social Justice is neither]

No, it just required reading beyond the clip you quoted.

[Absaroka]

Precisely so.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

The discretion was introduced with the express intent to limit ownership by 'undesirable' minorities. The abuse of discretion was baked in.

[Aubrey LaVentana]

Sullivan was intended to disarm Irish and Italian immigrants.

Fastforward to 1998: When I started to apply for my NY permit, the judge who would issue or deny that permit was named Sciacca.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Only the proper kinds of whites got permits, even at the beginning.

That cannot pass without comment. You just summarized a commonplace—not universal, but not uncommon—aspect of founding era gun jurisprudence. George Washington could travel carrying a couple of concealed pistols, anywhere in the nation. In many areas, magistrates would penalize ordinary people who did the same, with one pistol. For blacks in the south, of course, it was right out.

That historical information is well known, and was utterly ignored by the dishonestly selective reading of history and tradition in Bruen. It is painful to read that decision, and note the pretzel logic used to hop-scotch through history, dodging relevant evidence, in an irresponsible attempt to preclude critique.

[Michael P]

And that's why The First Amendment shouldn't mean anything! Because Blacks in the pre-Civil War South couldn't use a printing press!

... according to a certain kind of totalitarian thought that is popular on the left.

[Nisiiko]

Yes, precisely. In a perfect world, giving police some level of discretion to deny guns to the neighborhood drunk or wife beater would not be a problem. But we don't live in a perfect world, and in the world we actually have, if you give men discretion, men will abuse that discretion.

So here we are.

[mydisplayname]

New York, California, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey (6/50) oppose "shall issue" laws while the remaining 76% of the fifty states support "shall issue" laws. Anyone up for some Article V action?

To put this matter behind us forever, the signatures of 75 individuals (the leaders of the bicameral legislatures of 37 states plus the leader of the unicameral legislature of Nebraska) are needed. Why not send a giant "STFU" to the six whiny states?!

[bernard11]

Ah. Federalism. Local control, etc.

And don't talk about shall issue being a constitutional right. Plainly, you don't think so, since you are calling for an amendment.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

It took an amendment to enforce many constitutional rights, one more isn't too much to ask for.

Since the courts (the SC, and the lesser courts) have F-d up so much of the law. The NYRPC decision just restated what Heller and McDonald clearly stated, despite lesser courts trying to find weasel-words claiming that infringing is OK, if the state says so.

[nonzenze]

Anyone care to compute what fraction of the actual people lives in one of this 6/50 states?

[bernard11]

I think it's about one quarter of the country.

That doesn't interest the acreage lovers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Pretty close: 24.83%. Vs 6.88% of the country's area.

Both are conspicuously minorities.

But, really, why should it interest us that the majority in states comprising a moderately small minority of the population want to violate a basic civil liberty? It just confirms what outliers you are in a basically pro-gun country.

[bernard11]

First, because it's not an absolute civil liberty, as even our radical Supreme Court admits.

Second, because - I'm guessing here - your "moderately small minority" is actually a significant majority of those who actually live in those states.

IOW, if TX wants to make rules for MA, fuck TX. Let them concentrate on killing each other.

[Brett Bellmore]

"First, because it's not an absolute civil liberty, as even our radical Supreme Court admits."

Oh, stuff your "not an absolute civil liberty" where the sun doesn't shine. Freedom of speech isn't "an absolute civil liberty". Freedom of the press isn't "an absolute civil liberty". The right to keep and bear arms "isn't an absolute civil liberty" in exactly the same sense. You can't use it to harm people without proper cause. You can't use it recklessly, putting others in serious danger.

That doesn't mean you can require somebody to get a license to own a printing press, or to speak. That doesn't mean you can casually ban the use of words you deem at a higher than ordinary risk of misuse, or regulate printing presses to make sure people can't print too many pamphlets without reloading the paper tray.

Nobody is claiming a 2nd amendment right to do things analogous to what could be forbidden as an exercise of 1st amendment liberties. We'd demanding that it not be treated as a 2nd class right, that it be treated as a genuine, fully respected right, that, essentially, guns and printing presses be treated alike.

I get that the Court isn't there yet. I think they'll get there in time.

"IOW, if TX wants to make rules for MA, fuck TX."

The only way Texas can make rules from Massachusetts is if Texas gets together with a bunch of other states to put those rules into the Constitution. You know, like the 2nd amendment is in the Constitution?

If MA doesn't want to submit to the Bill of rights? Fuck MA.

[Michael Ejercito]

Very good points.

[Krayt]

IOW, if TX wants to make rules for MA, fuck TX. Let them concentrate on killing each other.

Isn't that what Texas has been squeaking all along? Maryland, and the costal concrete canyons, stop trying to make rules for our state?

I don't support blah blah blah but I find your point an odd one. Unless I misunderstand it, it's a grand example of situational ethics.

[Flight-ER-Doc]

"You are applying for a license? That is (ii) existing factors that suggest that, if issued a license, the applicant or licensee may create a risk to public safety." …

[Longtobefree]

"It remains unlawful to carry a firearm in Massachusetts without a license…."

It also remains unconstitutional to require a license in order to exercise constitutionally guaranteed natural rights.

What about an out of state license?

[nonzenze]

Reciprocity failed in the Senate 59/41 last time it was brought up. I doubt it would get that far today.

[Krayt]

Mmmm, I don't know. Horse trading for the honor of voting "the wrong way", knowing it won't pass is a cheap and easy poker chip to hand out.

[David Nieporent]

It also remains unconstitutional to require a license in order to exercise constitutionally guaranteed natural rights.

When you get elected to the Supreme Court, you can decide that.

[Estragon]

The only way to stop a bad guy with a gun on a roof shooting up a parade is… uhhh… a good guy on a roof with a gun?

[Martinned]

#BREAKING: Well-Regulated Militia Opens Fire On Fourth Of July Parade In Highland Park, Illinois; Cheap Thoughts And Useless Prayers Now Being Rushed To The Scene ... more on this soon-to-be-forgotten-and-then-repeated story as it develops ...

https://twitter.com/itsJeffTiedrich/status/1544012669123952640

[Michael Ejercito]

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/12/01/the-distorted-politics-of-gun-control/

Later, other ministers who worked with McBride would get an even blunter assessment from a White House staffer: There was no political will in the country to address inner-city violence.

- Lois Beckett

[Michael P]

"No way to stop this, says only country called Norway"

"No way to stop this, says only country called Denmark"

[Estragon]

https://www.gunviolencearchive.org/reports/mass-shooting

Yep, just like Denmark

[Michael P]

Yeah, a country of 330 million has more things happen than a country of under 6 million. Congratulations on discovering how statistics work.

[Sarcastr0]

You created those old goalposts, and now you hate them.

Well, who to blame for that?

[Michael Ejercito]

You ay want to lookat Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa.

[Michael P]

Hating goalposts is why you think Norway and Denmark, with less than 1/50th the population of the US, have both had mass murders within the span of the last 50 shootings on that list?

Flight-ER-Doc was right about your crowd.

[Sarcastr0]

Dude, you're the one that brought up the comparison to Norway and Denmark. Now you're running away from what you brought up!

Pretty funny, actually.

[Michael P]

I'm not running away from it, I'm just pointing out that an arbitrary and one-sided list still shows that those countries have a serious problem with mass shootings. Why do you hate statistics?

[Sarcastr0]

Ohhh, so you were shitting your pants on purpose!

Well, that's very clever then.

[Estragon]

Haha I’d never even heard of statistics before you mentioned it.

Now take it one step further, calculate it on a per capita basis. I have been assured, by you, that you understand stats. So this should be cake. Be sure to calculate Norway and Denmark specifically. Cmon stats master! Please don’t come back with some apples to oranges argle bargle

https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2022-us-gun-violence-world-comparison/

[Estragon]

I just don’t get the obfuscation. Why not just say that these mass shootings are the “price of freedom” or whatever? This ridiculous handwaving and hanging your hat on brevik because it skews Norway’s numbers… like why bother? In reality there is literally no number of mass shootings and deaths that would ever— EVER— lead you to admit you were wrong and change your mind. Why the charade???

[Michael Ejercito]

You can read this quote from Paul Harding.

https://www.quora.com/How-can-a-gun-enthusiast-still-claim-their-right-to-bear-arms-is-more-important-than-public-safety/answer/Paul-Harding-14

All of your Constitutional Rights come at the cost of safety.

For example, you would be much safer if I could search houses, cars, and people whenever I wanted to, for any reason, or no reason at all. I'd catch more real bad guys. You know those stories about creeps who keep sex slaves locked in their basements for years? I'd find those victims and rescue them. That neighbor of yours who might have a meth lab that is going to send poisonous fumes into your child's bedroom window, or explode and burn down your house? I'd find out for sure whether a lab was there.

How about all those guys who are probably child molesters, and we've got some evidence, but it isn't enough to convict in front of a jury, especially with that defense attorney throwing doubt all over our evidence? Those guys are on the street right now, and a child you love may be their next victim.

Give up your rights under the 4th, 5th, and 6th amendments, and I'll make the world safer for you. No question about it.

The only problem is that if you give up all those rights, which are really just restrictions on the things I'm allowed to do to you, what's going to keep you safe from me?

Every right you have increases your danger from other people who share that right. Free speech? It allows monsters to spread hateful messages, possibly about a group to which you belong, just the same as it allows you to petition your government with legitimate grievances.

That free speech even allows you to argue in favor of discarding freedom and liberty as just too dangerous to trust in the hands of ordinary people. Now that, my friend, is what scares me - that people with opinions like that will spread them to weak-willed individuals who haven't really thought through the consequences. I won't argue for taking that right away, though, despite the dangers. That would be even more scary than you are.

Yes, some people in a free society are always going to abuse those freedoms. Criminals are going to hide behind the 4th amendment to conceal the evidence of their crimes. People who commit horrific acts are going to hire excellent defense attorneys who can convince a jury that doubt exists. And, yes, some people are going to use guns to commit murders.

Freedom is scary, but lack of freedom is scarier.

[Estragon]

Well at least that’s honest. And sensible, in many ways. Can we at least dispense with the idea that gun violence is just as bad in Denmark, Sweden, etc? Because that is bullshit on stilts. I commend you for coming out and saying you believe that American levels of gun violence is a tradeoff we have to accept… for freedom. Happy 4th!

[Michael Ejercito]

I make no claim about Denmark or Sweden.

I do know that Brazil, Jamaica, Mexico, Russia, and South Africa have higher criminal homicide rates.

[Brett Bellmore]

"I just don’t get the obfuscation. Why not just say that these mass shootings are the “price of freedom” or whatever?"

Because it would be a lie. We used to have that freedom without the mass shootings, so we know damned well it's NOT the price of freedom. It's the price of something else. Discouraging corporal punishment. Not letting kids fight back when bullied. Prescribing anti-depressants.

Actually, most of the 'mass shootings' anti-gunners refer to when they're inflating the stats are gang warfare, and we know what that's due to: The war on drugs, and 50+ years of one party rule in urban areas.

[Sarcastr0]

Discouraging corporal punishment. Not letting kids fight back when bullied. Prescribing anti-depressants.

Jesus Christ. Post hoc ergo propter hoc much?

Beating kids and teaching that fighting is the only way to deal with bullies was not good because it happened in the 1950s.

[Brett Bellmore]

My point is just that we had the freedom he disdains back then, without the mass shootings, so the mass shootings clearly are NOT the price of that freedom, we weren't paying it back then.

There are a lot of candidates for the real cause of them, I just listed a few, there are many more.

[Sarcastr0]

It's the right arguing that mass shootings are the price of freedom and we shouldn't change anything to stop them.

Calling corporal punishment etc. freedoms is a bit of a hot take. If murder were not a crime, I dunno if I'd call that more freedom either.

[Brett Bellmore]

"It's the right arguing that mass shootings are the price of freedom and we shouldn't change anything to stop them."

Literally, no, it's the left arguing that, but without using the word "freedom".

[Sarcastr0]

Well, I suppose the policies the left are proposing are not 'make beating your kids legal and start condoning schoolyard fights again'

But on this very blog, after every mass shooting, the conservatives are the ones saying change no laws, just arm schools and maybe arm everyone.

Which I will charitably call not a serious solution.

[Nisiiko]

All of your proposed policies would do nothing to reduce mass shootings. You're lying, we know you're lying, and you know we know you're lying.

[Michael Ejercito]

Since the following laws did not eliminate murder:

* 1934 National Firearms Act
* 1968 Gun Control Act
* 1986 Hughes Amendment
* 1996 Lautenberg Amendment

should they be repealed?

[Brett Bellmore]

Yes, but not because they failed to end murder. Because they're violating constitutional rights.

For instance, the Lautenberg amendment deprived people of a civil liberty on the basis of a misdemeanor. Worse, it did so on the basis of misdemeanor convictions prior to the enactment of the law, rendering it an ex post facto law. People who pled guilty to a misdemeanor because the only penalty, a fine, was less than the cost of defending against the charge, suddenly were stripped of their rights after the fact.

For any right whatsoever, that was an unconscionable violation of the Constitution.

[Michael P]

Look up confounding effects. There's a lot more to statistics than population sizes!

[Sarcastr0]

Your thesis, dude.

[Michael P]

Your imagination, dude.

[Sarcastr0]

"No way to stop this, says only country called Norway"

"No way to stop this, says only country called Denmark"

Hi, Michael P, this might be awkward, but I'd like to introduce you to your thesis last night. If you want to pretend you never tried to offer the stark comparison between the US and Denmark as an argument, you may want to take it up with yourself last night.

[The original jack burton]

As Charles C. Cooke states it, "Does a preference for human liberty in an imperfect world yield unfortunate, even tragic outcomes from time to time? Indeed so. Should we give that preference up in consequence? Absolutely not."

From my essay... "Is the damage to society from the misuse of guns worth the freedom to have guns?" at https://hubpages.com/politics/damage-society-guns

[Stephen Lathrop]

There is an ugly asymmetry when folks without guns involuntarily pay with their lives the price of freedom for gun advocates. The latter insist on no-compromises ideological opposition to all gun restrictions, so they can be safer, while others suffer increasing risk. Perhaps the nation should use policy to redistribute that allegedly unavoidable burden of freedom more equally.

Require that all guns be insufficiently lethal to be practical for mass shootings. No interchangeable magazines. If a gun has either semi-automatic or fully automatic operation, then it must have an internal magazine reloadable only one cartridge at a time, with no more than a 3 cartridge magazine capacity. Bolt action or pump action weapons can have internal magazine capacities up to 5 shots. Revolvers can have up to a six-shot capacity.

Nobody tries a mass shooting armed only with a double-barreled 12 gauge. But a double barreled 12 gauge remains an imposing home defense weapon. Most of the defensive value of any gun comes from deterrence anyway. By far the largest share of claimed public value for gun self-defense comes from guns which were never fired. Even gun advocates agree on that.

Thus, for realistic gun policy purposes, only that tiny fraction of instances when a defender actually did shoot is even in play. Reducing by a bit the lethality available for that tiny fraction of instances will not matter much. It will impose not more than a small-fraction of a small-fraction of extra burden on law-abiding would-be self-defense gun users. But even that small change will move them in the direction of greater caution about guns, which will be a huge plus for public safety.

It will also incline gun carriers to less arrogance. That would be another policy benefit for supporters of other constitutional rights, such as peaceable assembly. That increasingly falls under threat from armed intimidation.

Everyone who takes up a gun, whether for legal self-defense, or for crime, should do so in a state of modesty about what the gun can do, and in a state of fear, that his weapon will be insufficiently lethal to command an armed confrontation and keep him safe. That way, a few more gun advocates can count on being killed and wounded along with the others. The gun advocates will get to better share the cost of their advocacy, in a small way, and the whole nation will be better off because of it.

The alternative, down the road, is a civilian arms race—more guns, and more lethal guns in a giddy spiral, where no one can ever find reliable security. I urge gun advocates to seek common ground for policy to reverse the direction of social gun prevalence escalation, and to backtrack down the lethality curve. Absent that, I predict a strong risk of a rise in advocacy for outright repeal of the 2A.

If that happens, I expect it will do so because of changes in public safety which will induce many millions to change at once. If the nation begins to suffer a steady drumbeat of mass murders, weekly or more often, that will take a tole on public willingness to support the supposed rights of what is in fact a relatively small minority of actual gun owners.

Note that the actual percentage of gun-owning households is a notably larger percentage of all households, than is the percentage of actual gun owners in comparison to the total population. Even the national percentage of gun-owning households is a smallish minority nation-wide; it is an actual majority in only a few states, and those states, like Wyoming and Montana, feature relatively few households. Most states now counted as strongly pro-gun do not actually feature a majority of gun-owning households.

Given existence of anti-gun members among those pro-gun households, it is apparent that nowhere near a majority of Americans are presently strong pro-gun advocates. Political power for gun advocacy has been the product of skilled swing-vote style advocacy by a minority. In short, there is less room than gun enthusiasts suppose for their advocacy to survive challenge by progressively more-common gun outrages.

We know already that increased gun prevalence, by itself, is a factor to increase firearms deaths and injuries. We see that states with lower gun prevalence uniformly outperform high gun prevalence states on measures of gun-related deaths and injuries.

Those low-gun-prevalence states tend to be densely settled, like New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Reason suggests that rates of gun-related violence must in some way be related to the number and frequency of potentially hostile interactions among armed people, and that those interactions in turn probably vary exponentially according to population density.

A policy change ordered by the Supreme Court could go badly wrong, to order high-population-density, low-gun-prevalence states to increase frequency of armed interactions among their residents. No one should suppose that if that happens, the political consequences for gun rights will be safely predictable.

[Nisiiko]

Even for you, this post was mind-boggingly stupid. Let's address it point by point:

"There is an ugly asymmetry when folks without guns involuntarily pay with their lives the price of freedom for gun advocates. The latter insist on no-compromises ideological opposition to all gun restrictions, so they can be safer, while others suffer increasing risk. Perhaps the nation should use policy to redistribute that allegedly unavoidable burden of freedom more equally."

That's the whole point of rights. People who don't want to exercise those rights pay a cost because of those who do. That's true for free speech, freedom from unresaonable search and seizure, and so on. In any case, we do not insist on "no-compromise." We've been compromising for decades, and every time we give an inch, you people come back for more later.

"Require that all guns be insufficiently lethal to be practical for mass shootings. No interchangeable magazines. If a gun has either semi-automatic or fully automatic operation, then it must have an internal magazine reloadable only one cartridge at a time, with no more than a 3 cartridge magazine capacity. Bolt action or pump action weapons can have internal magazine capacities up to 5 shots. Revolvers can have up to a six-shot capacity."

What the hell are you talking about? There's no way to make a gun insufficiently lethal for mass shootings without making them insufficiently lethal for defense. That's like saying you want to mandate cars be fast enough to race a sick person to the hospital, but not fast enough to flee from a bank robbery. In any case, your proposal is tantamount to a ban of nearly every gun out there.

"Nobody tries a mass shooting armed only with a double-barreled 12 gauge. But a double barreled 12 gauge remains an imposing home defense weapon. Most of the defensive value of any gun comes from deterrence anyway. By far the largest share of claimed public value for gun self-defense comes from guns which were never fired. Even gun advocates agree on that.

Thus, for realistic gun policy purposes, only that tiny fraction of instances when a defender actually did shoot is even in play. Reducing by a bit the lethality available for that tiny fraction of instances will not matter much. It will impose not more than a small-fraction of a small-fraction of extra burden on law-abiding would-be self-defense gun users. But even that small change will move them in the direction of greater caution about guns, which will be a huge plus for public safety."

Okay, cool. Are you okay with limiting all weapons that are not pump action shotguns to the military only? If we don't need them, then the police don't either.

"It will also incline gun carriers to less arrogance. That would be another policy benefit for supporters of other constitutional rights, such as peaceable assembly. That increasingly falls under threat from armed intimidation."

LOL! Is this supposed to be a legitimate argument?

"Everyone who takes up a gun, whether for legal self-defense, or for crime, should do so in a state of modesty about what the gun can do, and in a state of fear, that his weapon will be insufficiently lethal to command an armed confrontation and keep him safe. That way, a few more gun advocates can count on being killed and wounded along with the others. The gun advocates will get to better share the cost of their advocacy, in a small way, and the whole nation will be better off because of it."

Wow. Just wow.

"The alternative, down the road, is a civilian arms race—more guns, and more lethal guns in a giddy spiral, where no one can ever find reliable security. I urge gun advocates to seek common ground for policy to reverse the direction of social gun prevalence escalation, and to backtrack down the lethality curve. Absent that, I predict a strong risk of a rise in advocacy for outright repeal of the 2A."

Your side has been advocating for that for many years. Good luck.

[Abdul Abulbul Amir]

Such a firearm would be next to useless to the Korean shop keepers defending their lives and property during the Watts riots. The kind of guns you want to ban have been used defensively in more than one break down of civil order. You may have been mislead by the lack of reporting by corporate media.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-oT6ydjLn5YQ/TklO27D4KiI/AAAAAAAAAUA/csJnK51zawg/s1600/58852252.jpg

[Nisiiko]

Continued:

"If that happens, I expect it will do so because of changes in public safety which will induce many millions to change at once. If the nation begins to suffer a steady drumbeat of mass murders, weekly or more often, that will take a tole on public willingness to support the supposed rights of what is in fact a relatively small minority of actual gun owners."

We've told you what needs to be done, and you refuse.

"We know already that increased gun prevalence, by itself, is a factor to increase firearms deaths and injuries. We see that states with lower gun prevalence uniformly outperform high gun prevalence states on measures of gun-related deaths and injuries."

For suicides, this is true. For homicides, it's not.

"Those low-gun-prevalence states tend to be densely settled, like New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and New Jersey. Reason suggests that rates of gun-related violence must in some way be related to the number and frequency of potentially hostile interactions among armed people, and that those interactions in turn probably vary exponentially according to population density."

No, it doesn't suggest that. It suggests that gun crime is more a result of demographics than anything else.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

You’re a remarkably stupid person, Lathrop.

It’s unfortunate that you can’t find a mirror tall enough to use while you’re on your high-horse, bloviating about your alleged historical knowledge when you can’t get modern facts right.

You’re nothing more than a common-grade partisan jackass proselytizing against a civil right you don’t understand, don’t respect, and don’t have any knowledge of - historical or otherwise.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Now that I'm not typing on a phone, I'll expand upon my accusations.

You don't understand the Bruen decision at all. I've made this statement numerous times, and as of yet, you have never once responded with any explanation of what you think the decision is, what the Constitution says was the only possible result, and what magnitude of 'change' the decision will actually bring.

You have nothing at all to say on the matter, because you don't know.

You now propose that citizens be granted the wonderful 'second-class' of firearms that I'll refer to as "popguns" because you desire them to be ineffective.

Who is going to invest in making these popguns?

Who is going to want to buy one of these popguns?

Do you somehow propose to outlaw current useful guns? If so, how will you confiscate them? (Whatever your plan is, you'll find that you receive the bullets first from a substantial number of citizens.)

How will you square that unconstitutional proposal with current Constitutional Law and jurisprudence?

Are you really daft enough to think that citizens should have popguns, but the police and military get real ones? You pretend like you care about History. What does History have to say on that kind of firepower imbalance between the governed and the government?

I'll come back to this later if I feel the need to mock your brilliant analysis any further.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The Volokh Conspiracy: Official Legal Blog of Robert Crimo

[Hugh]

Highland Park. More blood on all of you second amendment absolutists' hands. All the professors and all the gun nuts commenting. All of you

[Estragon]

That is blood libel and you are advancing the works of satan

[Michael P]

Using that logic, you'll be really surprised how much blood is on the hands of the Biden administration and other people who oppose our immigration laws!

[Nisiiko]

We're not second amendment absolutists. You just don't think it protects any right at all.

[Jason Cavanaugh]

Here’s an idea: go fuck yourself, asshole.

[wreckinball]

Highland Park 6 dead. Before that 15 dead for the weekend in Chicago. BUT we don't talk about those 15 because they are the wrong demographic.

[Sarcastr0]

Or, maybe, mass shootings seem different to people.

Nah, lets clumsily play the race card instead!

[Brett Bellmore]

"Or, maybe, mass shootings seem different to people."

Yeah, the difference is that they seem useful excuses to attack a civil liberty you don't like.

I say this over and over again: Actual mass shootings are a rare cause of death, they are not where you would focus your attention if your objective is to save lives.

Picking a rare cause of death, and picking infringing a popular civil liberty as your approach to reducing it, would be mind bendingly stupid if your goal was actually to save lives.

If your goal is just to attack that civil liberty, OTOH, it makes perfect sense.

So, we do not grant your moral authority here. You're not trying to save lives, you don't even CARE about saving lives, or you'd be off doing something different. You're just trying to infringe a civil liberty you don't like, and nothing more.

[Nisiiko]

Not to mention that his side is utterly unwilling to do anything about the ticking time bombs we have walking around society. They're all the same. Loner, no friends, no career, young male usually between 18 and 28, posts violent imagery and threats online, often on psychotropic drugs.

Do something about these people, and the problem goes away.

[Brett Bellmore]

They've got a vision of a society full of homicidal maniacs, but it's a peaceful society because they're all frustrated homicidal maniacs, on account of not being able to legally buy their favorite guns. Because they're totally incapable of substituting other weapons, apparently.

Humans are problem solving machines. If your goal is to kill people, and somebody makes your preferred approach less convenient, it doesn't mean you won't kill people. It means you'll switch to plan B.

There is no reducing homicide, without addressing motive. But they utterly recoil from the question of motive, of WHY people want to kill other people. They want to pretend that guns turn otherwise innocent people into killers.

[Nisiiko]

I concede that without semi-automatic firearms, these maniacs would likely have a tougher time. But there's still plenty of havoc they could wreak. Hell, you could easily gun your car into the parade route and have as many if not more casualties.

In the past, we didn't have these malformed males walking around society. Now we do. Fix that, and the mass shooting problem goes away.

[Sarcastr0]

Keep talking with the Jew-hating white supremacist Brett, surely he has some great insights you can engage with!

[Michael P]

Also far more deadly than mass shootings: Biden's feckless immigration policy.

But the left doesn't care about Those People dying.

[Nisiiko]

They consider those people to be collateral damage for fulfilling their dream of a third world, Democrat dependent society.

[Sarcastr0]

Sure, blame the lack of immigration reform on the Democrats, not the party that scuttled talks the last 3 times in arow.

But not going to get into it with you more than that because I think I'll stick to the subject of the thread and not let your whattaboutism distract me.

The water you are carrying to ignore mass shooting is a helluva look though!

[Nisiiko]

Conservatives have "scuttled" talks because all of your proposed "reform" constitutes amnesty for every third worlder here, along with no real enforcement to stop it from happening again.

[Sarcastr0]

No, Brett, being mad about mass shooting is not a fucking plot to take your civil liberties, you paranoiac.

For fuck's sake people feeling stuff and not being perfect utilitarians is not a secret plot to take your guns.

[Nisiiko]

You're not mad about mass shootings. You leftists revel in dead people as long as it can be used to justify your sick goals.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is when you are selectively mad abouit mass shootings.

Here is an article written by Lois Beckett.

http://www.nbcphiladelphia.com/news/local/how-the-gun-control-debate-ignores-black-lives/80445/

McBride supported universal background checks. He supported an assault weapons ban. But he also wanted something else: a national push to save the lives of black men. In 2012, 90 people were killed in shootings like the ones in Newtown and Aurora, Colorado. That same year, nearly 6,000 black men were murdered with guns.

Many people viewed inner-city shootings as an intractable problem. But for two years, McBride had been spreading awareness about Ceasefire, a nearly two-decades-old strategy that had upended how police departments dealt with gang violence. Under Ceasefire, police teamed up with community leaders to identify the young men most at risk of shooting someone or being shot, talked to them directly about the risks they faced, offered them support, and promised a tough crackdown on the groups that continued shooting. In Boston, the city that developed Ceasefire, the average monthly number of youth homicides dropped by 63 percent in the two years after it was launched. The U.S. Department of Justice’s “what works” website for crime policy had a green check mark next to Ceasefire, labeling it “effective” — the highest rating and one few programs received.

In response, the vice president agreed urban violence was very important, McBride said. But it was clear that “there was not a lot of appetite for that conversation by folks in the meeting,” McBride recalled.

Later, other ministers who worked with McBride would get an even blunter assessment from a White House staffer: There was no political will in the country to address inner-city violence.

Obama went over the litany of school shootings — Columbine, Virginia Tech, Newtown — and made a brief nod to the deaths of “kids on street corners in Chicago.” But his plan included no money for the urban violence strategies his Justice Department described as effective. His platform didn’t refer to them at all.

why do this?

Why pretend that Black lives do not matter?

Here is the reason.

https://www.the-american-interest.com/2015/12/01/the-distorted-politics-of-gun-control/

Moreover, Democrats increasingly see gun control as a wedge issue, and are therefore may be more willing to identify gun violence as a problem associated with their political enemies—white men in red states. Talking about gun violence in communities that vote overwhelmingly Democratic would not rally the base as effectively.

Michael McBride was presented with the red pill nearly ten years ago; I hope he took it.

I present you with the red pill now.

[Michael Ejercito]

It is not as if the 15 dead in Chicago are any less dead than the 6 in Highland Park.

It is not as if we can bring the Chicago victims back to life by gathering all seven dragon balls and summoning ShenRon.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Disaffected right-wing gun nuts are among my favorite culture war casualties.

The mainstream backlash against these antisocial, bigoted, often autistic losers is going to be severe and -- for better Americans -- sweet.