We're taking an ostrich approach to enforcing gun laws --with deadly results

[sarisataka]

We’re taking an ostrich approach to enforcing gun laws — with deadly results

The Colorado Springs LGBTQ+ nightclub shooting shows the limits of red-flag laws and the need for multiple approaches to prevent mass shootings. In 2021, the suspect in this shooting was arrested after reportedly threatening violence with a bomb, “multiple weapons” and ammunition.  The threat was serious enough that police evacuated neighbors. Still, law enforcement did not seek a red-flag order, perhaps because the county commission had declared the county to be a Second Amendment sanctuary.  

States such as Colorado with red-flag laws clearly need to use them more, especially where there is violent hate speech. The 31 states that do not have red-flag laws should pass them immediately. But, as a supplement to red-flag laws, we should empower law enforcement to prevent mass shootings by removing firearms from people who are prohibited from possessing firearms without a red-flag order. 

The St. Louis school shooting in October illustrates. Just nine days before the deadly rampage, police said the shooter’s mother called 911 and asked them to remove her troubled son’s AR-style rifle. The police declined to do so, explaining that they did not have “clear authority” to confiscate the rifle that day because Missouri does not have a red-flag law. But unbeknownst to the officers, the shooter was committing a crime simply by possessing the firearm. 

We know gun possession was a crime because earlier that month the shooter failed a federal instant background check. Licensed gun dealers in every state must run a background check to see if would-be purchasers fall into any of the federal or state prohibited categories. But bizarrely, police are not allowed to use the background check system, even when they have good reason to suspect that a person standing right in front of them is in illegal possession of a firearm.  Blindfolding the police in this way likely contributed to the St. Louis tragedy and may lead to more gun deaths until the policy is changed.   

https://thehill.com/opinion/criminal-justice/3745454-were-taking-an-ostrich-approach-to-enforcing-gun-laws-with-deadly-results/

In many cases the tools are there but either go unused or are blocked.

Safeguards are simple enough and the same as any other search/seizure. Police need probable cause to verify someone is not a prohibited person- like a mental health call. The accused has due process to challenge and have the property returned if the seizure was not merited.

[sanatanadharma]

1. Ignore the illegitimate court

Ignore the illegitimate court.

If the SC goes along with the 'independent legislature' theory, use it to declare States free of the socio-pathic justices.
The Oregon Legislature has decided; end of story.
Don't like it? Move elsewhere.

Or, simply accept that the USA, and all of us (ALL) who call ourselves Americans, are OK with the blood because 'old-times' declared ...
Or go to the Constitutional Convention and occupy it as liberal-progresive-destroyers of the 2nd (couldn't happen to a more deserving) amendment.

[AndyS]

2. It certainly seems that ignoring law and duty to protect are ignored by pro

gun law enforcement all the time, so why not by us anti violence types?

Sheriffs and politicians openly defy the law all the time putting themselves above the courts and law.

Goose and Gander, right?

[melm00se]

3. One of the biggest complaints

out there is that people have never sat down and read the Constitution and, in your case, the section that particularly talks about Amending and ratification.

Having said that, you have 1 part correct in that a Constitutional Convention can be called. The salient part is here:

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments"

But you need to continue to read Article V:

&quot these) amendments...shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress"

To get any proposed change (in this case the 2nd Amendment), the proposed amendment must be ratified by 3/4 of the states' legislatures or conventions. Now Congress could propose an alternative ratification process but that has only happened once with the ratification of the 21st Amendment repealing the 18th Amendment. Congress' action was in response to United States v. Sprague via House Joint Resolution Proposing the Twenty-First Amendment to the Constitution.

Based upon current alignment of red vs blue states, there is zero chance that there will be 38 states needed to ratify your proposed amendment. The drafters of the Constitution established this high bar to make changes to prevent willy-nilly changes to the Constitution because folks didn't have anything better to do that day. California didn't exactly get the memo which is why their constitution has been amended more than 500 times in the last 143 years (or averaging more than 3 times a year).

Furthermore, the verbiage for changing of the 2nd Amendment would have to be almost draconian to overcome 43 states that specifically grant the right to keep and bear arms which may poison some states' efforts to ratify your suggested constitutional amendment.

The part of your suggestion that, to me at least, is scary is that if you are successful in "occupy(ing) the (Constitutional Convention) as liberal-progresive-destroyers of the 2nd amendment" and tossing this amendment, the door has been opened to have other amendments that you agree with getting tossed because the other side took your blueprint and used it.

Be very careful what you wish for...it could blow up in your face.

Sources:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlev
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-5/choosing-a-mode-of-ratification

[AndyS]

4. Don't need an amendment or a convention.

Need a SC that interprets the constitution differently than the cockamamie legal 'theories' put forth since Scalia and now the nutbars who go back to the witch trials for justification to over throw Roe.

[yagotme]

6. Your solution poses the same problem as in your text.

If a SC agrees to severely restrict firearms, down the pike, another one can eliminate the prior court's decision. Not a permanent solution, for any change in law. Roe's problem, it was never actually codified into law, and a following court could easily strike down a prior decision with little effort. You have to delete the 2d amendment, and the effort to do so, is probably unattainable, as stated in prior posts.

[AndyS]

8. True but Roe's demise 0ffers a roadmap

to codifying rights. Like the right to life as presented in the Declaration, not the batshit crazy Dobbs decision.

[yagotme]

9. "Life liberty, and the pursuit of happiness..."

There are those that may argue that the "right to life" would also extend to a fetus. Have to be careful what you ask for...

[AndyS]

10. "All MEN are created equal" Men being white male property owners . . .

But seriously, that's what the roadmap is about; defining and codifying. Not likely a Lindsey Graham approach will get past. The GOP has found out what happens when the dog finally catches that car.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

5. This all seems entirely reasonable.

I think the bar for a mental health concern may be higher than a 9-11 call. The police may have to witness an act of instability endangering someone to have grounds to make the inquiry but they should certainly have that authority.

In view of their ability to proceed with civil forfeiture and not even charge anyone with a crime, removing a weapon in this case seems a much better use of police resources.

[yagotme]

7. Doesn't help much, when people are charged with a crime, and then charges dropped.

Those charges for the nightclub shooter, if he had been convicted, would have blocked access to legally purchasing firearms, as they would have been felonies. We have the laws on the books, but often charges are dropped, or plead to a lesser, which allows the individual to "get away with" a felony, and retain firearm purchase rights.

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

11. Our justice systems is a collection of very sharp tools.

Like the tools we to prepare food, they must be employed with judicious wisdom. Grinding a fine cut of beef to hamburger when it would be wonderful steak is wasteful.

Like the tools we prep with, exercising wisdom in legislating and enforcement is sometimes difficult. These lines are often anything but sharp and logical. Their blur is often exaggerated by political rhetoric.

Much wiser minds than mine are needed.

[yagotme]

12. I have to disagree a bit.

I think some of those "tools" are sharper on the back side than they are on the front. They are trying to cut a steak with the rib of the knife, not the edge, as it may...

[discntnt_irny_srcsm]

13. I feel my analogy is failing.

Please explain your position.

[yagotme]

14. Nothing wrong with your analogy.

I'm just stating that some of those "sharp" tools, well, aren't. Just watched TV with the wife a few hours ago, don't know the program, but 3 POC were locked up in Tulsa, OK for 20+ years on false charges. The sheriff's dept. and the DA were looking for convictions at any cost, up to and including threatening "witnesses" with imprisonment if they didn't testify the "right" way. A tool is only as good as the person wielding it, and it must be the right tool for the job.