Time for Gun Safety Advocates to Abandon Their Strategy

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A sound suggestion considering Wednesday’s oral arguments over the New York may-issue concealed carry provision:

"This case signaled not only the court's growing hostility to restrictions on concealed carry—the subject matter of today's case—but reflects the view of some justices that there are too many gun control laws and that we need to start striking gun control laws down," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told Newsweek.

"A significant portion of the gun safety movement's current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years," Winkler added. "I think bans on assault weapons and bans on high-capacity magazines are ripe for the new Supreme Court, with its newly invigorated Second Amendment, to strike down."

[…]

Winkler urged the gun safety movement to begin shifting its agenda and move away from its current efforts, in response to Wednesday's hearing.

"It's time to stop focusing on banning particular kinds of firearms or accessories, like high-capacity magazines or assault weapons, and focus more on gun violence prevention programs, getting adequate funding for community intervention programs, lifting restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms," he said.

"The gun safety movement has reforms it can pursue. Indeed, some of these other reforms have been pursued by the movement for years, but they've been sidelined as assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans—more high-profile reforms—take center stage," Winkler added.

"I think that some of those other proposals and reforms are the wrong way to go today, given the current Supreme Court," he said.’

SCOTUS Justices Signal They Think There Are Too Many Gun Control Laws

"A significant portion of the gun safety movement's current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years," UCLA's Adam Winkler said.

www.newsweek.com

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Anyone who uses the term “gun safety” to describe those who are opposed to the right of the people to keep and bear arms automatically and immediately discredits himself.

But then, citing Newsweak as a source does that as well.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Lifting restrictions on the ATF won’t work either, as administrative policy is also subject to judicial review.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Winkler urged the gun safety movement to begin shifting its agenda and move away from its current efforts, in response to Wednesday's hearing.

"It's time to stop focusing on banning particular kinds of firearms or accessories, like high-capacity magazines or assault weapons, and focus more on gun violence prevention programs, getting adequate funding for community intervention programs, lifting restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms," he said.

"The gun safety movement has reforms it can pursue. Indeed, some of these other reforms have been pursued by the movement for years, but they've been sidelined as assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans—more high-profile reforms—take center stage," Winkler added.

"I think that some of those other proposals and reforms are the wrong way to go today, given the current Supreme Court," he said.’

This looks like a concession of the point.
A capitulation, even.
Not that I trust these people any more than I can toss then, but this is a good sign,.

 

[Missourian]

Time for Gun Safety Advocates to...admit defeat.​

​

​

 

[miketx]

A sound suggestion considering Wednesday’s oral arguments over the New York may-issue concealed carry provision:

"This case signaled not only the court's growing hostility to restrictions on concealed carry—the subject matter of today's case—but reflects the view of some justices that there are too many gun control laws and that we need to start striking gun control laws down," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told Newsweek.

"A significant portion of the gun safety movement's current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years," Winkler added. "I think bans on assault weapons and bans on high-capacity magazines are ripe for the new Supreme Court, with its newly invigorated Second Amendment, to strike down."

[…]

Winkler urged the gun safety movement to begin shifting its agenda and move away from its current efforts, in response to Wednesday's hearing.

"It's time to stop focusing on banning particular kinds of firearms or accessories, like high-capacity magazines or assault weapons, and focus more on gun violence prevention programs, getting adequate funding for community intervention programs, lifting restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms," he said.

"The gun safety movement has reforms it can pursue. Indeed, some of these other reforms have been pursued by the movement for years, but they've been sidelined as assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans—more high-profile reforms—take center stage," Winkler added.

"I think that some of those other proposals and reforms are the wrong way to go today, given the current Supreme Court," he said.’

SCOTUS Justices Signal They Think There Are Too Many Gun Control Laws

"A significant portion of the gun safety movement's current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years," UCLA's Adam Winkler said.

www.newsweek.com

^^ Commie gun banner.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

Gun safety? Uh, do what? This ain't got jack-fucking-shit to do with "gun safety". This is all about banning gun ownership. Either an outright legislative prohibition, or by making it too expensive and/or too complicated to own a gun. Anyone who says otherwise is either lying, or stupid.

New York is a perfect example: only the very rich and the very politically connected (one in the same?) can get a CCW permit in that state.

In California, it costs $450 to apply for a CCW permit and there's no guarantee that you'll actually get the permit.

 

[whitehall]

I guess it's not hard to find a liberal law professor to opine on anything from the murder of the unborn to high capacity firearm magazines these days. Too bad the elitist UCLA professors didn't have some sort of representative to oversee the reckless use of firearms on Hollywood movie sets.

 

[LuckyDuck]

1. Repeal "Bail Reform." Violent offenders are just being arrested, then let go.
2. Reinstate Anti-gang task forces in police departments and go after the gangs.
3. If a person commits a violent crime, hold him/her/it until the trial date.
4. Instate a mandatory heavy sentence on anyone caught with a "stolen" firearm.
5. If parents are found to be gang members and are repeat offenders, they lose custody of their kids.

 

[fncceo]

 

[fncceo]

Reinstate Anti-gang task forces in police departments and go after the gangs.

Traditionally, some of the worst abuses by police departments have been by anti-gang task forces. Including the infamous LAPD Rampart Scandal in the 1990s.

With pressure being put on departments to do something about "gang violence", many departments were willing to look the other way as officers of those units, under similar pressure to show results (results equal arrests), violated civil rights to arrest gang members without pretext.

While appalling gang violence exists, they rarely target anyone outside of other gangs which in itself is a partial solution. In the rare instances when innocents are harmed by gang crossfire, they are typically members of the same community that provides support and a customer base for the gang's illegal activities.

When communities are willing to work with police to curtail gang violence in their neighborhoods, then police can work within the law to curtail that violence.

Policing cannot exist without the consent and cooperation of the community being policed.

 

[Rigby5]

A sound suggestion considering Wednesday’s oral arguments over the New York may-issue concealed carry provision:

"This case signaled not only the court's growing hostility to restrictions on concealed carry—the subject matter of today's case—but reflects the view of some justices that there are too many gun control laws and that we need to start striking gun control laws down," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told Newsweek.

"A significant portion of the gun safety movement's current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years," Winkler added. "I think bans on assault weapons and bans on high-capacity magazines are ripe for the new Supreme Court, with its newly invigorated Second Amendment, to strike down."

[…]

Winkler urged the gun safety movement to begin shifting its agenda and move away from its current efforts, in response to Wednesday's hearing.

"It's time to stop focusing on banning particular kinds of firearms or accessories, like high-capacity magazines or assault weapons, and focus more on gun violence prevention programs, getting adequate funding for community intervention programs, lifting restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms," he said.

"The gun safety movement has reforms it can pursue. Indeed, some of these other reforms have been pursued by the movement for years, but they've been sidelined as assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans—more high-profile reforms—take center stage," Winkler added.

"I think that some of those other proposals and reforms are the wrong way to go today, given the current Supreme Court," he said.’

SCOTUS Justices Signal They Think There Are Too Many Gun Control Laws

"A significant portion of the gun safety movement's current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years," UCLA's Adam Winkler said.

www.newsweek.com

Not sure if you meant this, but I agree with what it appears to be saying.
Which is that instead of focusing on the firearms themselves, the better way to reduce violence is to look at what causes violence and reduce that.
For example, reduce poverty, injustice, lack of opportunities like education and jobs, make health care free so that troubled youths can be diverted away from violence, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

Lifting restrictions on the ATF won’t work either, as administrative policy is also subject to judicial review.

The ATF is not the way to improve anything.
They are too distant from local communities to respond to their needs, desires, conditions, etc.
And just from a pure legal standpoint, the ATF should not even exist anymore.
They originally were just to raise federal revenue, which makes them inherently corrupt.
And the federal income tax of 1906 made any useful aspect of the AFT, totally unnecessary.
There is no fair or reasonable way for the ATF to operate.
Different states all have different views, values, standards, etc. and the AFT has the worst of all the states.
For example, if locals had been enforcing gun laws instead of the ATF, then the massacre at Waco would never have happened.
Texans likely were not at all upset about the Branch Davidians, just like the people in Idaho respected Randy Weaver enough to elect him the local sheriff.
How can the AFT enforce a law preventing felons from having guns, when each state has vastly different definitions of what is a felony?
To Texans a pot roach is a felony, but they certainly would not want the roach felon disarmed.

 

[Rigby5]

Traditionally, some of the worst abuses by police departments have been by anti-gang task forces. Including the infamous LAPD Rampart Scandal in the 1990s.

With pressure being put on departments to do something about "gang violence", many departments were willing to look the other way as officers of those units, under similar pressure to show results (results equal arrests), violated civil rights to arrest gang members without pretext.

While appalling gang violence exists, they rarely target anyone outside of other gangs which in itself is a partial solution. In the rare instances when innocents are harmed by gang crossfire, they are typically members of the same community that provides support and a customer base for the gang's illegal activities.

When communities are willing to work with police to curtail gang violence in their neighborhoods, then police can work within the law to curtail that violence.

Policing cannot exist without the consent and cooperation of the community being policed.

What is the most ironic is that gangs are natural, normal, and positive.
The violence comes from things like the War on Drugs and Prohibition, that had high cash profits that could not be banked or protected by police.
And the biggest and worst gang of all is the police themselves, wearing their blue colors, attacking all rivals, getting paid to shoot innocent rivals, just following orders, patrolling far from their local community, pulling the trigger on strangers without remorse, etc.

 

[Rigby5]

1. Repeal "Bail Reform." Violent offenders are just being arrested, then let go.
2. Reinstate Anti-gang task forces in police departments and go after the gangs.
3. If a person commits a violent crime, hold him/her/it until the trial date.
4. Instate a mandatory heavy sentence on anyone caught with a "stolen" firearm.
5. If parents are found to be gang members and are repeat offenders, they lose custody of their kids.

I disagree.
What causes gangs to be a problem is entirely the fault of government.
The War on Drugs is inherently illegal because it violates the basic principle of government, which is that legal authority comes from the defense of individual rights.
No one has the inherent right to tell someone else to not do drugs, no matter how stupid drugs may be.
And the War on Drugs caused almost all the problems because it jacked up drug profits to high, poor people are enticed.
Then it prevents the use of checks, credit cards, banks, etc. for drug transactions, creating huge cash concentrations, which then requires each dealer to be armed, regardless of if a felon or not.

Not only is the War on Drugs totally self defeating, but so inherently illegal, corrupt, and evil, that is destroys any government credibility.
It makes all normal people to resent or even want to destroy government instead of seeing government as positive or useful.

 

[Whodatsaywhodat.]

Of

A sound suggestion considering Wednesday’s oral arguments over the New York may-issue concealed carry provision:

"This case signaled not only the court's growing hostility to restrictions on concealed carry—the subject matter of today's case—but reflects the view of some justices that there are too many gun control laws and that we need to start striking gun control laws down," UCLA law professor Adam Winkler told Newsweek.

"A significant portion of the gun safety movement's current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years," Winkler added. "I think bans on assault weapons and bans on high-capacity magazines are ripe for the new Supreme Court, with its newly invigorated Second Amendment, to strike down."

[…]

Winkler urged the gun safety movement to begin shifting its agenda and move away from its current efforts, in response to Wednesday's hearing.

"It's time to stop focusing on banning particular kinds of firearms or accessories, like high-capacity magazines or assault weapons, and focus more on gun violence prevention programs, getting adequate funding for community intervention programs, lifting restrictions on the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms," he said.

"The gun safety movement has reforms it can pursue. Indeed, some of these other reforms have been pursued by the movement for years, but they've been sidelined as assault weapons bans and high-capacity magazine bans—more high-profile reforms—take center stage," Winkler added.

"I think that some of those other proposals and reforms are the wrong way to go today, given the current Supreme Court," he said.’

SCOTUS Justices Signal They Think There Are Too Many Gun Control Laws

"A significant portion of the gun safety movement's current agenda is likely to come under attack in the coming years," UCLA's Adam Winkler said.

www.newsweek.com

Of Course it is. Democrats will attack anything American. They hate America!

 

[Rigby5]

Lifting restrictions on the ATF won’t work either, as administrative policy is also subject to judicial review.

Should not be any ATF at all, since the 2nd amendment clearly gave all firearm jurisdiction to states only.

 

[Rigby5]

Traditionally, some of the worst abuses by police departments have been by anti-gang task forces. Including the infamous LAPD Rampart Scandal in the 1990s.

With pressure being put on departments to do something about "gang violence", many departments were willing to look the other way as officers of those units, under similar pressure to show results (results equal arrests), violated civil rights to arrest gang members without pretext.

While appalling gang violence exists, they rarely target anyone outside of other gangs which in itself is a partial solution. In the rare instances when innocents are harmed by gang crossfire, they are typically members of the same community that provides support and a customer base for the gang's illegal activities.

When communities are willing to work with police to curtail gang violence in their neighborhoods, then police can work within the law to curtail that violence.

Policing cannot exist without the consent and cooperation of the community being policed.

It is my opinion that police cause almost all the violence, with their War on Drugs.
It raises profits, forces cash deals, prevents the use of banks, checks, or police protection, causes turf wars, etc.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Should not be any ATF at all, since the 2nd amendment clearly gave all firearm jurisdiction to states only.

You’re truly an ignoramus.

Before 2010, the Second Amendment applied solely to the Federal government – hence Heller, as DC is under Federal jurisdiction.

It wasn’t until 2010 that the Second Amendment was incorporated to the states and local governments, hence McDonald.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

Should not be any ATF at all, since the 2nd amendment clearly gave all firearm jurisdiction to states only.

No, not to the states, either.

Note that the Tenth Amendment mentions three entities that have powers (or rights)—the federal government, the states, and the people.

To which entity does the right to keep and bear arms belong? And which entity does the Second Amendment authorize to infringe this right?