Time for State Governments to take the lead on School Shootings

'Let the states decide' seems to be the GOP cop out for issues they can't resolve or are too politically toxic and cause infighting.

 

They want to make sure mar1juana is banned. In that case they don't want states to decide. Or if concealed hand guns should be allowed across state lines, then they want the national government to decide.

 

It is not so much a cop out as actually the way the government was set up in the Constitution. The feds are given limited, enumerated powers. Everything else is the purview of the states. It was only 150 years later that they decided that anything can be regulated by congress under a combination of the commerce clause and the necessary and proper clause. The original idea was for state law to cover most issues, and the feds generally deal with national defense, foreign relations, and relations between the states.

 

Actually, the right to free speech has limits... you can't scream fire in a crowded theater and you can't slander someone are two examples of limits.

You can be unhappy with these, but they are examples of how your perceived constitutional right to bear arms is not an unlimited right (just as in the example of right to speech).

Interesting story... but these were intended as examples of where the government correctly legislates for the public good. And they were examples you brought up, not I. And you have already given examples where laws are enacted to limit the right to own and use guns. So again, its not an unlimited right.

Again, the gun ownership right can be, should be, and is limited. We're in agreement it appears. I simply think more limitations are reasonable and in my opinion for the public good. School shootings have to be reduced. You may not care, but most others do. But hey, perhaps more of the second amendment candidates you support will take that brave political stance... that school shootings aren't a problem.

 

Honestly . . . .. this is all moot.
As we have seen repeatedly in the past

If the Local does something . . .. The State will step in to supercede it
If the State does something . . . The Fed will step in to supercede it

If the State does ANYTHING to offend the NRA . . .. . The Fed will probably outlaw it

Rocket River

 

It pretty much is IMO

As someone pointed out
mar1juana and gay marriage. . . .starts passing state to state. . . BOOM WE NEED A FED LAW ON THIS NOW!!!!

Rocket River

 

Of course the fact that banning certain guns did nothing to reduce the frequency or lethality of school shootings when tired before in this country.....but sure, that's the reason you are pushing for gun bans and it's not because it's a political objective you've wanted advanced forever and will use any excuse to do so no matter how invalid it is. So long as you can fool people into going along with it, you're good.

 

In general, yes. But, since there is a Constitutional civil rights issue here, doesn't it make sense to handle it at the federal level so that the extent of your civil right doesn't vary from state to state? Federal treatment seems appropriate here.

There is also the issue that having uneven regulation reduces the effective of regulation to the weakest link. If California does a great job of keeping guns out of the wrong hands, but Oregon doesn't, the guns will just drive over the border. That said, I'm happy to have whatever assistance the states can provide in solving this problem. These approaches are not mutually exclusive (until the courts say they are). State leaders should not feel like they are off the hook by any means. Unfortunately, I live in Texas and I expect even less from my state government on having effective policy on gun violence than I do from the current federal government. Texas literally thinks that the solution is to make sure that more people are armed in more places. But, at least they're doing something, I guess, which is more than I can say for the feds.

 

A good move by trump... a small move, but the longest journey begins with the first step. And if he is sincere in what is being said is a desire to improve the federal background check system, a second good move.

 

Slight signs of a change in the right direction.

I will have signficant amount more respect for him if he follows through and keeps on pushing this.

 

Those are both sensible moves. Hopefully though the focus shifts back to things that will actually help prevent or minimize the damage the next time someone decides to commit a terrorist act against a school.

 

It's not that I don't want to give Trump credit on anything, but I have to think the extreme pressure that comes with yet another horrific shooting made the White House feel like they have to do something or get lambasted in the press. Credit to the outraged highschoolers et al. But, whatever the reason, I'm happy for any improvement we can get, so here's my kudos to Trump for not being totally deaf to the cries for action.

 

Interesting to note that the Parkland school killer didn't use a "bump" or other device. Also worth noting that after the Las Vegas attack Dianne Feinstein proposed a bump stock ban but it never went to a vote. I guess the images of kids being killed, the voices of the children and parents calling for action made a difference.

It will be worth watching what actually happens now. Will the executive order attempt to stop all devices and methods to turns legal guns into machineguns? And what moves will the trump administration and congress take to improve the federal background check system.

 

They wanted the ATF to do it because Congress is useless. I opposed the ban that was brought up in Congress because the language was too far reaching. It was to ban ANY device that increases the rate of fire. That is too broad... a match trigger might allow me to squeeze off a few more rounds, but not fire like a bump stock. They did a piss poor job of defining a bump stock so let the "experts" at the ATF do it.

 

In a second bit of good news for those who want reasonable protections in place...

Supreme Court snubs challenge to California gun waiting period

Of course, someone has to pout...

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...o-california-gun-waiting-period-idUSKCN1G4200

 

Interesting to note that this is republican senator Pat Toomey...

 

I know some people can't help but be anti-civil liberties, but you'll have to understand that most of America won't be when it comes down to it.

 

Trump caved just in time for the primaries. NRA folks are super pissed off now and people can still use a belt loop to bump fire an AR-15. Bravo trump. This ban is as useless in stopping mass shootings as banning a colored stock.

I guess he’d rather have neutered in Congress to have the excuse that they ruined his presidency. Nice excuse.

 

Ruh roh... I wonder if trump knew that this approach might not work?

Trump's first move on gun control after the Florida shooting may not work

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-bump-stock-move-after-florida-school-shooting-2018-2

 

Every legal ban is useless, but you have to give the prohibitionists something and bump stocks are dangerous.