[Laminar]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

What would have happened had he simply not certified the vote?

Your entire democracy already hinged, once, on the integrity of that milquetoast and some hella good fortune.

subego has already said that because it didn't happen, it couldn't have happened.

[subego]

I did?

This sounds like a misunderstanding.

[Laminar]

https://forums.macnn.com/showthread....82#post4423182

[subego]

That says “we did not come close to Trump declaring martial law because he neither had the political strength to enforce it, nor the public support to make up for his lack of political strength”.

Of course, anything is possible, however the conditions were stacked against it enough I judged it as extremely unlikely.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

What would have happened had he simply not certified the vote?

My understanding is the Senate would then appoint a new President of the Senate, which they can do, and the new President of the Senate would certify.

[andi*pandi]

Aaand who would a republican majority appoint to certify? Isn't this why Mike Pence was almost hanged? And had not Mike Pence had that ounce of self-restraint (after consulting with Dan Quayle of all people) wouldn't we be in a Trump presidency right NOW?

[subego]

It would have only taken 3 defectors for the Republican majority to have been meaningless.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

It would have only taken 3 defectors for the Republican majority to have been meaningless.

It doesn’t strike you as..extraordinary that the difference between a fascist dictatorship and American democracy was decided by a single man’s strength of character (after talking to Dan Fucking Quayle), with the safeguard after that having been your personal conviction that three of the Party a heartbeat away from absolute power would „defect“?

With a half-naked guy with facepaint and a funny hat leading a mob yelling that they’ll murder you if you don’t vote accordingly?

Tr*mp wasn’t kidding when he called the U.S. a fucking „banana republic“, apparently

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

It doesn’t strike you as..extraordinary that the difference between a fascist dictatorship and American democracy was decided by a single man’s strength of character (after talking to Dan Fucking Quayle), with the safeguard after that having been your personal conviction that three of the Party a heartbeat away from absolute power would „defect“?

You say this as if herding defecting Republicans wasn’t Mitch’s full-time job.

[Spheric Harlot]

What are you saying, subego?

[subego]

It was a common occurrence during the Trump administration for the Senate Majority Leader to have to herd Republicans who defected. Romney and Collins specifically.

I’d like to add, while I can understand to some extent the enmity and distrust which the left has for the right, I’m disappointed it’s gotten to the point where someone on the left honestly thinks it would be difficult to find just three Republican senators willing to save democracy.

[Laminar]

Maybe you missed the narrative - the left has already destroyed democracy when they faked millions of votes to get Biden into office. Rejecting his presidency IS saving democracy.

It's also kind of funny seeing you try to play Disappointed Dad after you're okay giving Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2024.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

It was a common occurrence during the Trump administration for the Senate Majority Leader to have to herd Republicans who defected. Romney and Collins specifically.

I’d like to add, while I can understand to some extent the enmity and distrust which the left has for the right, I’m disappointed it’s gotten to the point where someone on the left honestly thinks it would be difficult to find just three Republican senators willing to save democracy.

The terrifying thing that you're not acknowledging is that your entire democracy would hinge on a random THREE PEOPLE doing the Right Thing (against very real death threats against them and their families) vs. the opportune thing (and all the power and riches that brings).

If that was literally ALL that separated your republic from a fascist dictatorship — don't you think there's something a little bit amiss?

Shouldn't "The World's Greatest Democracy" be just a little bit more robust?

The fact is, your democracy has already been systematically dismantled to the point where it's that easily tipped.

Freedom House’s Global Freedom Index gives countries a score from 0 to 100 each year; 100 indicates the most democratic. In 2015, the United States received a score of 90, roughly in line with countries such as Canada, France, Germany, and Japan. But since then, America’s score has declined steadily, reaching 83 in 2021. Not only was that score lower than every established democracy in Western Europe; it was lower than new or historically troubled democracies such as Argentina, the Czech Republic, Lithuania, and Taiwan.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...norway/675199/

You can be SURE that it's dropped considerably lower since then. That article was written before the president was granted dictatorial immunity for crimes committed in office by a supreme court he bought himself.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

Maybe you missed the narrative - the left has already destroyed democracy when they faked millions of votes to get Biden into office. Rejecting his presidency IS saving democracy.

It's also kind of funny seeing you try to play Disappointed Dad after you're okay giving Trump the benefit of the doubt in 2024.

I’m not giving either side’s narrative much truck.

I (honestly) apologize. Disappointed was a poor choice.

Let me try it this way. There is no question in my mind there were three Republican senators willing to save democracy. In fact I believe there were more than three.

If my belief is correct, and yet you still don’t believe it, that makes me concerned. Specifically because, and I apologize for getting all emo on you, but I like you a lot, and I don’t like seeing people I like being weighed down by unfounded distress.


Edit: that last part applies to pretty much everyone here.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

If my belief is correct, and yet you still don’t believe it, that makes me concerned.

The entirety of Trump's campaign and presidency was spent going, "You can't do that! That's not how the rules work!" and then he fuckin' did the thing anyway. Saying, "This couldn't have happened because the rules wouldn't let it happen," ignores the fact that we all learned that we actually have no idea what the rules are, how the government works, or what's even possible until Trump did it, got away with it, and actually gained support after doing whatever heinous thing he did.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

The entirety of Trump's campaign and presidency was spent going, "You can't do that! That's not how the rules work!" and then he fuckin' did the thing anyway. Saying, "This couldn't have happened because the rules wouldn't let it happen," ignores the fact that we all learned that we actually have no idea what the rules are, how the government works, or what's even possible until Trump did it, got away with it, and actually gained support after doing whatever heinous thing he did.

Oh no — we're all very aware of what the rules are.

What we didn't bank on was people just outright not following them, and/or changing them post-facto.

Impeachment is guilt. That doesn't mean what it's supposed to if enough people just flaunt the rules.

Instigating a coup is treason. That doesn't mean anything if the utterly obvious fact — that PotUS is an office of government — is simply deigned not applicable by corrupt institutions intended to safeguard the construct of rules and laws.

Democracy is already lost if those changes aren't reversed, fast.

[Waragainstsleep]

I've heard there are a lot of Trump sycophant election officers in place this time to refuse to certify any result other than a Trump win. By holding up a single county vote they can hold up an entire state apparently?

[subego]

In hindsight it’s obvious, but I wasn’t expecting such a massive difference in how I perceive the world versus everyone else here.

There’s so little in common I feel like anything I say is going to get interpreted as gaslighting.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I've heard there are a lot of Trump sycophant election officers in place this time to refuse to certify any result other than a Trump win. By holding up a single county vote they can hold up an entire state apparently?

I don't know the legal answer, but it should not matter unless that county(s) result controls which way the state votes. It would just be a matter of getting a court to order certification.

If the holdout county actually did control who wins that state, it might be a problem. But courts will expedite rulings for election deadlines.

[Waragainstsleep]

Another thing I've been wondering: At least on TV, when a cop or a DA is found to be corrupt or criminal, it opens up their previous convictions to appeals. If the ideal happens and Harris wins everything and immediately impeaches Thomas and Alito, and they both get booted for being corrupt or whatever, does that give grounds to appeal Dobbs back to SCOTUS? Not to mention every other case those two actively oversaw? Or at least the ones where their votes could swing the result the other way if different?

[subego]

We’ve never had a Supreme Court justice removed.

Impeachment and conviction are legislative processes. Who is in the executive isn’t really relevant.

Conviction requires 2/3 of the Senate IIRC, so that’s not going to happen.

If it did happen, my guess as to whether a case would get a new hearing would be up to the Supreme Court, just like now.

[reader50]

Agree with subego.

Note than an impeachment conviction is a firing, not a conviction in the normal judicial sense. Even if Congress fired them for being corrupt, that's the opinion of Congress and not the same as a court finding-of-fact.

So it would be up to SCOTUS if they want to rehear any cases. More likely, they'd wait for a similar case to come up, then possibly set a new precedent going forward.

[Laminar]

Originally Posted by subego 

I entered into reading it giving him the benefit of the doubt. I endeavor to do that with everyone.

In 1865, you're the guy who would have said, "No, they have a good point - fundamentally, the states need to be able to decide their own laws."

In 1920, you're the guy who would have said, "Well, maybe women actually do lack the mental capacity to vote thoughtfully, the truth is probably somewhere in the middle."

In the '60s, you're really thoughtfully considering whether or not black and white people should share water fountains, in the '80s you took Reagan at his word that he didn't trade arms for hostages. In the '90s you think we should really hear out what the oil companies have to say about climate change.

Now it's 2024 and you're saying, "Well maybe Trump really does give two shits about America and everything he does is with the intent of helping America."

It's the same attitude all the way through history - all it takes is naive people willing to give conservatives the benefit of the doubt for them to continue to oppressing and marching us toward fascism.

[subego]

If this wasn’t intended to sever all discussion, it should be rephrased.

[Laminar]

It was intended to sever all inclination to give certain people the benefit of the doubt and just "see where things go."

If I really wanted to sever discussion I could have just invoked Godwin's law, which is very applicable.

[subego]

I meant “sever all discussion [on this subject]”.

I don’t see a tangible difference between an intent to sever all inclination for me to hold my position, and in intent to sever me discussing my position.

Should this change, or I have misunderstood, I’ll be here.


I would like to make explicit I do not deny any of your accusations, because I have not given them ample consideration. I would gladly do so in the spirit of discussion, but hesitate to do so with someone who rather pointedly lacks any interest.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by reader50 

So it would be up to SCOTUS if they want to rehear any cases. More likely, they'd wait for a similar case to come up, then possibly set a new precedent going forward.

Have they ever reheard the same case before? My understanding is that typically, once you appeal to SCOTUS, you're out of appeals and you're done. But obviously if there was questions of corruption then it would seem reasonable that a new appeal for a previously 'done' case would be allowed.

I guess someone might appeal one, then the other side might file a motion claiming that SCOTUS rehearing the same case would be unconstitutional maybe? So then SCOTUS would have to rule on that counter filing before rehearing anything? I don't know what I'm talking about and I can't be arsed to look anything up.
Only answer if you're interested folks.

[reader50]

Keep in mind that I'm not a lawyer.

My understanding is that SCOTUS can change their rulings at any time. As there is no higher court, they do not lose jurisdiction after closing out a case. So they could rewrite/reissue an existing ruling, or even schedule new hearings to possibly revise a ruling that went bad. A key witness recanting might form a basis for this.

But to my knowledge, SCOTUS does not change their past rulings. Because it would undermine their authority, making their rulings less than final. Instead, they eventually overturn some past rulings via newer cases.

From what I've read, they do (technically) alter past rulings, but only for typo corrections. Clerks verify a correction with current judges, making sure it doesn't change any meanings.

[Waragainstsleep]

I can't remember if I've raised this point/thought here before, but its something I've never spotted anyone else saying in either the gun law debates or discussions about police shootings of innocent/unarmed civilians.

I have a theory that one of the reasons your cops are so trigger-happy is that because they have to assume everybody else is fairly likely to have a gun. They are massively more twitchy, paranoid and generally terrified than cops in many other countries. If gun ownership was drastically lower, they wouldn't be so constantly afraid of everyone and everything they encounter.


I know that any licensing or restrictions that the government might attempt to apply are likely to get struck down by SCOTUS, but is it possible to introduce a federal concealed carry law that states could choose to opt into or out of, but if they wanted to have concealed carry, they had to use the federal version and couldn't draft their own?
In addtion, while its clear they wouldn't get away with imposing training, maintenance and safe storage regulations like the UK has where cops can inspect your gun cabinet and so on, what if they said gun owners have to get a competency certificate every year, and were required to safely and properly maintain and sec for failing to ure their guns, but while the government couldn't take them away or inspect them or fine anyone for failing to keep up those requirements, they could give you much harsher sentences for any gun-related crimes you were convicted of or that anyone using one of your guns was convicted of if you weren't up to date on your certs and storing weapons securely?
That doesn't infringe on anyone's right to own guns, just punishes them for failing to be responsible with them. I feel like that would be hard to justify blocking.
I'm writing this as I think it so hopefully it makes sense.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I know that any licensing or restrictions that the government might attempt to apply are likely to get struck down by SCOTUS…

As an aside, in Illinois it is illegal to own a firearm without first registering with the State Police.

[reader50]

@War, most gun laws are set at the state level, so they vary from state to state. There are limitations regarding possession and storage. Registration requirements, and often safe storage requirements (commonly for if children are in the household). Most of the 2nd Amendment battles concern if/when the government can ban entirely. ie - if they can refuse to issue a registration, or can ban guns in particular locations, or to specific people.

For example, I don't think convicted felons on parole can have guns - they're still serving their sentences. But what about when they've completed their sentences. Do their gun rights come back automatically? Or must they file a request? When can the state decline the request? Or take 3 years to decide?

Can a state confiscate guns for a year if there have been domestic violence complaints to the police? Or other warning signs on the record of potential violent behavior? These are red-flag laws.

Courts argue over the above questions, over what restrictions are reasonable, and which have historical precedent. Apparently we had more legal freedom in the past than the present, or perhaps SCOTUS is thinking about grandfathering laws. If it was legal for grandad, it should still be legal.

[Spheric Harlot]

The question was whether the federal government could introduce a legal framework at the federal level.

[Waragainstsleep]

Actually it was whether they could introduce the specific framework I mentioned and not have it struck down. But I guess if they can't do anything federal then that would answer the question.

[subego]

There’s nothing intrinsically unconstitutional about a federal framework. Background checks are federal. Automatic weapons are federally regulated.

The problem is the framework would need to be popular enough to hold as the balance of power in Congress tilts around.

Think Obamacare. People actually like that, and it almost got killed in a tilt anyway.

[Waragainstsleep]

Yeah thats sort of what I'd figured. But if this framework simply handed out harsher sentences exclusively to irresponsible gun owners, whats the argument they'd use to try to kill it? The expense of incarcerating more criminals? It feels more robot than most gun legislation because it doesn't prohibit anyone from doing anything or take anything away.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yeah thats sort of what I'd figured. But if this framework simply handed out harsher sentences exclusively to irresponsible gun owners, whats the argument they'd use to try to kill it?

They don't need an argument beyond "THEM'S ARE RIGHTS!!!1!1"

There is absolutely nothing rational about the pro-2nd-Amendment arguments. Nothing.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Yeah thats sort of what I'd figured. But if this framework simply handed out harsher sentences exclusively to irresponsible gun owners, whats the argument they'd use to try to kill it? The expense of incarcerating more criminals? It feels more robot than most gun legislation because it doesn't prohibit anyone from doing anything or take anything away.

I’m not totally sure I understand the point.

Can you give me a scenario? Name a specific irresponsible practice and the context for with which the state became aware of it.

[reader50]

It sounds like he suggests the Feds establish minimum penalties for certain gun crimes. Which would also force certain gun practices to be crimes in every state. I think that's what he means by "legal framework", with isn't bringing anything specific to mind.

[subego]

One thing which was mentioned was improperly securing a gun.

To what extent is this problem caused or exacerbated by the lack of a federal standard?

[subego]

Originally Posted by Spheric Harlot 

They don't need an argument beyond "THEM'S ARE RIGHTS!!!1!1"

There is absolutely nothing rational about the pro-2nd-Amendment arguments. Nothing.

People with an unshakable belief we should live in an armed society believe it because they do. It’s essentially dogma.

Like dogma, some people do better than others when it comes to intersections with rationalism. Most do poorly, and even more so when their beliefs face a direct threat.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

I’m not totally sure I understand the point.

Can you give me a scenario? Name a specific irresponsible practice and the context for with which the state became aware of it.

An owner is responsible for EVERYTHING that happens with his gun.

Licenses not coming with extensive training requirements, subject to proof of safe storage lockers, is irresponsible.

Not keeping all firearms unloaded and locked in a weapons safe at all times, along with the munitions. That’s irresponsible. Transport only unloaded and separate from ammo. It’s the law in pretty much every other first-world country.

Not keeping a state registry of ALL guns, with serial numbers tied to the owners. This encourages lax handling of guns. A former client of mine was a licensed hunter and had the police turn up at his door when a gun he’d formerly owned and legally sold a decade before was seized in connection with some crime. He had the paperwork on the buyer (whom they knew about, since the sale was registered), and they asked if he had further information on where the gun eventually went.
Not keeping such a registry is irresponsible of the government, mind you — not the gun owners.

Another such irresponsibility is not requiring in-depth background checks and renewable licenses for the purchase of a firearm — from anybody. This ties in with the registry, since private sales need to be tracked and subject to the same checks. You don’t show me a current license in your name, I don’t sell you my gun. If I do anyway, I’m responsible for what happens with it.

Not Immediately putting licenses on hold or revoking them the minute there are irregularities or a weapon isn’t accounted for. If my gun is used in a crime, I better be able to prove that I followed securing regulations to the letter or practised due diligence when selling it, or immediately reported it to the authorities if it got stolen despite my adherence to the law. If I can’t, I get prosecuted for criminal negligence or as an accessory.

This is normal.

[Waragainstsleep]

OK, let me try again.

Spheric has given a good list of some of the requirements in other countries that are very sensible but will not fly in the US. Let's just take storage as an example.
If you introduced a federal law saying that all gun owners have to keep their guns in a safe, there would immediately be issues with this. Critics would point out that firstly, you need to define what qualifies as a safe because people will look for loopholes. A cardboard box will not suffice. Easy fix for that is to certify gun safes and certify the installation of them to a standard (otherwise a thief can just steal the whole safe). So you set standards for the metal, the hinges, locks and for the bolts that you would be required to use to bolt them to a wall structure. Then standards for the wall because drywall isn't going to cut it. You need to close these obvious loopholes in order to sidestep the initial objections to such laws.
The problem with all that is that you then have to inspect and maybe license these installed safes and the gun lobby isn't going to stand for that (is it?) In the UK, a firearms officer can do spot inspections on gun owner's safes to make sure they are storing them correctly and according to the rules. Absolutely no way in hell is a law requiring/allowing that going to survive for long in the US if it even makes it into law in the first place. And not just because of the current supreme court I suspect.

The upshot is that you cannot practically enforce any standard of responsibility on gun owners PROAVTIVELY. My idea is to enforce one retroactively. So you mandate safety training, to be rectified regularly. How to clean and maintain, how to store, how to shoot, etc etc. You mandate storage specs and standards as mentioned above. You mandate restricting access to minors or uncertified persons. You set rules requiring the registering of resales and reporting of thefts. But you don't punish the failure to do any of this until after something goes wrong.
So owners don't truly have to do any of these new requirements. But if you shoot someone and you didn't get re-certified for ten years. Oh dear. Big fines and jail time for you. If your kid does a school shooting with your gun and your safe wasn't up to spec. You're on the hook now too. If someone else commits a crime with a gun you bought and didn't report the resale or theft? You're an accessory now.
So you get the incentive to make gun owners truly responsible, but you sidestep all the 2A lobbying and litigation that would be inevitable if you tried to implement laws that logically necessitated you to infringe all these imagined gun rights that US courts always seem to uphold where the government is specifically forbidden from knowing what guns you have or coming to see them or take them away and so on.

Hopefully this makes the concept clearer? It's a potential method to implement sensible gun laws without making it easy for them to be struck down by the usual suspects.
One of the usual generalised arguments is about not penalising responsible gun owners for the crimes or the irresponsible ones (even though this is how all laws work). My version only punishes the irresponsible ones. But it maintains American's freedom to be irresponsible gun owners which apparently is sacrosanct.

[reader50]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

Easy fix for that is to certify gun safes and certify the installation of them to a standard (otherwise a thief can just steal the whole safe).

This suggestion isn't a guns issue. It's property rights. We have an affordable housing crisis in the US, for multiple reasons I won't go into here. But owning a home is an expensive dream, requiring sacrifice to obtain freedom from rent, and greater freedom in general.

If you rent a home, the owner can schedule inspections now and then. And you have to let them into your living space, so they can check if you're still trustworthy with their property.

If you do a 30-year mortgage to own your own home, no one has the right to intrude outside of immediate crimes. Or if you invite them in. Cops should not be inspecting your gun safe, or your refrigerator, or that your bed is made properly. Private homes have extensive legal protection, requiring search warrants to intrude. Which require probable cause of a crime to get a search warrant. In the US, officials cannot use a thermal camera to look through walls and see you move around in your home without a warrant, because it's a privacy intrusion. An illegal search. Your home is kinda your castle, or at least your private space. With legal teeth behind the "private" part.

And requiring only licensed safe installers? Are you kidding? Why sign away half your life to own something, that you aren't allowed to work on yourself? A landlord can forbid driving nails in the wall for hanging pictures (hence how popular stick-on hooks have become). But if you need a license to place something in your home, where does it end? Will they (government bodies) require licenses to fix a dripping faucet? To change light bulbs?

If you own something, you need to control it. What the heck did you sacrifice your working life for, if you can't screw in a small safe? And how is it your space if officials can demand entry, to check your truthfulness and trustworthiness?

note: while there are breadbox-sized pistol safes, a "gun safe" is usually something tall that looks kinda like a refrigerator. To store rifles, so at least one dimension has to be longer than 1.5 meters. Traditionally the height dimension, so it looks a little like a fridge. But it's about 4x as heavy. I've moved one with a refrigerator dolly. Couldn't pull it up a few steps, even with two guys pulling. It required a come-along (hand winch) to pull the fridge dolly up less than a meter of steps. A decent-sized gun safe doesn't have to be secured, they're majorly difficult to move. Especially if they aren't on a ground floor.

Securing is good, but you'd need a team of thieves with a heavy-duty appliance dolly, possibly other professional moving equipment, to steal a decent-sized gun safe.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by reader50 

And requiring only licensed safe installers? Are you kidding? Why sign away half your life to own something, that you aren't allowed to work on yourself?

Because anything else is irresponsible, as explained at length above.

I don't know how it is in the United States, but over here, if you have gas central heating in your home, the state requires regular inspection — because, if something goes wrong, valves rot due to neglect, whatever, people tend to die. There are legal requirements to how gas access must be set up, what safety measures must be implemented, what kind of hardware may be used, etc.

Is this really free-for-all in the U.S.?

From a Euro perspective: There is no reason why keeping murderdeathkill weapons in the house should not be subject to similar regulations and inspections. Because if something goes wrong, people tend to die.

Originally Posted by reader50 

A landlord can forbid driving nails in the wall for hanging pictures (hence how popular stick-on hooks have become). But if you need a license to place something in your home, where does it end? Will they (government bodies) require licenses to fix a dripping faucet? To change light bulbs?

Yeah! If we require licenses for surgeons just to cut bits off people, where does it end? Will they (government bodies) require licenses to cut hair? To clip nails?

Originally Posted by reader50 

If you own something, you need to control it. What the heck did you sacrifice your working life for, if you can't screw in a small safe?

I see no issue with setting one up yourself. It needs to be a safe that meets the legal requirements for gun storage. And as you describe below, very, very few people will be capable of setting one up themselves, anyway, because you need major equipment just to haul one around.

Originally Posted by reader50 

And how is it your space if officials can demand entry, to check your truthfulness and trustworthiness?

How safe are your guns if officials can't verify that you're following the law? The trustworthiness and truthfulness argument is of course a MAJOR point in favour of strict vetting, licensing, and instant suspension of licenses (and — at least temporary — confiscation of the guns) as soon as the slightest doubt is cast upon the trustworthiness of the license holder. I agree.

Originally Posted by reader50 

note: while there are breadbox-sized pistol safes, a "gun safe" is usually something tall that looks kinda like a refrigerator. To store rifles, so at least one dimension has to be longer than 1.5 meters. Traditionally the height dimension, so it looks a little like a fridge. But it's about 4x as heavy. I've moved one with a refrigerator dolly. Couldn't pull it up a few steps, even with two guys pulling. It required a come-along (hand winch) to pull the fridge dolly up less than a meter of steps. A decent-sized gun safe doesn't have to be secured, they're majorly difficult to move. Especially if they aren't on a ground floor.

Securing is good, but you'd need a team of thieves with a heavy-duty appliance dolly, possibly other professional moving equipment, to steal a decent-sized gun safe.

Yep. We played a corporate gig for a safe manufacturer a while ago and took a look at their offerings. These things way easily half a ton.

[subego]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

But if you shoot someone and you didn't get re-certified for ten years. Oh dear. Big fines and jail time for you.

Crazy idea: jail the person for shooting someone.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

Crazy idea: jail the person for shooting someone.

Hi. The subject is controlling access to firearms by encouraging/requiring responsibility from owners, not post-facto punishment of perpetrators.

You’re already doing that, and it’s not working. If it were, we wouldn’t be having this conversation (again).

[subego]

The proposed means of encouraging responsible gun ownership is post-facto punishment of perpetrators.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally Posted by subego 

The proposed means of encouraging responsible gun ownership is post-facto punishment of perpetrators.

No. It's punishment for irresponsible handling. But I get what you're saying: implementing such owner responsibility as the first step retroactively imposes a liability that might be impossibly to communicate, let alone enforce — for one, it absolutely requires gun registration.

These consequences need to be vetted for beforehand, by requiring a revokable license before any gun can be purchased from anywhere, complete background checks, training, safe storage, registration of each and every firearm, the knowledge that the owner is personally liable for anything that happens with his gun (this is not "post-facto" punishment if part of the legal setup from the get-go, since it is inherent to the responsible handling of guns in the first place).

The actual solution is everything on my list, not a "oh hey whoops — didn't you get the memo? It's jailtime, buddy!" implementation.

One could feasibly start with a federal requirement for revokable licenses with full background checks and training, with a soft roll-out of five or ten years, but effective immediately for ALL firearms purchases.

[subego]

We’re sort of stuck staying within the confines of the law, which under the current interpretation makes your proposals unconstitutional.