tvc184

The problem with law enforcement (and everything) is cost. It is more so with law enforcement. PA is divided into 8 patrol districts. I have no idea about Beaumont. Patrol officers work four 10 hour shifts. At three shifts a day and seven days a week, so it would take the hiring of six additional officers to put a single officer on the street for a week. At approximately $150,00 per officer, it is roughly one million dollars to add a single officer to a single district around the clock. The police department already has the largest budget in the city. So if one district (or even a couple of combined districts) would greatly improve by adding a single officer, it would cost one million dollars. I say, let’s add 18 more and increase the patrol shift by three officers per shift but I can guarantee that they won’t add $3,000,000 to the budget and that isn’t a one time expense. That million or 3 million will be spent elsewhere. Maybe on a couple of signs….. 🤣

Like the signs should be about #1,437th on the list of things to do and they are on #7?

Hopefully Texas will win their case in court to simply make suppressors legal without the federal tax stamp. I doubt it as the interstate commerce clause is far reaching. For those who may not know, in Texas a firearms suppressor is legal but they are still against federal law without a federal tax stamp. Texas removed them from prohibited weapons a couple of years ago. Texas is currently fighting a case in court that if the suppressor is manufactured completely in Texas and never leaves Texas, it would not then fall under the interstate commerce clause. The ICC allows any commerce that crosses a state line to be controlled by the US Congress under the Constitution in Article I.

The Supreme Court has never ruled to my knowledge that a child under 18 has all rights under the Constitution. A recent Fifth Circuit Court (our circuit in New Orleans) ruling said that an 18 year old is an adult and carries adult rights. That was in reference to the Texas law on issuing a license to carry a handgun in public for people 21 and older. So Texas has had to start issuing carry licenses to 18 year olds. Like other rulings that I’m aware of, those rights do not extend to a person who is not an adult under United States law, under 18. While some rights such as free-speech are protected for children, others are not. As another example of this is that the Fourteenth Amendment requires equal protection and due process. A 14 year old can be denied the right to sign a contract however so he isn’t included in all “equal protection”. Therefore the issue of a 14 year old carrying a machine gun or any firearm is not a constitutional issue in my opinion. Even under federal law people often state that an 18-20 year old person cannot buy a handgun but that is incorrect. Under both state and federal law an 18-year-old can purchase a firearm in front of a police officer or ATF agent. The federal government, probably through the interstate commerce clause, doesn’t allow federal licensed gun dealers to sell a handgun to an 18 year old however such sales are not banned from a private person to person sale. So again an 18 year old is considered an adult and can purchase and possess handguns but a person under 18 is not included. The 18 year old adult simply can’t buy one from a federally licensed dealer. So there are some restrictions under both state and federal law for some firearms laws which are constitutional. As the Supreme Court ruled in Heller, McDonald and most recently (2022) in Bruen, the Second Amendment protects the right of adults to obtain (keep) and carry (bear) arms but did not extend that right to minors or children.

Non-violent, yes. Scenario 1: Man assaulted his neighbor and gave him a black eye. He got probation. A year later he assaulted neighbor again and this time busted his nose. He got a month in the county jail for another misdemeanor assault. Two years later, he busted the neighbor’s lip. He got the maximum sentence of a year in jail for another misdemeanor assault. Scenario 2: A 17 year old sneaks out his mama’s credit card and runs up $150 on the card. Mama is struggling and can’t pay restitution and the store filled charges for Credit Card Abuse. The 17 year old can never legally own or possess a firearm. The guy who terrorizes his neighborhood and on occasion beats up a neighbor, causing painful and visible injuries, has no such restrictions on ownership or possession of a firearm. With nothing else to go on, who is the threat to the neighborhood? Is it a 17-year-old kid living at home who basically stole his mother's money by way of a credit card or is the guy who terrorizes his neighborhood and occasionally assaults someone? The kid who used his mama’s credit card without permission is a felon and the guy who repeatedly assaults his neighbors is not.

Okay. That is a good argument. There is no law prohibiting the stocks and the Supreme Court was correct by the letter of the law and Constitution but citizens should refuse to buy them. If every person voluntarily turned theirs in and refused to buy any, I am okay with it. It won’t stop the willing from anything however.

Some drugs to keep him awake and a tiny receiver/ hearing aid where he will be fed the answers….. Ask anything and his handlers will give him the answer. It will be like a silent and invisible teleprompter.

With a legal suppressor attached. We can’t stop evil people, much less with those who have time to plan.

Not as fast but pretty darn quick but skip that as nearly meaningless. You continue to ignore the questions that you don’t like however. Deflection is admitting that you have no argument. Should people go to jail for something that isn’t a crime? Should the Supreme Court base its decisions on the Constitution and the law or emotions? Does anyone believe there is a right to slaughter kids? If Congress passes a law banning bump stocks, so be it. Remember that in this decision the Supreme Court didn’t overturn machine gun laws, they only correctly and unemotionally ruled that a bump stock doesn’t fit the definition as provided by Congress. It comes down to the fact that the Congress didn’t pass a law that covered bump stocks. I understand that you are displeased. You could have reduced your statements to, “I don’t like that law”. So much more simple.

Out of all of your comments, this might be the most ridiculous; “fight for the right to slaughter kids”. Please point out anyone who believes there is a “right to slaughter kids”… and you call other people nuts? You still don’t answer the questions and go back to emotions. Should people be arrested for something that isn’t a crime? Should the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution in favor of emotions? Would a ban on bump stocks have prevented any crime?

I finally got around to reading Sotomayor’s dissent. She makes a kind of logical argument. Sotomayor then negates her own stance however when describing it. It was shown that a person can fire in the same rapid fashion by hooking your thumb through your belt loop and firing from the hip without changing any right parts. Her response was that it wasn’t as accurate. So her definition of a machine gun is now is apparently not how fast you can fire but simply how accurate you are when doing so. The bottom line is that the definition of a machine gun by law passed by Congress is a firearm that can fire more than once with a “single function of the trigger”. Then she goes on to explain that the trigger resets with each shot and has to be functioned again…. making it a semiautomatic. She argues against herself and paints herself into a corner with the actual function of the rifle. I could go on to take down her argument but certainly there is no point in this forum. In the First Amendment guarantees on free speech, some disgusting things must be allowed to be said or demonstrated in the name of freedom because when the government steps in and decides whose speech is allowed, you no longer have free speech. Determining constitutionality on emotions (which was voted on by three justices in this case) is not a good thing as we might then lose any constitutional rights.

Is it acceptable? No, in most states it’s called Capital Murder. Would it make you feel better if it was a semiautomatic? Perhaps the most murders in a school shooting where 32 innocent people were killed with a tiny .22 caliber pistol and a 9mm? In 2017 when the Las Vegas shooting happened, the FBI reported 17,294 murders. An average seems to be about 16,000 murders annually from all causes. About 350 people are killed nationwide with rifles of all types, not just high capacity or automatic weapons (of which Vegas wasn’t). Personal weapons of hands or feet or held in the hand such as a knife or club, accounts for about 3,000 per year. So we are about 10 times more likely to be stabbed or beaten to death than we are with any type of rifle. About 14,000 are killed by drunk drivers each year. Is any of that acceptable? You could remove every rifle from this country and it wouldn’t change the murder rate. Do you believe that laws or the Constitution should be ignored if something is offensive to you, because that is what you are saying? Do you think that people should be put in jail for something that is not a crime, because that is what you are saying? And for your woke example of pro life, what does abortion have to do with it? Does your logic mean that people who are pro choice think it’s acceptable?

I can fire 5-6 rounds with a semi auto AR per second. That would empty a 30 round magazine in about 6 seconds. With an approximately (slow) 3 seconds to reload, that is about 180 rounds per minute…. with an over the counter semiautomatic rifle. According to Wikipedia the shooting last for 10 minutes. That is time to fire almost 2,000 in semiautomatic. Would a true bump stock ban have prevented Vegas? Would a lawful suppressor (with a $200 tax stamp) have done more selective damage before people started knowing what was happening? Remember that is a legal item. With a semiautomatic rifle the Miami nightclub shooter killed 49 victims as opposed to 60 in Vegas. I guess 49 is more acceptable than 60…..

Shall not be infringed was not even an issue in this case. The Supreme Court allowed and in fact didn’t even debate the ban on machine guns as being lawful. The Supreme Court only looked at the law passed by Congress, accepted it as law and looked to see if bump stocks fit the legal definition as passed by Congress and signed by the president. The easy answer was no, it did not and the ATF was making up their own definition which is unconstitutional. In another comment you stated that bump stocks serve “no valuable purpose”. I agree but do we throw out the Constitution? We don’t need neo nazis or klan members rhetoric either but are willing to pick and choose who gets free speech? I support the Supreme Court decision on an item that I don’t want even if you gave me one. I support it because it follows statutory law and the Constitution. Do you suggest that the Supreme Court ignore the Constitution for political or dislike purposes?

I read a few articles that said they found evidence. This article (and probably others that I missed) finally confirmed for me that they found her remains. That is likely terrible but at the same time great for the family. The article said they got an evidentiary search warrant. Aren’t all warrants for evidence? I have asked that before but it is sometimes an interesting point of law.