Sign in to follow this  
mr6666

America's Gun Culture...

1,442 posts in this topic

Shots fired at Chicago Jesse Brown VA Medical Center, officials say; suspect in custody

The shooting happened shortly after 2:15 p.m. Witnesses said a man, perhaps in his 30s or 40s, was seen outside the Taylor Street entrance to the hospital with a rifle or some type long gun. He may have opened fire on a passing vehicle, witnesses said, before then unloading into the glass enclosed entrance area to the hospital.

Hospital officials said they believe the gunman was not a veteran.

Witnesses said there were dozens of people on the other side of the glass in a vestibule, but because it's a walk-up vestibule that was raised up off ground level, no one was hit by gunfire.

The man then entered the hospital and walked to a pharmacy area about yards from the Taylor Street entrance, where VA officers ordered him to the ground. The shooter was taken into custody.

According to the FBI, shots were fired both inside and outside the hospital. He was initially firing at the building, and was still firing when he entered the building, the FBI said. .....

https://abc7chicago.com/shots-fired-at-jesse-brown-va-medical-center-officials-say/5462787/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Impossible. Chicago is a gun-free paradise.

The huge number of guns in Chicago, New York and elsewhere is directly related to almost non-existent gun regulations in the South.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, TheCid said:

The huge number of guns in Chicago, New York and elsewhere is directly related to almost non-existent gun regulations in the South.

[citation needed]

10+Source+States+of+Recovered+Guns.png

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, Gershwin fan said:

[citation needed]

10+Source+States+of+Recovered+Guns.png

Is that where the guns were originally purchased?  It may have change, but S.C. was notorious as a source for weapons going to New York in the past.  The I-95 corridor.

  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
UPDATE: Police: At least 6 officers shot in Philadelphia active shooter gun battle; they are at hospitals with non life threatening injuries; other officers are receiving treatment for non-gunshot injuries.
 
 
 
Philadelphia Police were serving a warrant at the location where they are now engaged in an ongoing gunbattle with at least 1 gunman.
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philadelphia Mayor Jim Kenney pleads for gun control after police shooting

Mayor Jim Kenney says his officers “need help with gun control,” taking further aim at state and federal lawmakers who “don’t want to stand up to the NRA” and “preempt” local officials on legislation.

 

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/philadelphia-mayor-jim-kenney-pleads-for-gun-control-after-police-shooting-66131013887?cid=sm_npd_nn_tw_ma

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gun control groups to rally in all 50 states to pressure GOP

Gun control groups will hold rallies in all 50 states this weekend to urge the Senate to pass universal background checks, as well as a "red flag" measure aimed at potentially dangerous gun owners.

Everytown for Gun Safety Action Fund and Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America — both funded by former New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg — will also air nearly $1 million of TV and digital ads to pressure key GOP senators...........

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/08/14/gun-control-groups-rally-1462895

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 

#BREAKING Good guys had guns.

Over 100 #Philadelphia officers were on scene trying to take down a shooter firing hundreds of rounds for 7 hrs.

6 were shot.

Thank god for our cops but can we cut the **** that we are all safer if more non-cops have guns?

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
 
NEW: House Judiciary Cmte. Chairman Nadler announces that he is calling cmte. back from recess on Sept. 4,
the week before rest of Congress returns,
 
to work on gun-related legislation.
 
Nadler also says the cmte. will hold a hearing on military-style assault weapons Sept. 25.
 
... says the cmte. will work on gun-related measures relating to high-capacity magazines
 
and prohibiting people convicted of misdemeanor hate crimes from possessing a gun,
 
and also a companion House measure of Sen. Graham’s red flag bill. 
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Without replicating the drawn image, a political cartoon in this morning's Detroit Free Press asked the following....

Q:  What is president Trump's position on background checks?   

A:  Fetal.

:lol:

Sepiatone

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How background checks and ‘red flag’ gun laws work

Nation Aug 22, 2019 5:53 PM EDT

What gets checked in a background check?

 

  • Is convicted of a crime with a sentence of more than one year
  • Is under indictment for a crime with a sentence of more than one year
  • Is a fugitive
  • Uses controlled substances illegally
  • Is determined by a court to be mentally incompetent. Importantly, just getting mental health care does not prevent you from buying a gun.
  • Is in the U.S. illegally
  • Is in the U.S. on a non-immigrant visa
  • Has been dishonorably discharged from the U.S. Armed Forces
  • Has renounced U.S. citizenship
  • Is the subject of a protective order against threats of domestic violence
  • Has been convicted of domestic violence

…then that person will be flagged by the instant check system, triggering a three-day window for the FBI to investigate further and decide whether or not a person is eligible to purchase a firearm.

Private sales, like those between friends or at a gun show, are not subject to this scrutiny. Although the specifics vary,.....

What are red flag laws?

Related to background checks, but fundamentally different in the way they are administered, so-called “red flag” laws are designed to remove guns from people deemed by a court to be at risk of hurting themselves or someone else.

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have passed these measures, called “extreme risk protection orders,” to prevent gun violence. These are the kinds of restrictions President Donald Trump has highlighted as a way to stop mass shootings.

Depending on the state, “red flag” laws allow law enforcement, loved ones, lawyers, educators, mental health or medical providers to petition a court to take a gun away from someone deemed at risk.

There are weaknesses in the system,....

 

In the most recent poll from the PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist, published in July, 89 percent of U.S. adults said they supported background checks at gun shows or other private sales, including 96 percent of Democrats, 84 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of people who consider themselves politically independent. Such high levels of support also came through, no matter the respondent’s age, gender, race, income and education. .......

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/nation/how-background-checks-and-red-flag-gun-laws-work

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

In the most recent poll from the PBS NewsHour, NPR and Marist, published in July, 89 percent of U.S. adults said they supported background checks at gun shows or other private sales, including 96 percent of Democrats, 84 percent of Republicans and 89 percent of people who consider themselves politically independent. Such high levels of support also came through, no matter the respondent’s age, gender, race, income and education. .......

Pollster need to ask a better questions:  if you supported a candidate's policy stances on a majority of the issues, but the candidate did NOT support stronger background checks,  would you NOT vote for that candidate?

I.e. are you willing to be a single-issue voter as it relates to electing politicians that favor stronger Federal gun control laws? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Single issue voters , IMHO, are a waste of the process.  Given the opportunity to help make a difference they only worry about something that possibly not very many other people do, or an issue that doesn't really help or hurt them or anybody else. 

Sepiatone

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The real issue on stronger back ground checks, red flag laws and other gun restrictions is not the president, but the members of House and Senate and the state legislatures and governors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But why should the house and senate go through the fol-de-rol of hammering out a bill and go through the further effort to get it to pass each chamber only to have the president veto it?

Surely, if beforehand, the president states an interest for such legislation to be put on his desk and strongly indicates a desire to sign such a bill, then it's worth their while to work on such legislation.  If the president is known to be one to consistently waffle on such issues, there's less assurance of that legislation to get very far. 

Cid, Trump has enough brown-nosing enablers and really doesn't need the extra help.  ;) 

Sepiatone

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

But why should the house and senate go through the fol-de-rol of hammering out a bill and go through the further effort to get it to pass each chamber only to have the president veto it?

Surely, if beforehand, the president states an interest for such legislation to be put on his desk and strongly indicates a desire to sign such a bill, then it's worth their while to work on such legislation.  If the president is known to be one to consistently waffle on such issues, there's less assurance of that legislation to get very far. 

Cid, Trump has enough brown-nosing enablers and really doesn't need the extra help.  ;) 

Sepiatone

Trump would not veto a gun-control bill that passed with bi-partisan support (which would have to be the case in the Senate).     The key to getting any major reform to become law is the Senate.    

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sepiatone said:

But why should the house and senate go through the fol-de-rol of hammering out a bill and go through the further effort to get it to pass each chamber only to have the president veto it?

Surely, if beforehand, the president states an interest for such legislation to be put on his desk and strongly indicates a desire to sign such a bill, then it's worth their while to work on such legislation.  If the president is known to be one to consistently waffle on such issues, there's less assurance of that legislation to get very far. 

Cid, Trump has enough brown-nosing enablers and really doesn't need the extra help.  ;) 

Sepiatone

Last statement confuses me.  Maybe I was not clear enough in my post.  Trump will say whatever, but in the end a bill getting through the House and Republican controlled Senate will be signed. Trump has vowed to veto bills in the past, but then signed them.  Trump can rationalize anything in his mind.

As James said, an effective law has to get through the Senate.  If the Senate passes it, Trump will be hard pressed to veto it no matter what NRA, gun manufacturers, etc. may do.  Of course, it is highly unlikely that a Republican controlled Senate will pass any bill.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, TheCid said:

Last statement confuses me.  Maybe I was not clear enough in my post.  Trump will say whatever, but in the end a bill getting through the House and Republican controlled Senate will be signed. Trump has vowed to veto bills in the past, but then signed them.  Trump can rationalize anything in his mind.

As James said, an effective law has to get through the Senate.  If the Senate passes it, Trump will be hard pressed to veto it no matter what NRA, gun manufacturers, etc. may do.  Of course, it is highly unlikely that a Republican controlled Senate will pass any bill.

 

The second bolded quote is basically what I agreed with too, but in concert with the first bolded line, that enforces what I said was the waffling of Trump's that can be seen as potentially affecting the assurance of that bill being passed.  It was the way you worded your post that (to me) appeared to be blaming the house and senate for inaction, thus seemingly letting Trump "off the hook" when indeed, Trump(or any president) can compel the legislature to to take action on any issue.  And, the president can introduce his(or her) own drafted bill to the house for debate and consideration.  

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Sepiatone said:

The second bolded quote is basically what I agreed with too, but in concert with the first bolded line, that enforces what I said was the waffling of Trump's that can be seen as potentially affecting the assurance of that bill being passed.  It was the way you worded your post that (to me) appeared to be blaming the house and senate for inaction, thus seemingly letting Trump "off the hook" when indeed, Trump(or any president) can compel the legislature to to take action on any issue.  And, the president can introduce his(or her) own drafted bill to the house for debate and consideration.  

Sepiatone

The president cannot introduce legislation (unless I am mistaken).  He can present an idea to Congress as often happens in State of the Union addresses.  For actual legislation, he has to have a House member or Senator actually introduce it.

Regardless, I agree that he does send mixed signals and he could signal to McConnell and other GOPers that he will sign certain legislation if House and Senate pass it.  But ultimately, he cannot do anything until House and Senate (McConnell) take action and send him a bill.  I think Trump is so weak-willed that he would be "compelled" to sign a bill passed by House and Senate.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Of course(in this case) subject to either LaPIERRE'S or KOCH'S approval.  ;)

Sepiatone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Cook Co. IL. Ban on Assault Weapons, Large-Capacity Magazines

..... "As the court recognized, states have broad authority to pass public safety laws to protect their citizens, including laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines," .....

https://www.newsweek.com/assault-weapons-ban-large-magazines-guns-1456895?utm_campaign=NewsweekTwitter&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

As the court recognized, states have broad authority to pass public safety laws to protect their citizens, including laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines," .....

I find this part of the headline misleading.    This latest ruling was to NOT hear the latest challenge to these IL laws.   Therefore they really didn't rule on anything but instead decide there was no need for another ruling.

Also,  there was no finding of 'broad authority,,,' but instead the prior court found that these IL laws are not unconstitutional.    That means that they were not too broad by definition;  I.e.  such restrictions are constitutional under the 2nd amendment.  

This has already been established with many NRA challanges of CA laws.  Thus nothing 'new' was ruled on and the bar didn't move (that 'bar' being that states can now pass stricter laws).

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, mr6666 said:

Federal Appeals Court Upholds Cook Co. IL. Ban on Assault Weapons, Large-Capacity Magazines

..... "As the court recognized, states have broad authority to pass public safety laws to protect their citizens, including laws prohibiting assault weapons and large-capacity ammunition magazines," .....

https://www.newsweek.com/assault-weapons-ban-large-magazines-guns-1456895?utm_campaign=NewsweekTwitter&utm_source=Twitter&utm_medium=Social

Now it goes to the Supreme Court.

One controversial issue is going to be the definition of "assault weapons."  Most of the recent mass shootings were committed with weapons which are technically not "assault" weapons.  The AR-15 is not one - it just looks like one.  Of course they can be modified to function as an assault weapon.  But that is another issue.

To me, one question in IL case will be if a county, which is legally a subdivision of the state, has authority to regulate something the Constitution and Supreme Court rulings have reserved to the states.

I believe the high capacity magazines might be more of a problem than the types of weapons themselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

New Members:

Register Here

Learn more about the new message boards:

FAQ

Having problems?

Contact Us