Man charged in Michigan attacks had no barriers to guns
Source: Associated Press
Man charged in Michigan attacks had no barriers to guns
David R. Martin and Ed White, Associated Press
Updated 4:21 pm, Tuesday, February 23, 2016
PLAINWELL, Mich. (AP) A man accused of randomly killing six people in Michigan had a personal cache of weapons that included handguns and long guns, but there was nothing in his past that prevented him from owning as many guns as he could afford.
Authorities seized the gun collection after the weekend attacks around the Kalamazoo area. With no criminal history or record of mental illness, Michigan residents who follow requirements can legally acquire any number of firearms.
"He was a law-abiding citizen up until he pulled the trigger on the first victim," said Jonathan Southwick, owner of a gun store in Plainwell, 20 miles north of Kalamazoo. "There are no laws you could put into place to stop what had happened."
Southwick said Dalton bought a jacket with an inside pocket designed for a handgun Saturday, just hours before the rampage. He did not buy a gun.
Read more: http://www.chron.com/news/us/article/Gun-shop-owner-Suspect-bought-jacket-before-6849243.php
FailureToCommunicate
(14,019 posts)Riiiight.
NickB79
(19,257 posts)maxsolomon
(33,360 posts)-Steve Earle, live at the BBC
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Not just the kind, but the actual arms.
You cannot buy, sell, or own an arm built after 1791.
branford
(4,462 posts)Courts have long ago dismissed such ridiculous legal arguments as a means of limiting constitutional rights, and trying to enact such an idea by statute clearly violates the Second Amendment.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)branford
(4,462 posts)it's no wonder that gun control is going nowhere fast.
onehandle
(51,122 posts)Project Thor is a real man's weapon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_bombardment
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)Which is what is referred to as armaments for a citizen.
maxsolomon
(33,360 posts)does it?
is there another place in the Constitution where it's defined?
NutmegYankee
(16,201 posts)Including the right to keep and bear arms. In courts, this common law concept would be the base to judge the intent of the 2nd.
randys1
(16,286 posts)Not a funny topic, usually, but Louie is great.
I havent watched this clip, hope it is in there.
Archae
(46,340 posts)Oh of course, "Ban all guns!"
Right, sure.
How would we enforce a law like that?
Have the ATF go around doing a search of everyone's homes, looking for any and every gun?
Oh that would go over REAL good...
We have to be realists here, not the "gun grabbers" the right-wing paints us as.
NickB79
(19,257 posts)I wonder if they'd be OK with officers like Mr. Friendly and his friends here searching their homes:
maxsolomon
(33,360 posts)I hear the frustration and despair of people reacting to a tragedy, and who have no idea how to stop something that is plainly intolerable.
at this point, it's on gun owners to propose acceptable methods to REDUCE (not eliminate 100%) the occurrence of these massacres. you're the ones who know this issue from the inside.
no more gun-control clay pigeons for RKBA target practice.
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)IOW, it's the GUNS ... not the courts, or the laws in general that protect us. Cops would all just barge in our homes and search them at will ... but they're afraid we might be armed, so they just, you know ... don't do it.
PFFFT.
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)reasonable gun control measures, it only makes SENSE to have NO reasonable gun control measures, on accounta ... you know ... can't stop 100% of these occurrences, so why bother trying to REDUCE them at all?!?
If this logic held sway in other areas of life, we'd have no traffic laws, no seatbelts, no airbags, no security at airports, no EPA/FDA/USDA checking our food, nor really ANY sort of protections for anyone. Because after all, we can't stop 100% of traffic fatalities, hijackings, food poisoning, contaminated water supplies, etc, etc, etc.
maxsolomon
(33,360 posts)just think of it as a tax we pay for all the liberty the 2nd am gives us. freedom isn't free.
MisterP
(23,730 posts)Skittles
(153,174 posts)this is the norm now
brett_jv
(1,245 posts)Have absolutely NO FUCKING LIBERTY that's being 'enhanced' in any way.
Ever think of THAT side of the 'argument'?
And many 100's of millions of people live FREE all over the world in places where ... almost nobody owns guns outside of hunters with rifles, military, and police.
maxsolomon
(33,360 posts)yes, I've thought of that side of the argument.
bluestateguy
(44,173 posts)Mind you, I support that bill, but as Obama himself has said, a background check bill will not stop every massacre.
maxsolomon
(33,360 posts)given there's 300 million plus guns on the streets, no one expects absolutes.
Sancho
(9,070 posts)This is my generic response to gun threads where people are shot and killed by the dumb or criminal possession of guns. For the record, I grew up in the South and on military bases. I was taught about firearms as a child, and I grew up hunting, was a member of the NRA, and I still own guns. In the 70s, I dropped out of the NRA because they become more radical and less interested in safety and training. Some personal experiences where people I know were involved in shootings caused me to realize that anyone could obtain and posses a gun no matter how illogical it was for them to have a gun. Also, easy access to more powerful guns, guns in the hands of children, and guns that werent secured are out of control in our society. As such, heres what I now think ought to be the requirements to possess a gun. Im not debating the legal language, I just think its the reasonable way to stop the shootings. Notice, none of this restricts the type of guns sold. This is aimed at the people who shoot others, because its clear that they should never have had a gun.
1.) Anyone in possession of a gun (whether they own it or not) should have a regularly renewed license. If you want to call it a permit, certificate, or something else that's fine.
2.) To get a license, you should have a background check, and be examined by a professional for emotional and mental stability appropriate for gun possession. It might be appropriate to require that examination to be accompanied by references from family, friends, employers, etc. This check is not to subject you to a mental health diagnosis, just check on your superficial and apparent gun-worthyness.
3.) To get the license, you should be required to take a safety course and pass a test appropriate to the type of gun you want to use.
4.) To get a license, you should be over 21. Under 21, you could only use a gun under direct supervision of a licensed person and after obtaining a learners license. Your license might be restricted if you have children or criminals or other unsafe people living in your home. (If you want to argue 18 or 25 or some other age, fine. 21 makes sense to me.)
5.) If you possess a gun, you would have to carry a liability insurance policy specifically for gun ownership - and likely you would have to provide proof of appropriate storage, security, and whatever statistical reasons that emerge that would drive the costs and ability to get insurance.
6.) You could not purchase a gun or ammunition without a license, and purchases would have a waiting period.
7.) If you possess a gun without a license, you go to jail, the gun is impounded, and a judge will have to let you go (just like a DUI).
8.) No one should carry an unsecured gun (except in a locked case, unloaded) when outside of home. Guns should be secure when transporting to a shooting event without demonstrating a special need. Their license should indicate training and special carry circumstances beyond recreational shooting (security guard, etc.). If you are carrying your gun while under the influence of drugs or alcohol, you lose your gun and license.
9.) If you buy, sell, give away, or inherit a gun, your license information should be recorded.
10.) If you accidentally discharge your gun, commit a crime, get referred by a mental health professional, are served a restraining order, etc., you should lose your license and guns until reinstated by a serious relicensing process.
Most of you know that a license is no big deal. Besides a drivers license you need a license to fish, operate a boat, or many other activities. I realize these differ by state, but that is not a reason to let anyone without a bit of sense pack a semiautomatic weapon in public, on the roads, and in schools. I think we need to make it much harder for some people to have guns.
tabasco
(22,974 posts)All you have to do to join the "well regulated militia" is buy a gun. Pretty strict regulation, eh?
guillaumeb
(42,641 posts)And this is priceless:
So the gun store owner, a man who makes his living selling weapons to frightened citizens, cannot imagine how to prevent these things.