DETROIT -- A jury will determine whether a father's negligence in the storage of his shotgun rises to the level of murder in the accidental shooting death of his son ... 9-year-old Daylen Head, who was accidentally shot and killed by his then-10-year-old sister in November after she came across her dad's shotgun.
http://www.mlive.com/news/detroit/index.ssf/2016/07/what_is_a_parents_duty_regardi.html

July 3, 2016 -- EAST RIDGE, TN East Ridge police said the 17-year-old girl who accidentally shot herself and later died was visiting family at an apartment. A public obituary posted online identified Alana Luangaphay as the victim. The teen was showing a pistol to one of her cousins on Sunday, according to a police report. That's when the cousin told police she unloaded all but one round and put the gun to her head. As the teen's cousin yelled at her for doing that and reached for the pistol, she shot herself in the right side of the head.

Anonymous wrote:"A gun registry will let law enforcement know which law abiding citizens have guns - that's the only certainty it offers. It does not let officers know which criminals might have guns because criminals lie, and they do not follow the law."

This makes no sense to me. If police could check a gun registry, they would know which criminal might have a gun. Police currently check for arrest warrants, so criminals can't simply lie about that. Seems police could and should just as easily check whether someone they've stopped might have a gun. It's an officer safety issue, in addition to everything else.

A gun registry makes it a lot harder for a criminal to get a gun because it means guns are being tracked and traced and it means that gun owners are accountable for the whereabouts of their guns. The sad fact is that millions of guns trade hands in the US every year without any paperwork, background checks or traceability and that's how many criminals end up getting them, through straw buyers and shady private sales.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, asking all gun owners to register, and having the government decide on when they can confiscate weapons from owners using the registration information is not the right thing to do.

Seems perfectly right to me. Let's say Joe legally buys a gun in 2000 when he has a clean record. But then in 2002, Joe gets convicted by a jury on felony drug and assault charges, and he admits in court he's been in mental health treatment for homicidal urges. Joe serves his time, and now he's living in your neighborhood. Joe's gun is now illegal because of his convictions and his mental health history. Don't you think the police ought to know that Joe has an illegal gun? Don't you think the police ought to be able to require Joe to get rid of his illegal gun?

Lets say Joe lives in Hawaii, where there is a gun registry. Cops show up to confiscate his weapon and he says "there was a burglary, gun was stolen."

What now?

If Joe failed to report the burglary then he should be subject to a criminal penalty. Moreover, gun laws should prescribe that your property and vehicles should be subject to search in the event you become ineligible to possess a firearm.

"A gun registry will let law enforcement know which law abiding citizens have guns - that's the only certainty it offers. It does not let officers know which criminals might have guns because criminals lie, and they do not follow the law."

This makes no sense to me. If police could check a gun registry, they would know which criminal might have a gun. Police currently check for arrest warrants, so criminals can't simply lie about that. Seems police could and should just as easily check whether someone they've stopped might have a gun. It's an officer safety issue, in addition to everything else.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enforcement is always selective and voluntary. Police officer sees someone doing a "rolling stop" at a stop sign, what he does next depends on a variety of factors. What you can't claim in this scenario, however, is that we don't have enough laws against running stop signs. Similarly, if an act of gun violence could have been prevented if the authorities took action on laws already on the books using information they already have access to, you can't argue that what we need is more gun control laws to prevent such crimes.

So you're saying the federal government, and every state and county government, should strictly and mercilessly enforce every gun law on the books to the maximum extent? If so, I'm all in favor of that too.

The gun registry is just a simple law enforcement tool that makes it easier for authorities to enforce the existing laws efficiently. Instead of guessing which convicted criminals might have guns, they will know.

Yes, absolutely, we charge our legal system with the burden of enforcing our laws. If existing laws are not enforced vigorously, then they are impotent and useless, in which case enacting more of them into place is an irrational exercise in futility.

A gun registry will let law enforcement know which law abiding citizens have guns - that's the only certainty it offers. It does not let officers know which criminals might have guns because criminals lie, and they do not follow the law.

As much as I hate stop light cameras due to observed abuse of powers, what I do support is the fact that when correctly implemented, it enforces an existing law in a well defined, ceaseless and and impartial manner.

Good! After all this, we've found something we can agree on. Let's see if we can continue the agreement. Below are two specific examples from past summers ...

1. 8/4/15 An aide to Republican Representative Duncan Hunter was caught bringing an illegal gun onto Capitol grounds. http://wtkr.com/2015/08/04/congressional-aide-arrested-for-bringing-loaded-gun-to-capitol/ This aide plead guilty in DC Superior Court, but the case got put into diversion and community service. It's not clear to me whether he even got a conviction put on his record, since it looks like the prosecutor agreed to dismiss the charges (but I'm not sure about that).

2. 7/20/14 A staffer for Republican Representative Tom Marino was caught bringing an illegal gun onto Capitol grounds. http://www.philly.com/philly/news/20140721_PA_congressional_aide_arrested_on_gun_charge.html This staffer plead guilty to a felony charge, and got a 30-day suspended sentence, so he spent zero time in jail and paid no penalty other than having to hire a lawyer and show up for his guilty plea.

Details for both cases are available at the DC Court docket (https://www.dccourts.gov/cco/maincase.jsf).

Do we agree that the prosecutors should have refused to bargain those cases, and they should have argued for the judges to impose maximum fines and jail time?

Some might say these congressional aides are not bad guys, and so why are we wasting time and resources prosecuting them, but it sounds like you think we cannot enact new laws unless we're enforcing the existing ones fully, right? So I suppose that means we need to be prepared to fund our law enforcement system a little better too, to handle the cost of these new gun cases we both want brought. Agree on all that too?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Enforcement is always selective and voluntary. Police officer sees someone doing a "rolling stop" at a stop sign, what he does next depends on a variety of factors. What you can't claim in this scenario, however, is that we don't have enough laws against running stop signs. Similarly, if an act of gun violence could have been prevented if the authorities took action on laws already on the books using information they already have access to, you can't argue that what we need is more gun control laws to prevent such crimes.

So you're saying the federal government, and every state and county government, should strictly and mercilessly enforce every gun law on the books to the maximum extent? If so, I'm all in favor of that too.

The gun registry is just a simple law enforcement tool that makes it easier for authorities to enforce the existing laws efficiently. Instead of guessing which convicted criminals might have guns, they will know.

Yes, absolutely, we charge our legal system with the burden of enforcing our laws. If existing laws are not enforced vigorously, then they are impotent and useless, in which case enacting more of them into place is an irrational exercise in futility.

A gun registry will let law enforcement know which law abiding citizens have guns - that's the only certainty it offers. It does not let officers know which criminals might have guns because criminals lie, and they do not follow the law.

As much as I hate stop light cameras due to observed abuse of powers, what I do support is the fact that when correctly implemented, it enforces an existing law in a well defined, ceaseless and and impartial manner.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not a good idea to sacrifice the rights of law abiding citizens just to make it easier for the government to do something.

Exactly what right of yours is being sacrificed by requiring gun registration?

None whatsoever. Quit your whining.

Per the ninth amendment of the US constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Taken together, it's clear that everything not delegated to the Federal government, nor prohibited by the constitution, is a right that the state/people have. It's therefore my right to not have to register my ownership of a gun because the constitution and the US code does not give the Federal government the ability to perform gun registration.

So we should read "well regulated" out of the Bill of Rights in its entirety (just like "militia") because ... ya know ... it's the Second Amendment, which has only been interpreted to afford a private right to gun ownership for the past six years by SCOTUS. Ya know, unlike the First Amendment which has been interpreted in a manner to restrict freedom of speech, assembly and religion, or Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the individual right to own guns didn't exist until SCOTUS provided an opinion on the subject? You can't be seriously trying to argue this point, but I can't find any other meaning from what you are trying to write above.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

You are reading too much into one aspect of the decision of the Miller case. The opinions of that case clearly indicates:

"...the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily, when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time...."

Therefore a Militia clearly was simply a term that refereed to a group of ordinary individuals, each with an individual right to bear arms. This is in contrast to an organized force such as the police, which has collective rights and privileges not available to private individuals. The self supplied nature of the guns clearly indicated that the ownership of the guns were private and individual in nature.

Still, even if Miller had came right out and said "Second Amendment gives no individual right to own guns", this still does not change the fact that any such opinion was overturned by the Heller decision, which affirmed the individual right to own guns. Overturning a prior decision does not create rights out of thin air, it simply means that the previous interpretation that there was no right was wrong: the right was always there regardless of the wrong decision.

In more clear terms, the judicial system does not create laws, it interprets them. It cannot create anything.

Anonymous wrote:Enforcement is always selective and voluntary. Police officer sees someone doing a "rolling stop" at a stop sign, what he does next depends on a variety of factors. What you can't claim in this scenario, however, is that we don't have enough laws against running stop signs. Similarly, if an act of gun violence could have been prevented if the authorities took action on laws already on the books using information they already have access to, you can't argue that what we need is more gun control laws to prevent such crimes.

So you're saying the federal government, and every state and county government, should strictly and mercilessly enforce every gun law on the books to the maximum extent? If so, I'm all in favor of that too.

The gun registry is just a simple law enforcement tool that makes it easier for authorities to enforce the existing laws efficiently. Instead of guessing which convicted criminals might have guns, they will know.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More detail.

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/police-katy-mom-killed-daughters-to-make-husband-suffer-8524499
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Sheriff-Mom-killed-daughters-to-punish-husband-8333148.php

Police visited the house over a dozen times in response to mom's mental health crises, but there was no process to separate her from her guns. She even applied for a concealed carry license - which was rejected - but still not separated from the guns.

"At one point, she stood over the girls and tried to shoot with an empty gun. Then she went inside, reloaded, and came outside to shoot Taylor one more time."

This is the price we all pay so that gun owners can avoid any reasonable safety restrictions. It's not worth it.

What do you mean there was no process? This is a failure to enforce existing gun control laws. Under federal law, her right to own a firearm should have been taken away due to her mental condition and she would have had to surrender her weapons. They knew she owned a gun through her CCW application.

If Texas authorities refused to act on her mental health issues, how would that have changed if they maintained a gun ownership registry?

The registration lets authorities know which people with mental illnesses have unlawful guns. Maybe you're suggesting Texas also needs a specific law requiring (not just allowing) authorities to take steps whenever they discover someone with a mental illness has a gun. I'm all for that change too.

LMAO!

If you need a new law B to ensure enforcement of law A, what law would you need to ensure the enforcement of law B, a new law C? Churn that one through your brain cells.

Enforcement is always selective and voluntary. Police officer sees someone doing a "rolling stop" at a stop sign, what he does next depends on a variety of factors. What you can't claim in this scenario, however, is that we don't have enough laws against running stop signs. Similarly, if an act of gun violence could have been prevented if the authorities took action on laws already on the books using information they already have access to, you can't argue that what we need is more gun control laws to prevent such crimes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:However, asking all gun owners to register, and having the government decide on when they can confiscate weapons from owners using the registration information is not the right thing to do.

Seems perfectly right to me. Let's say Joe legally buys a gun in 2000 when he has a clean record. But then in 2002, Joe gets convicted by a jury on felony drug and assault charges, and he admits in court he's been in mental health treatment for homicidal urges. Joe serves his time, and now he's living in your neighborhood. Joe's gun is now illegal because of his convictions and his mental health history. Don't you think the police ought to know that Joe has an illegal gun? Don't you think the police ought to be able to require Joe to get rid of his illegal gun?

Lets say Joe lives in Hawaii, where there is a gun registry. Cops show up to confiscate his weapon and he says "there was a burglary, gun was stolen."

What now?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:More detail.

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/police-katy-mom-killed-daughters-to-make-husband-suffer-8524499
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Sheriff-Mom-killed-daughters-to-punish-husband-8333148.php

Police visited the house over a dozen times in response to mom's mental health crises, but there was no process to separate her from her guns. She even applied for a concealed carry license - which was rejected - but still not separated from the guns.

"At one point, she stood over the girls and tried to shoot with an empty gun. Then she went inside, reloaded, and came outside to shoot Taylor one more time."

This is the price we all pay so that gun owners can avoid any reasonable safety restrictions. It's not worth it.

What do you mean there was no process? This is a failure to enforce existing gun control laws. Under federal law, her right to own a firearm should have been taken away due to her mental condition and she would have had to surrender her weapons. They knew she owned a gun through her CCW application.

If Texas authorities refused to act on her mental health issues, how would that have changed if they maintained a gun ownership registry?

The registration lets authorities know which people with mental illnesses have unlawful guns. Maybe you're suggesting Texas also needs a specific law requiring (not just allowing) authorities to take steps whenever they discover someone with a mental illness has a gun. I'm all for that change too.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

It's not a good idea to sacrifice the rights of law abiding citizens just to make it easier for the government to do something.

Exactly what right of yours is being sacrificed by requiring gun registration?

None whatsoever. Quit your whining.

Per the ninth amendment of the US constitution:

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

And the tenth amendment:

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

Taken together, it's clear that everything not delegated to the Federal government, nor prohibited by the constitution, is a right that the state/people have. It's therefore my right to not have to register my ownership of a gun because the constitution and the US code does not give the Federal government the ability to perform gun registration.

So we should read "well regulated" out of the Bill of Rights in its entirety (just like "militia") because ... ya know ... it's the Second Amendment, which has only been interpreted to afford a private right to gun ownership for the past six years by SCOTUS. Ya know, unlike the First Amendment which has been interpreted in a manner to restrict freedom of speech, assembly and religion, or Fourth Amendment or Fifth Amendment

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that the individual right to own guns didn't exist until SCOTUS provided an opinion on the subject? You can't be seriously trying to argue this point, but I can't find any other meaning from what you are trying to write above.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html

Anonymous wrote:However, asking all gun owners to register, and having the government decide on when they can confiscate weapons from owners using the registration information is not the right thing to do.

Seems perfectly right to me. Let's say Joe legally buys a gun in 2000 when he has a clean record. But then in 2002, Joe gets convicted by a jury on felony drug and assault charges, and he admits in court he's been in mental health treatment for homicidal urges. Joe serves his time, and now he's living in your neighborhood. Joe's gun is now illegal because of his convictions and his mental health history. Don't you think the police ought to know that Joe has an illegal gun? Don't you think the police ought to be able to require Joe to get rid of his illegal gun?

Anonymous wrote:More detail.

http://www.houstonpress.com/news/police-katy-mom-killed-daughters-to-make-husband-suffer-8524499
http://www.houstonchronicle.com/news/houston-texas/houston/article/Sheriff-Mom-killed-daughters-to-punish-husband-8333148.php

Police visited the house over a dozen times in response to mom's mental health crises, but there was no process to separate her from her guns. She even applied for a concealed carry license - which was rejected - but still not separated from the guns.

"At one point, she stood over the girls and tried to shoot with an empty gun. Then she went inside, reloaded, and came outside to shoot Taylor one more time."

This is the price we all pay so that gun owners can avoid any reasonable safety restrictions. It's not worth it.

What do you mean there was no process? This is a failure to enforce existing gun control laws. Under federal law, her right to own a firearm should have been taken away due to her mental condition and she would have had to surrender her weapons. They knew she owned a gun through her CCW application.

If Texas authorities refused to act on her mental health issues, how would that have changed if they maintained a gun ownership registry?