Texas judge says Sutherland Springs families can sue store that sold church shooter his gun, ammunit

[NW82]

We evidently don't know. I guess i assumed the judge ruled as he did because a law was broken.

I took a stab at what law in post #12

Exactly and without that context we don't know...which means we can only base our opinions on what we do know.

 

[Kenny'sID]

Exactly and without that context we don't know...which means we can only base our opinions on what we do know.

Agree.

Thing is judges are to abide by the law, so it would make sense this judge would need a reason for the ruling, and that reason is generally a broken law.

We shall see soon enough.

 

[Darkhorse]

I really wish people would stop bringing up Chicago, because it completely ignores the fact that Indiana borders the city. Most of the guns used in crimes in Chicago come from other states.

IF the shootings are committed by residents of Illinois using handguns from Indiana, then federal gun laws have already been violated. Federal law forbids buying a handgun in any state other than your state of residence.

 

[Arcangl86]

IF the shootings are committed by residents of Illinois using handguns, then federal gun laws have already been violated. Federal law forbids buying a handgun in any state other than your state of residence.

I wasn't aware of that. That must be the issue being litigated in this case then.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But the laws in Chicago should stop those guns, yes? My point is they don't. The statistics don't lie. You can pass 100 new laws and...news flash, criminals don't follow laws currently on the books, so there is no evidentiary data to show they will follow new ones. But to the OP point, this judge isn't basing a decision based in law but rather emotion.

"We shouldn't have laws because criminals don't follow laws." Seems like a pretty absurd argument to make.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[NW82]

"We shouldn't have laws because criminals don't follow laws." Seems like a pretty absurd argument to make.

-CryptoLutheran

Not even close to what I said.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Not even close to what I said.

It certainly seemed like that's what you were implying. That tighter gun reform laws don't stop criminal activity, and thus--at least as it seemed to me--there's no point in tightening and reforming such laws.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[bèlla]

This is really ridiculous. Tighter guns laws have done nothing to stop gun violence, Chicago and D.C. are proof of this. Gun homicides in Chicago rose by 61 percent between 2015 and 2016. That helped make the gun homicide rate in Chicago particularly huge compared to other similar cities. The rate was 25.1 per 100,000 residents in 2016, compared to 14.7 in Philadelphia and just 2.3 in New York. This is just another judge pushing the agenda from the bench. If the store followed all laws then they did nothing wrong. If they didn't then the ATF should be involved, not families looking for money.

If an individual is determined to commit a crime they will. Laws or not. They're not a deterrent. The majority of Chicago neighborhoods are safe. It's just pockets of ignorance that bring the city down. Expel them and we're good.

 

[NW82]

It certainly seemed like that's what you were implying. That tighter gun reform laws don't stop criminal activity, and thus--at least as it seemed to me--there's no point in tightening and reforming such laws.

-CryptoLutheran

My point is that adding additional laws to stop gun violence does nothing to deter it. All it does is add additional restrictions on law abiding citizens. Also a note, I've had a CCDW before moving to commiefornia for work so I know a bit about what it takes to get one and the laws required.

 

[Mountainmike]

I despair of all this. I can only remind America of its own history of lobbies and "rights"
The history of powerful lobbies killing US citizens in millions, with no moral compass.

The tobacco lobby for years tried to pretend that cancer and heart disease had nothing to do with smoking, they used pseudo science to trump real science, bogus statistics and powerful lobbies that prevent anti smoking legislation. And when the evidence became undeniable, they tried to prevent the evidence being published or public bodies doing research. How many americans were dead before the tide had turned, and only then because congressmen and senators thought there were more votes opposing smoking than supporting it? They have no moral compass.

Then corn lobby making america fat, tryingto pretend that diabetes and heart disease had nothing to do with their products, and supersize portions, all to do with irresponsible people, they used pseudo science to trump real science, bogus statististics and powerful lobbies that prevent legislation. And when the evidence became undeniable, they tried to prevent the evidence being published or public bodies doing research. Sounds familiar? . How many americans were dead before the tide had turned, and only then because congressmen and senators thought there were more votes in "healthy eating". No moral compass.

Now the gun lobbies trying to pretend that gun deaths have nothing to do with gun ownership, and supersize magazines , they say are all to do with irresponsible people, they use pseudo science to trump real science, bogus statististics and powerful lobbies that prevent legislation. And when the evidence became undeniable, they tried to prevent the evidence being published or public bodies doing research.
Sound familiar, thats the phase we are presently in. Just like the smoking and corn lobby before them.
How many americans more must die needlessly before the tide turns ?

But I guess big business is like that - but must people be the same?.

The trouble is, ever since world war II and particularly since the sixties the chorus of "rights trump responsibilities" have made PEOPLE their own worst enemies too.

You hear them scream!

I have the RIGHT to own a massive gas guzzling car - no matter how it is destroying the environment
(fortunately that one is now in decline...Im guessing gas price had more to do with it than a conscience)

I have the RIGHT to abortion and conraception - no matter how many unborns get killed, or how much God is offended.

I have the RIGHT to own a gun and magazines, no matter how many other get killed....

It is a simple reflection of a hedonistic and selfish culture - that cares more about rights than responsibities - and we are told God is greatly offended and rightly so.

The reality is Guns result in deaths. There is no Good guy bad guy dichotomy - all can get pushed to a limit. And the more and more deadly guns become, the more will die. All undeniable.
Not that it will stop the NRA trying to foist their pseudoscience, just like the tobacco and corn lobbies before them. We are in the usual phase of denying real science, trying to prevent more being done, and replacing real evidence with pseudoscience - like asking gun owners if they think they have helped prevent crime! did they really expect the answer no? - the oft quoted study by NRA which is about as pseudoscience as it gets. Actual studies of crime victims dont agree by order(s) of magnitude. Not that gun lobby lets facts get in the way...
Gun deaths are similar order of magnitude to breast cancer! That is how bad it is.

Sooner or later sense will prevail.
But How many will die first in churches and schools?

In my view ALL those who support pro choice are just as responsible for the unborn deaths, whether or not they had an abortion themselves.... In france it is now illegal to publish ANY negative view of abortion. That is how selfish we have become.Just as those who defend trashing our globe, have responsibility for all the adverse consequence of that.

And in this case in my view ALL gun lobby supporters have collective responsibilty for shootings. But its my rights!!!!!! you hear them shout....
If history of other lobbies teaches us anything. Enjoy it whilst you can...sooner or later the tide will turn, and not soon enough in my view.

And God is greatly offended about our selfish culture...or so we are told...

What will it take? In my view a black swan event. Like 3D printing of replica guns, the prints becoming almost undistinguishable, then gaingin wide circulation, and then they will blow up in peoples faces, who will stop trusting guns any more, the bogus guns and ammo spreading like wildfire. And it cant come soon enough...

 

[paul1149]

I can only assume the law says they weren't to sell him something he cannot own in his own state, or as a non resident of Texas.

As you suggest elsewhere, unless we see the text of the law we just don't know what's going on. It may be a defective law that needs correction via the courts. But it also may be a very clear and sound law which is being challenged because the antagonists don't want gun paraphernalia sold to out of staters whose home states forbid it. This latter would be judicial activism at the grass roots, with the conscious acquiescence of the judge to allow the possible constitutionality of the challenge to be vetted in court. If this is the case, I would think it would be thrown out post-haste.

 

[Kenny'sID]

As you suggest elsewhere, unless we see the text of the law we just don't know what's going on. It may be a defective law that needs correction via the courts. But it also may be a very clear and sound law which is being challenged because the antagonists don't want gun paraphernalia sold to out of staters whose home states forbid it. This latter would be judicial activism at the grass roots, with the conscious acquiescence of the judge to allow the possible constitutionality of the challenge to be vetted in court. If this is the case, I would think it would be thrown out post-haste.

Should at least be interesting..

 

[chilehed]

No, the judge was not an idiot. You're demanding that the judge make a judgment before hearing the arguments.

Part of the job is to declare summary judgement in cases that have no merit. There is nothing in American jurisprudence that allows for the idea that a state has jurisdiction over actions made in a different state, by people who are residents of that different state, in conformity with the laws of that different state.

There is also nothing in American jurisprudence that allows for the idea that residents of a State are its subjects, such that they are necessarily bound to observe the laws of that State even when they have left it.

Yes, the judge was most certainly an idiot.

 

[Cimorene]

What's super scary is that there's so many shootings in the US I didn't know which one this was till I looked it up. Where I live when we talk about the mass shooting we know what we're talking about bc there's not very many.

I'm glad the families can sue.

 

[chilehed]

What's super scary is that there's so many shootings in the US I didn't know which one this was till I looked it up

That's just because the population is large, and the news coverage on them is greatly hyped compared to other crimes. In fact, the per-capita rate is on the low side globally, in part because of the high rates of private gun ownership by lawful citizens.

All it takes to sue someone is 25 bucks and bus fare to the courthouse. This case has no merit.

 

[Cimorene]

Not worth engaging with this person

 

[chilehed]

No, that's not true.

U.S. has the most public mass shooters in the world, study shows
Alabama professor studied mass shootings in 171 countries over 50-year span

Lankford's study is abysmally poor, its methodology is deeply flawed and it's been thoroughly debunked.

New CPRC Research: How a Botched Study Fooled the World About the U.S. Share of Mass Public Shootings: U.S. Rate is Lower than Global Average - Crime Prevention Research Center

 

[Cimorene]

Nm.

 

[chilehed]

Considering that your source has an extreme bias I'm not at all impressed

Resorting to an ad hominem argument merely proves that you have no coherent argument against the actual data.

Flawed studies, such as the one you cited, cannot prove what they claim no matter how many of them you care to pile up.

 

[Cimorene]

Nm.