I don’t think most parents ever think their kids are future school shooters
It’s going to be a learning process to encourage more safe / lock regulation for the sole purpose of preventing school / mass shootings
Even kids in broken homes, their parents likely don’t think twice that their circumstances could produce future mass shooters
Yes agree completely. Parents see themselves in there kids no parent can imagine their kid being the monster.
Here is a parent that thought, when i was his age i got into hunting. He saw it as a chance to bond with son. That’s the best of intentions.
So any warning sign must be taken seriously. The schools and communities need to double their efforts to stop bullying at any level.
And yes better scrutiny and security of firearms by parents is a must.
The only tool to “encourage” new behaviors is the recent development of charging the parents.The Michigan shooters parents each got 10 years and have already served 2 year accumulated while waiting trail.
The Georgia parent has more severe charges it seems. I have doubts if he can be convicted for “failing to predict the future” as someone stated it, even if he is negligent in securing weapons ( is there even such a law in Georgia ? )
Only other thing that is kinda similar is if your teenage driver kills someone in a wreck. In Texas I’ve read parents can be liable under certain conditions.
You may also be held liable for personal injury or death if you negligently entrust your vehicle to your teen when you know they can be intoxicated, unlicensed or reckless.
I honestly don’t ever recall many parents being convicted of this in Texas; but not something I’ve followed closely either.
American majority consistently want stricter
gun laws for last 10 years. How long can the minority rule the majority ?
As long as there’s a little thing called the Constitution.
To change it requires more than a mere majority, but rather a SUPER MAJORITY.
Nay, just few votes to get reasonable judges on the SC. 2A is fine; interpretation is just screwed up bad judges.
Don’t put money on it.
Put money on things staying the same. Mass shootings in America are just a fact of life"
Do we though?
Many gun control laws have existed before that don’t now and yet the constitution hasn’t changed.
All we have to do IMHO is change congress (some) and SCOTUS (more).
Based on the rulings that have been coming down recently on the 2nd amendment (which establish precedent and stare decisis), it’ll be difficult for any of the proposed gun control measures that the left holds dear to stand up to constitutional scrutiny.
As I said, don’t put money on it.
Put money on a mass shooting happening again very soon. And again and again and again
Yep…SCOTUS would have to change. The current group has changed quite a bit. Would not be surprised if a few key people were swapped that it would change back.
I’d put zero $'s on anything happening until then.
What exactly is the Supreme Court going to do?
Abortion wasn’t made illegal federally. It was a ruling that sent the right to abortions down to the states, which speaking freely, is really how it should have always been (regardless if whether or not I agree with it)
If any legislation gets passed regarding the second amendment or firearms in general, it’s going to have to pass through congress, which let’s be honest, anything that radical is just not going to happen in the current climate.
A weapons ban, similar to 94, is never going to happen again nor will it make a difference. You’re insane if you think millions of people are going to just give up their weapons voluntarily. If anything, they’ll give up excess guns not their primaries including AR15s.
That being said, I support any legislation involving red flags, safe/lock regulations, and increasing the age to own a firearm (unfortunately, this gets tricky given you can serve the military at age 18 [17 with waivers]).
Gun control doesn’t have to go that far. You don’t always have to go to the extreme.
And gun control is allowed with the second amendment. It already exists.
There are a few things that could be done (you mentioned some). That’s where the Supreme Court can come in and allow or not allow legislation.
The only thing that I can off top think the SCOTUS could do regarding the second amendment is merely attempt to re-interpret how the second amendment applies in its current language.
Otherwise, I’m not really sure what else they can really do. It’s not like SCOTUS can create legislation themselves and enforce it independent of the legislative branch
I addressed that in my second point above.
The Supreme Court can uphold or deny legislation based on their interpretation of the second amendment. No reinterpretation needed for new legislation.
I wouldn’t expect the current court to allow much gun control at all.
As we have seen, one courts interpretation may not match another. They are a huge part of this.
Oh we care about precedent and state decisis again? Pretty sure the Robert’s court had declared open season on all those things. Which means things shift and it’s perfectly ok to take big smelly dumps on their decisions
They did on Roe v. Wade.
But I don’t anticipate that there will be much change on the gun jurisprudence.
And several others Chevron bring the most current.
Now I imagine those who cheered those overturns will be upset about the “activist” courts again, if the pendulum shifts and the Thomas/Alito rulings get legally shat on.
Don’t put money on it.
There’s no textual support for a right to abortion in the Constitution, making any prior ruling on that issue easy to overturn.
By contrast, there’s explicit textual support for the right of the PEOPLE (that’s you and me, not the government), to keep and bear arms.
©Copyright 2017 Coogfans.com
