It’s a horrible story, but it supports the good guy with a gun position . . .
A big crowd gathered in a Tucson church last week, ready to hear candidates’ plans for gun-control legislation from people vying to become lawmakers at the Arizona state Capitol.
All was going more or less as expected. Then, it was Bobby Wilson’s turn to speak.
Wilson, one of two Republican candidates who attended the July 9 meeting, took the mic and told a story of how he shot and killed a crazed attacker in an act of self-defense while a teenager.
That attacker, it turned out, was his mother.
Marginally pro-gun. Very marginally . . .
Last week, California Gov. Jerry Brown (D) signed a bill that would allow retired law enforcement officers to keep their “high capacity magazines” in the Golden State, The Santa Clarita Valley Signal reported.
Assembly Bill 1192 was introduced by Assemblyman Tom Lackey (R-Palmdale), a retired California Highway Patrol officer.
When the Safety For All Act of 2016 was passed by voters on November 2016, it made it illegal as of July 1, 2017 for a person to possess a large-capacity magazine. Retired peace officers were exempt. Lackey’s law now includes reserve officers as well.
Facts are stubborn things . . .
There are three main problems with these bans. First, the term “high-capacity” is used by legislatures to describe standard, common equipment rather than magazines that stretch a weapon’s capacity beyond its intended design. Second, discussions of the issue are replete with fundamental misconceptions about firearm magazines and their place under the Second Amendment. In fact, some courts have held that magazines have no constitutional protection at all, contravening precedent indicating that the right to keep and bear arms protects all bearable arms in common use, including their magazines and ammunition, regardless of the arms in existence at the time of the Founding. Magazines are not mere accessories, but essential components of modern firearms.
Third, there is little evidence that high-capacity magazine restrictions have any positive effects on public safety. To support these laws, states point to horrific crimes involving large-capacity magazines. But the connection between the crime and the magazine is conjectural at best, while the prohibitions against such magazines have disrupted the lives of many otherwise law-abiding gun owners — and all without any evidence of improvements in public safety. In some courts, it seems that merely uttering the phrase “gun violence” suffices to justify any exercise of state power. These policies are ineffective, dangerous, and unconstitutional.
Progress . . .
The Catholic Diocese of Fort Worth has removed signs from its parishes warning people not to carry guns on church property. The Diocese hasn’t changed its no-guns policy. But officials worried the signs themselves made the churches a more attractive target. Some churches around Houston are taking similar precautions.
Last year’s attack at Sutherland Springs First Baptist Church forced the Houston Area Pastor Council to think about how to balance the need for safety with the need to provide a welcoming environment. The question of posting no-firearms signs was a big one, and ultimately most churches in the network decided against it.
“There was that concern that if these signs were posted, that it would be a signal that, very clearly, that potential shooters would have less resistance there, unless…those particular churches had visible, consistent, armed personnel or uniformed personnel, on-site, which some do but many don’t,” said Dave Welch, the Council’s executive director.
Here’s a good PR move . . .
The company’s lawsuits, filed in federal courts in Nevada and California, noted that more than 2,500 victims and related persons have either filed or threatened to file complaints against MGM, claiming negligence and responsibility for death, injury and emotional distress related to the massacre.
But MGM’s suits argue that those current and potential claims against the company must be dismissed because of a 2002 federal law that grants liability protection to any company that uses anti-terrorism technology.
MGM asserts that the security company hired for the festival, Contemporary Services, was protected from liability as it was certified by the Department of Homeland Security.