Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
TupperHappy
TupperHappy's Journal
TupperHappy's Journal
December 12, 2017
Not a day goes by that Ian Hockley doesn’t think about the death of his son Dylan.
The 6-year-old boy was gunned down five years ago by deranged mass shooter Adam Lanza. He was among the 26 children and adults whom the 20-year-old Lanza killed during his Dec. 14, 2012, rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
“Dylan is dead every day, and his mother and his brother Jake and I live with that,” Hockley said.
The boy’s death left an unfillable void in Hockley — but it also gave him a purpose.
(Rest at link)
I feel for all the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, but this lawsuit is very likely doomed to fail. And the gun ban groups that continually push these grieving families to file these nuisance lawsuits will walk away once the judgement to pay the Remington's legal fees comes down.
Father of 6-year-old Sandy Hook victim hopes to bring unique lawsuit against AR-15 makers
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/sandy-hook-victim-dad-hopes-viable-suit-ar-15-maker-article-1.3686471?utm_source=fark&utm_medium=website&utm_content=link&ICID=ref_farkNot a day goes by that Ian Hockley doesn’t think about the death of his son Dylan.
The 6-year-old boy was gunned down five years ago by deranged mass shooter Adam Lanza. He was among the 26 children and adults whom the 20-year-old Lanza killed during his Dec. 14, 2012, rampage at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn.
“Dylan is dead every day, and his mother and his brother Jake and I live with that,” Hockley said.
The boy’s death left an unfillable void in Hockley — but it also gave him a purpose.
(Rest at link)
I feel for all the families of the Sandy Hook shooting victims, but this lawsuit is very likely doomed to fail. And the gun ban groups that continually push these grieving families to file these nuisance lawsuits will walk away once the judgement to pay the Remington's legal fees comes down.
May 16, 2017
A group of law enforcement leaders and gun control activists led by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly are launching a lobbying effort Tuesday to oppose Congressional bills which would decrease federal regulation of silencers and nationalize concealed carry permitting. The coalition argues that the bills would make law enforcement less safe.
In a memo expected to be sent to the White House, Capitol Hill and activists during National Police Week, the Law Enforcement Coalition for Common Sense details its opposition to two Congressional bills and renews a call to close loopholes in the background check system.
“[Congress] needs to reject irresponsible calls to mandate the unrestricted concealed carry of firearms and allow free access to dangerous silencers, which present a new menacing threat to our communities and law enforcement professionals,” the memo says. “It is clear that guns in dangerous hands make law enforcement officers more vulnerable.”
(snip)
Still, gun control proponents are concerned about a bill that would allow states to recognize concealed carry permits from all states nationwide. The coalition memo says the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” would effectively undermine or make ineffective state laws with different or stricter guidelines for permits.
(Rest at the link.)
Supressors do not function like you see in the movies, with just a little PHFFT sound. They reduce the noise generated when a gun is fired, but only from literally deafening to merely really, really loud.
Also, regarding national CCW, sorry, but my rights do not end at the state line. Hopefully we will soon have a Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment means what it says about the right to keep AND BEAR (meaning carry) arms.
Law enforcement leaders join Gabrielle Giffords in gun control push
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/true-crime/wp/2017/05/16/law-enforcement-leaders-join-gabrielle-giffords-in-gun-control-push/A group of law enforcement leaders and gun control activists led by former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and her husband Mark Kelly are launching a lobbying effort Tuesday to oppose Congressional bills which would decrease federal regulation of silencers and nationalize concealed carry permitting. The coalition argues that the bills would make law enforcement less safe.
In a memo expected to be sent to the White House, Capitol Hill and activists during National Police Week, the Law Enforcement Coalition for Common Sense details its opposition to two Congressional bills and renews a call to close loopholes in the background check system.
“[Congress] needs to reject irresponsible calls to mandate the unrestricted concealed carry of firearms and allow free access to dangerous silencers, which present a new menacing threat to our communities and law enforcement professionals,” the memo says. “It is clear that guns in dangerous hands make law enforcement officers more vulnerable.”
(snip)
Still, gun control proponents are concerned about a bill that would allow states to recognize concealed carry permits from all states nationwide. The coalition memo says the “Constitutional Concealed Carry Reciprocity Act” would effectively undermine or make ineffective state laws with different or stricter guidelines for permits.
(Rest at the link.)
Supressors do not function like you see in the movies, with just a little PHFFT sound. They reduce the noise generated when a gun is fired, but only from literally deafening to merely really, really loud.
Also, regarding national CCW, sorry, but my rights do not end at the state line. Hopefully we will soon have a Supreme Court ruling that the Second Amendment means what it says about the right to keep AND BEAR (meaning carry) arms.
April 21, 2017
Arizonans who want firearms won't be required to purchase "smart'' weapons.
Gov. Doug Ducey on Tuesday signed legislation which blocks any state or local law that says the only guns that can be offered for sale have to meet certain standards.
On the surface, the legislation is aimed at weapons which have GPS capability that enables police to track not only the local of the gun but also to send an electronic notice when it is fired.
But much of the debate centered around technology that enables a gun to know when it is in the hands of an authorized user. That can involve anything from fingerprint recognition to proximity to a special electronic fob worn by the owner.
(Rest at the link.)
Sorry, but I don't want to encounter the equivalent of the Microsoft Blue Screen of Death if I am in a self defense situation and need to use a firearm to defend myself or my family.
If you want to purchase one of these things, go ahead, just don't try to change the law to force me to buy one also.
Legislative Update: Governor signs law barring 'smart' gun purchase requirements
https://www.verdenews.com/news/2017/apr/19/legislative-update-governor-signs-law-barring-smar/Arizonans who want firearms won't be required to purchase "smart'' weapons.
Gov. Doug Ducey on Tuesday signed legislation which blocks any state or local law that says the only guns that can be offered for sale have to meet certain standards.
On the surface, the legislation is aimed at weapons which have GPS capability that enables police to track not only the local of the gun but also to send an electronic notice when it is fired.
But much of the debate centered around technology that enables a gun to know when it is in the hands of an authorized user. That can involve anything from fingerprint recognition to proximity to a special electronic fob worn by the owner.
(Rest at the link.)
Sorry, but I don't want to encounter the equivalent of the Microsoft Blue Screen of Death if I am in a self defense situation and need to use a firearm to defend myself or my family.
If you want to purchase one of these things, go ahead, just don't try to change the law to force me to buy one also.
March 9, 2017
Rest at the link.
I've said this before, I feel for the families involved, but Remington is not liable for criminal misuse of a firearm. The lawyers would have us believe that, since Bushmasher manufactured the gun, which was then sold to a wholesaler, which was then sold to an FFL, which was then legally sold to the shooter's mother, who was then murdered and the weapon effectively stolen and used in this horrific crime, therefore Remington, who did not even own Bushmaster at the time the gun was manufactured, is now liable for "negligent entrustment". It's utter insanity.
The AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. There are literally 10s of millions of this kind of rifle, owned by, again, literally 10s of millions of law-abiding citizens, 99.9%+ of which are never used in a crime. (And yes I do believe I am using the term literally, literally.)
The only point for continuing this lawsuit is for the lawyers to continue to dip their hands into the wallets of the Sandy Hook families. Its a damn shame.
Sandy Hook families take gun case to state Supreme Court
http://www.newstimes.com/local/article/Sandy-Hook-families-take-gun-case-to-state-10972962.phpNEWTOWN - The 10 families whose lawsuit against the world’s largest dealer of AR-15 rifles was dismissed last year say their case should be reinstated, arguing that the Sandy Hook massacre was no accident.
“The notion that what happened at Sandy Hook on December 14, 2012, was unimaginable is a lie,” argues the families’ lawyer, Josh Koskoff, in 50-page brief submitted to state Supreme Court this week. “Sandy Hook was simply gratuitous, senseless proof of what was already known: preparation is no match for an AR-15.”
The families’ argument that Remington is liable for the massacre of 26 first-graders and educators by an AR-15-wielding 20-year-old named Adam Lanza was thrown out of Superior Court in October. The judge ruled that Remington is protected by federal law against claims when people misuse firearms
.
The families are sticking to their argument that Remington was liable, saying the company ssly marketed the semi-automatic rifle to civilians.
Rest at the link.
I've said this before, I feel for the families involved, but Remington is not liable for criminal misuse of a firearm. The lawyers would have us believe that, since Bushmasher manufactured the gun, which was then sold to a wholesaler, which was then sold to an FFL, which was then legally sold to the shooter's mother, who was then murdered and the weapon effectively stolen and used in this horrific crime, therefore Remington, who did not even own Bushmaster at the time the gun was manufactured, is now liable for "negligent entrustment". It's utter insanity.
The AR-15 is functionally no different from any other semi-automatic rifle that accepts a detachable magazine. There are literally 10s of millions of this kind of rifle, owned by, again, literally 10s of millions of law-abiding citizens, 99.9%+ of which are never used in a crime. (And yes I do believe I am using the term literally, literally.)
The only point for continuing this lawsuit is for the lawyers to continue to dip their hands into the wallets of the Sandy Hook families. Its a damn shame.
January 19, 2017
The U.S. Court of Appeals handed Chicago another defeat in its effort to restrict the operation of gun ranges in the city.
The appeals court on Wednesday ruled that city ordinances restricting gun ranges to manufacturing areas in Chicago are unconstitutional. The ordinances also placed limits on the distances they can be located in relation to other gun ranges and to residential areas, schools, parks and places of worship.
A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted the city claimed the ordinances serve important public health and safety interests, specifically that they attract gun thieves, cause airborne lead contamination and carry a risk of fire.
"The city has provided no evidentiary support for these claims, nor has it established that limiting shooting ranges to manufacturing districts and distancing them from the multiple and various uses listed in the buffer-zone rule has any connection to reducing these risks," the court wrote in its opinion.
(Remainder at link.)
This is good.
Appeals court rules restrictions to gun ranges in Chicago are unconstitutional
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-chicago-gun-range-restrictions-20170118-story.htmlThe U.S. Court of Appeals handed Chicago another defeat in its effort to restrict the operation of gun ranges in the city.
The appeals court on Wednesday ruled that city ordinances restricting gun ranges to manufacturing areas in Chicago are unconstitutional. The ordinances also placed limits on the distances they can be located in relation to other gun ranges and to residential areas, schools, parks and places of worship.
A three-judge panel of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals noted the city claimed the ordinances serve important public health and safety interests, specifically that they attract gun thieves, cause airborne lead contamination and carry a risk of fire.
"The city has provided no evidentiary support for these claims, nor has it established that limiting shooting ranges to manufacturing districts and distancing them from the multiple and various uses listed in the buffer-zone rule has any connection to reducing these risks," the court wrote in its opinion.
(Remainder at link.)
This is good.
December 29, 2016
http://m.reviewjournal.com/local/nevada/nevada-s-new-gun-background-check-law-ends-it-begins
By SANDRA CHEREB and WESLEY JUHL
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY — A new Nevada law requiring background checks for private party gun sales was deemed unenforceable Wednesday, days before it was to take effect because the FBI refuses to conduct them and the state lacks authority to do so.
The opinion issued by the office of Republican Attorney General Adam Laxalt left gun enthusiasts elated and proponents of background checks reeling from the blow of another setback — the second since 2013 when a bill requiring universal screenings was passed by the Legislature but vetoed by Gov. Brian Sandoval.
(Snip)
“The Background Check Act mandates that the FBI conduct all background checks for personal transfers,” Monica Moazez, spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, said in a statement. “The FBI, on Dec. 14, informed the Department of Public Safety that it will not conduct these background checks.
“Accordingly, the official Attorney General Opinion concludes that without this central feature … the Background Check Act cannot commence.”
(Remainder at link.)
To force compliance with the new UBGC law where the FBI has flatly stated they will not be conducting the background checks, means that private gun sales in NV would be effectively outlawed.
One gets a sense that, for some in the "gun safety" crowd, this is not a bug, but a feature.
But remember, no one wants to take away our guns. #sarcasm
NEVADAS NEW GUN BACKGROUND CHECK LAW ENDS BEFORE IT BEGINS
http://m.reviewjournal.com/local/nevada/nevada-s-new-gun-background-check-law-ends-it-begins
By SANDRA CHEREB and WESLEY JUHL
REVIEW-JOURNAL CAPITAL BUREAU
CARSON CITY — A new Nevada law requiring background checks for private party gun sales was deemed unenforceable Wednesday, days before it was to take effect because the FBI refuses to conduct them and the state lacks authority to do so.
The opinion issued by the office of Republican Attorney General Adam Laxalt left gun enthusiasts elated and proponents of background checks reeling from the blow of another setback — the second since 2013 when a bill requiring universal screenings was passed by the Legislature but vetoed by Gov. Brian Sandoval.
(Snip)
“The Background Check Act mandates that the FBI conduct all background checks for personal transfers,” Monica Moazez, spokeswoman for the attorney general’s office, said in a statement. “The FBI, on Dec. 14, informed the Department of Public Safety that it will not conduct these background checks.
“Accordingly, the official Attorney General Opinion concludes that without this central feature … the Background Check Act cannot commence.”
(Remainder at link.)
To force compliance with the new UBGC law where the FBI has flatly stated they will not be conducting the background checks, means that private gun sales in NV would be effectively outlawed.
One gets a sense that, for some in the "gun safety" crowd, this is not a bug, but a feature.
But remember, no one wants to take away our guns. #sarcasm
December 23, 2016
By Patrick McGreevy
Gov. Jerry Brown’s approval of sweeping gun control legislation in July has triggered a run on firearms in California, with some stores reporting sales have doubled since then.
Starting Jan. 1, the general public in California can no longer buy a semiautomatic rifle equipped with bullet-buttons that allow for the quick removal and replacement of ammunition magazines, under a new law signed by the governor.
(Snip)
In the less than six months since the July 1 signing of the rifle ban, 257,895 semiautomatic rifles have been purchased, eclipsing the 153,931 rifle purchases reported to the state in all of 2015, the state agency said.
(Remainder at link.)
Gun retailers report a run on firearms ahead of new California restrictions
http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-gun-run-snap-20161218-story.htmlBy Patrick McGreevy
Gov. Jerry Brown’s approval of sweeping gun control legislation in July has triggered a run on firearms in California, with some stores reporting sales have doubled since then.
Starting Jan. 1, the general public in California can no longer buy a semiautomatic rifle equipped with bullet-buttons that allow for the quick removal and replacement of ammunition magazines, under a new law signed by the governor.
(Snip)
In the less than six months since the July 1 signing of the rifle ban, 257,895 semiautomatic rifles have been purchased, eclipsing the 153,931 rifle purchases reported to the state in all of 2015, the state agency said.
(Remainder at link.)
December 17, 2016
Star Jessica Chastain nominated for Golden Globe despite weak ticket sales
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Second Amendment fans are grinning as they watch the Hollywood gun-control film “Miss Sloane” bomb in historic fashion at the box office.
Starring Jessica Chastain, “Miss Sloane,” the story of a ruthless Washington lobbyist who takes on a powerful National Rifle Association-like organization, had the 75th-worst opening weekend since 1982, earning an anemic $1.8 million in wide release, according to Box Office Mojo.
That’s a measly $1,133 per theater. Still, Ms. Chastain was nominated Monday for a Golden Globe for best performance by an actress in a drama, although the film itself scored a mediocre 56 percent audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
The film has been ripped by gun-rights advocates for its one-sided take on the firearms lobby, while the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has promoted the movie and touted its own “consulting” role.
(Remainder at the link.)
Gun-control propaganda film Miss Sloane a historic box-office bomb
http://m.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/dec/14/gun-control-propaganda-film-miss-sloane-goes-down-/Star Jessica Chastain nominated for Golden Globe despite weak ticket sales
By Valerie Richardson - The Washington Times - Wednesday, December 14, 2016
Second Amendment fans are grinning as they watch the Hollywood gun-control film “Miss Sloane” bomb in historic fashion at the box office.
Starring Jessica Chastain, “Miss Sloane,” the story of a ruthless Washington lobbyist who takes on a powerful National Rifle Association-like organization, had the 75th-worst opening weekend since 1982, earning an anemic $1.8 million in wide release, according to Box Office Mojo.
That’s a measly $1,133 per theater. Still, Ms. Chastain was nominated Monday for a Golden Globe for best performance by an actress in a drama, although the film itself scored a mediocre 56 percent audience rating on Rotten Tomatoes.
The film has been ripped by gun-rights advocates for its one-sided take on the firearms lobby, while the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence has promoted the movie and touted its own “consulting” role.
(Remainder at the link.)
December 12, 2016
Can you imagine the damage Donald Trump would do...
... if the efforts to enact a "No-Fly" anti-gun list had actually been successful?
Think about it, this scheme would have given the executive branch the ability to revoke people's Second Amendment rights, with no judicial hearing, no due process, no clear means to restore their rights, based on whether the Attorney General scrawled their name on a secret list.
You don't think one of President Cheetoface McTribblehair's first acts would be to grab a crayon and scribble out an executive order expanding the scope of that legislation? Fourth amendment rights? Gone. First Amendment? See ya later. No more pleading the Fifth, IYKWIMAITYD.
And before you can say, "Trump and Putin, sitting in a tree...", he'd made a bee line to Atty. Gen. Sessions (assuming he gets in), and every Muslim immigrant over the past 25 years will find their names on that list. Hell, anyone who ever crossed him would end up there, he'd make Nixon look like a Boy Scout.
So very, very glad we didn't get that stupid Constitution-shredding scheme on the books. I mean, who knows what he'll come up with on his own, but at least he doesn't have that particular tool which would gave gotten him 90% to that Muslim registry we keep hearing about.
December 2, 2016
(Read rest at link)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/health/sandy-hook-gun-lawsuit-connecticut-supreme-court/index.html?sr=twCNN120116sandy-hook-gun-lawsuit-connecticut-supreme-court1010PMStoryLink&linkId=31816135
I feel for the parents, they are still hurting after 4 years, but they are targetin the wrong group. The gun ban crowd are using them to go after firearm manufacturers in an attempt to run them out of business via lawfare, and that's what the law that protects manufacturers was designed to prevent. The process is the punishment, in this case.
The gun banners would have you believe thst, after Bushmaster sold that AR-15 to a wholesaler, who sold it to a retailer, who sold it to the shooter's mother, who was then later murdered by the killer and the gun was then stolen and used to commit those horrific acts, that Remington, who didn't even own Bushmaster at the time, is somehow responsive for "negligent entrustment" and they are at fault civilly for the shooting. Utterly ridiculous.
When this case is finally thrown out, the pain of the families will be compounded by the fact that the gun banners are unlikely to stick around and help them pay all of Remington's lawyers fees.
Sandy Hook gun lawsuit moves forward in Connecticut Supreme Court
(CNN)Connecticut's highest court will hear an appeal from the families of nine victims of the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre who brought a lawsuit against gunmaker Remington.
The state Supreme Court transferred the case to its docket Thursday, two weeks after families' attorneys filed their appeal.
"We very much welcome the court's swift action, particularly as these families approach the fourth painful anniversary of the shooting," the families' attorney, Josh Koskoff, said in a statement. "Time and again our Supreme Court has recognized the importance of allowing litigants their day in court and the indispensable role of a jury as arbiters of justice. That is all these families have ever asked for."
In October, families lost their bid to take the case to trial at the state's superior court level. Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled in favor of Remington -- the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15, used by 20-year-old Adam Lanza to kill 20 children and six educators -- by granting its motion to strike the case.
The state Supreme Court transferred the case to its docket Thursday, two weeks after families' attorneys filed their appeal.
"We very much welcome the court's swift action, particularly as these families approach the fourth painful anniversary of the shooting," the families' attorney, Josh Koskoff, said in a statement. "Time and again our Supreme Court has recognized the importance of allowing litigants their day in court and the indispensable role of a jury as arbiters of justice. That is all these families have ever asked for."
In October, families lost their bid to take the case to trial at the state's superior court level. Connecticut Superior Court Judge Barbara Bellis ruled in favor of Remington -- the manufacturer of the Bushmaster AR-15, used by 20-year-old Adam Lanza to kill 20 children and six educators -- by granting its motion to strike the case.
(Read rest at link)
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/01/health/sandy-hook-gun-lawsuit-connecticut-supreme-court/index.html?sr=twCNN120116sandy-hook-gun-lawsuit-connecticut-supreme-court1010PMStoryLink&linkId=31816135
I feel for the parents, they are still hurting after 4 years, but they are targetin the wrong group. The gun ban crowd are using them to go after firearm manufacturers in an attempt to run them out of business via lawfare, and that's what the law that protects manufacturers was designed to prevent. The process is the punishment, in this case.
The gun banners would have you believe thst, after Bushmaster sold that AR-15 to a wholesaler, who sold it to a retailer, who sold it to the shooter's mother, who was then later murdered by the killer and the gun was then stolen and used to commit those horrific acts, that Remington, who didn't even own Bushmaster at the time, is somehow responsive for "negligent entrustment" and they are at fault civilly for the shooting. Utterly ridiculous.
When this case is finally thrown out, the pain of the families will be compounded by the fact that the gun banners are unlikely to stick around and help them pay all of Remington's lawyers fees.
Profile Information
Member since: Fri Jan 27, 2006, 12:56 PMNumber of posts: 166
