Mass shooting at the Washington Navy Yard

[molson]

Well that, and actually shooting a gun in most places will get you in a bit more trouble that smoking a cigarette. And I'm pretty sure this guy was allowed to carry cigarettes into his office, but not firearms. He didn't have any particular right to possess cigarettes, but there are no laws restricting that possession. He would be restricted from gun ownership if he had convictions for any felony, or misdemeanor domestic battery, or had been involuntary committed in a mental institution (and a few other reasons). Other than that, exactly the same.

[Autumn]

I haven't checked today for more infromation, but what amazes me is how this guy walked into a Navy yard, clearance or no clearance, with all this weaponry. Seems like that should be impossible?

There are a lot of difficult issues to solve in preventing something like this. But in general I think we agree there should be some sort of gun-ownership repercussions for someone who demonstrates that they're not able to safely take care of their weapon. The fact that his landlord didn't have a bigger response to having him shot a hole in the wall seems odd to me.

[panerd]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I haven't checked today for more infromation, but what amazes me is how this guy walked into a Navy yard, clearance or no clearance, with all this weaponry. Seems like that should be impossible?

There are a lot of difficult issues to solve in preventing something like this. But in general I think we agree there should be some sort of gun-ownership repercussions for someone who demonstrates that they're not able to safely take care of their weapon. The fact that his landlord didn't have a bigger response to having him shot a hole in the wall seems odd to me.

From what I have read he had a diassembled shotgun in his bag and put it together in the bathroom once inside and then took the handgun off one of his police victims. This was from a few days ago also so maybe that isn't the story anymore.

[molson]

This is kind of an interesting breakdown of how the different states deal with mental health and firearms. The Brady federal check which applies to everyone isn't very stringent, it will block a sale if you have been "adjudicated as a mental defective or committed to a mental institution". All of the states have their own restrictions, many of which are similar to the Brady restrictions, but of course, government agencies are less than super awesome at communicating with each other, and many government employees are paralyzed with fear (and paranoia) at violating real or imagined "privacy" regulations, so the checks can turn up different stuff.

http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/...tally-ill.aspx

With both mental health and prior criminal record/uncharged conduct, you have to have some kind of defined standard. It's easy to look at someone after the fact and say, "that guy's shady, he shouldn't have guns." But there has to be some standard and due process that balances security and rights, and it's not going to be perfect. Serious criminal convictions are an easy standard states can rely on because so much due process is already attached to criminal adjudications. I don't know how far we can really go beyond that though. Should it be easier for a state to take away your gun rights than it is to execute you, or you put you in prison for life? And who makes that call, and how is that adjudicated and appealed? Without a conviction, the government would have to, at the very least, re-visit that apartment shooting situation somehow, give the guy some kind of right to challenge any findings that the government is relying on to take away his rights based on an old police report that never resulted in charges. That would be really hard to do on a large scale.

[Qwikshot]

Originally Posted by Autumn

I haven't checked today for more infromation, but what amazes me is how this guy walked into a Navy yard, clearance or no clearance, with all this weaponry. Seems like that should be impossible?

There are a lot of difficult issues to solve in preventing something like this. But in general I think we agree there should be some sort of gun-ownership repercussions for someone who demonstrates that they're not able to safely take care of their weapon. The fact that his landlord didn't have a bigger response to having him shot a hole in the wall seems odd to me.

Apparently, he had the shotgun disassembled in a bag...went into a bathroom, assembled and went on his spree.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

That would be really hard to do on a large scale.

As someone once said:

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

As someone once said:

But why, some say, the moon? Why choose this as our goal? And they may well ask why climb the highest mountain? Why, 35 years ago, fly the Atlantic? Why does Rice play Texas?

We choose to go to the moon. We choose to go to the moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

That's great unless you have to deal in realities. What's your plan and how would we implement it? It's not like people don't try to make these systems as effective as possible.

[molson]

Dola. Most people think about issues involving gun rights, criminal justice, police power, the 4th amendment, privacy, balancing security against rights, etc., when there's a big newsworthy shooting. For others, its their career either to be in the middle of it, or on one side or another contesting things on a case-by-case basis. When I say it's "hard", or point out the challenges involved to having a better or perfect system when there's competing interests, I'm not arguing that nobody should ever try. Many, many try, every day, over their whole lives. Just because we don't like that people have rights, that doesn't mean that the state can or should ignore them when it seems like it would be a good idea. You need systems that will be able to withstand attacks based on those rights (and not just gun rights, privacy rights related to the 4th amendment, HIPAA regulations, due process rights, etc.) And believe me, no state or law enforcement agency sees those challenges and just "gives up" because it's too hard, that's not what I'm saying. I think the systems work fairly well considering the strength of those rights, and there are many who dedicate their lives to improving those systems and making them more effective.

[cartman]

First off we have to find a way to accept that some people just don't need to have guns. Yes, the 2nd Amendment states "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." But that is also preceded by "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,". Letting anyone and everyone have a firearm doesn't fit with the first part. And in determining that, it is safer to err on the side of caution, to keep the militia well regulated. The last several high profile cases have shown that the shooters had mental issues (Sandy Hook, Colorado theater, Navy Yard). The institutions such as the one shown in "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" were shut down en masse in the 1980s, and mental health spending was no longer made a priority. So the pendulum swung 180 degrees the other direction, from a central point of care to no care or rare care, and the jails soon became the central points of care for mental health cases.

If a conviction is what is currently takes to lose the right to own a firearm, maybe there needs to be some sort of new classification that relates strictly to gun misuse. The Navy Yard shooter freely admitted to the accidental discharge, where he claimed he was cleaning his gun while also cooking in the kitchen. Then for the Seattle incident he claims he blacked out and didn't remember shooting out the tires. But since neither of those resulted in convictions, what should have been huge red flags were ignored.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

Letting anyone and everyone have a firearm doesn't fit with the first part.

That's not the state of the current law. So we're already way ahead of where you think we are.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

If a conviction is what is currently takes to lose the right to own a firearm, maybe there needs to be some sort of new classification that relates strictly to gun misuse. The Navy Yard shooter freely admitted to the accidental discharge, where he claimed he was cleaning his gun while also cooking in the kitchen. Then for the Seattle incident he claims he blacked out and didn't remember shooting out the tires. But since neither of those resulted in convictions, what should have been huge red flags were ignored.

I could see an amendment to Brady or state laws that added a provision for misdemeanor convictions that involve gun misuse. Nothing like that will get through Congress these days but it could happen at the state level, and in theory at the national level if we ever have an effective legislature again.

But I think uncharged conduct is a more sensitive topic. A police report has this air of authority in everyday life, where we can take it as fact that these things happened and that he "freely admitted" certain damning things, but in a legal sense that's all just one police officer's factual allegations or interpretation of an encounter. That might be enough for someone not to get a job if an employer got a hold of it somehow, but not enough to take away a constitutional right. Would be willing to give police reports that kind of power in other contexts? Like, to take away a constitutional right that you actually value?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by cartman

Letting anyone and everyone have a firearm doesn't fit with the first part.

Originally Posted by molson

That's not the state of the current law. So we're already way ahead of where you think we are.

I agree that is the case, but the rhetoric doesn't match that. Otherwise, why was their so much resistance to closing the gun show background check loophole when that was brought up?

Originally Posted by molson

But I think uncharged conduct is a more sensitive topic. A police report has this air of authority in everyday life, where we can take it as fact that these things happened and that he "freely admitted" certain damning things, but in a legal sense that's all just one police officer's factual allegations or interpretation of an encounter. That might be enough for someone not to get a job if an employer got a hold of it somehow, but not enough to take away a constitutional right.

That's also what I was getting at. It seems that the second part of the 2nd Amendment takes precedence. I would argue that the 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' is what grants the right to keep and bear arms. It seems that almost all of the things to keep someone from the well-regulated part seems to come after the fact (convicted felon, etc.).

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

That's also what I was getting at. It seems that the second part of the 2nd Amendment takes precedence. I would argue that the 'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State' is what grants the right to keep and bear arms. It seems that almost all of the things to keep someone from the well-regulated part seems to come after the fact (convicted felon, etc.).

But in reality, law enforcement agencies and legislatures are stuck with the Supreme Court's interpretation (unless it changes or until we amend the Constitution).

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Marc Vaughan

(I have this mental image of someone trying to hold up a shop with a cigarette and a lighter saying 'hand me the money from the till or I'm lighting this up' )

And now I have this mental image of a few places I've seen where that might just work

[molson]

The right to bear arms is so weird because it's maybe the one right a sizable chunk of Americans don't want the people to have. So, naturally, they have no problem at all with expanding the government's police power to severely limit that right. Where in any other context, when it comes to rights they actually value, the police power and government is scary and we need to severely restrict THEM from encroaching on how we interpret the rights we like. But from a legal perspective, and a government perspective, rights are rights, they're all obstacles to the exercise of government power. It's just amusing how completely different kinds of people on opposite sides of the political spectrum want the government to limit rights, depending on how much that person or entity personally values that right. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's plenty of reasonable arguments that certain rights are more objectively valuable, and I know I'm just stating the obvious.

[BishopMVP]

Originally Posted by cartman

If a conviction is what is currently takes to lose the right to own a firearm, maybe there needs to be some sort of new classification that relates strictly to gun misuse. The Navy Yard shooter freely admitted to the accidental discharge, where he claimed he was cleaning his gun while also cooking in the kitchen. Then for the Seattle incident he claims he blacked out and didn't remember shooting out the tires. But since neither of those resulted in convictions, what should have been huge red flags were ignored.

Does anyone have better information on what happened after the Seattle incident? I can understand how he wasn't charged for the "accidental" discharge if the landlord agreed to be paid money by Alexis for the damage, the downstairs neighbor wasn't adamant about pressing charges, and the police didn't want to deal with all the extra work if there was no real victim clamoring for justice, but I can't figure out how he wouldn't at least have been charged with a crime up in Seattle. Did he plea bargain down to a lesser charge, or did the case fall apart in the courts due to lack of evidence or something?

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

The right to bear arms is so weird because it's maybe the one right a sizable chunk of Americans don't want the people to have. So, naturally, they have no problem at all with expanding the government's police power to severely limit that right. Where in any other context, when it comes to rights they actually value, the police power and government is scary and we need to severely restrict THEM from encroaching on how we interpret the rights we like. But from a legal perspective, and a government perspective, rights are rights, they're all obstacles to the exercise of government power. It's just amusing how completely different kinds of people on opposite sides of the political spectrum want the government to limit rights, depending on how much that person or entity personally values that right. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's plenty of reasonable arguments that certain rights are more objectively valuable, and I know I'm just stating the obvious.

But the right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, as you have agreed, as is the case for many of the items in the Bill of Rights. There are limits. The Supreme Court has agreed with this as well, in the DC v. Heller ruling. What I see most people wanting is not for all guns to be banned, as you seem to infer in your first statement, rather that the government do what it can to regulate those who should not have them gaining possession. That is a vital difference.

What we have right now is an environment where the guns are easily available to anyone, with only cursory, almost 'honor system' type checks done, and then claim that because these checks are bypassed/short circuited by persons who have been disqualified from using their right to bear arms, there is nothing that really could have been done to stop said person from getting a weapon.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

But the right to keep and bear arms isn't absolute, as you have agreed, as is the case for many of the items in the Bill of Rights. There are limits. The Supreme Court has agreed with this as well, in the DC v. Heller ruling. What I see most people wanting is not for all guns to be banned, as you seem to infer in your first statement, rather that the government do what it can to regulate those who should not have them gaining possession. That is a vital difference.

The rights aren't absolute, but they do exist, and the government is still bound by them and the appellate court's interpretation of constitutional law, and maybe reasonable inferences made from those interpretations. They can't just make and enforce rules based on their own personal interpretation of what they think the constitution should say, or their own ideas about who should get to have guns. Edit (When police and law enforcement agencies do this in other contexts, we really don't like it, but for some reason, when it comes to guns, the same people are super-hawkish about pushing the envelopes of what might be legal, and not an intrusion on constitutional rights.)

From what I can tell, you want the legislature to ban people from firearm ownership, if their name appears in a police report in which officers allege some type of uncharged conduct involving negligent use of firearms. The government certainly doesn't have the authority to do that now. And looking at potential in the future, it seems like a pretty limited solution, but even if it was a step in the right direction, its not going to happen, either politically, or constitutionally. And I'm not sure if THAT'S really the battle worth fighting when there's zero chance of success, getting back to my points on the last page.

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

The rights aren't absolute, but they do exist, and the government is still bound by them and the appellate court's interpretation of constitutional law, and maybe reasonable inferences made from those interpretations. They can't just make and enforce rules based on their own personal interpretation of what they think the constitution should say.

And that is a place that the Supremes left wide open with Heller. They didn't issue anything to give clarity on when it is appropriate to restrict the right to bear arms, only that Heller was in no way supposed to be used to support or criticize the longstanding bans that were already in place. Since there has been approximately zero case law on the matter, there isn't much for legislatures to go on for guidance. So it isn't a matter of what they think the Constitution should say, it is a matter of what they think the Constitution does say to support what ever measures they would like to enact. And that interpretation likely would ultimately go to the Supreme Court if contentious enough.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

And that is a place that the Supremes left wide open with Heller. They didn't issue anything to give clarity on when it is appropriate to restrict the right to bear arms, only that Heller was in no way supposed to be used to support or criticize the longstanding bans that were already in place. Since there has been approximately zero case law on the matter, there isn't much for legislatures to go on for guidance. So it isn't a matter of what they think the Constitution should say, it is a matter of what they think the Constitution does say to support what ever measures they would like to enact. And that interpretation likely would ultimately go to the Supreme Court if contentious enough.

Do you think this is true in other contexts with other constitutional rights? Should police and law enforcement agencies generally push the envelope and err on the side of security when it comes to constitutional rights, if there's no supreme court opinion that specifically says they can't do something? (Edit: I guess in some contexts, some law enforcement agencies could be accused of doing just that, but even then, they have defense attorneys and ACLU lawsuits to contend with. There are really layers of checks on government intrusion on rights, which is of course, very intentional. So many people just want to forget that exists when it comes to guns. If you really want a secure society with minimal crime, I know some law enforcement officers who would have all kinds of great ideas, if you don't mind a little push-back on 4th amendment protections, which are not absolute, of course.)

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

Do you think this is true in other contexts with other constitutional rights? Should police and law enforcement agencies generally push the envelope and err on the side of security when it comes to constitutional rights, if there's no supreme court opinion that specifically says they can't do something? (Edit: I guess in some contexts, some law enforcement agencies could be accused of doing just that, but even then, they have defense attorneys and ACLU lawsuits to contend with. There are really layers of checks of government intrusion on rights, which is of course, very intentional. So many people just want to forget that exists when it comes to guns. If you really want a secure society with minimal crime, I know some law enforcement officers who would have all kinds of great ideas, if you don't mind a little push-back on 4th amendment protections, which are not absolute, of course.)

For most rights, there is ample case law to refer to. And for issues where there is no/minimal established case law, then yes, the Supreme Court steps in. And usually in instances where the envelope has been pushed.

But, as I was mentioning earlier, it seems that when it comes to guns, the direct mention of a 'well regulated militia' seems to be brushed to the side as a nuisance, and not much thought is given to that part of the sentence, where the second half is regarded as sacrosanct.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

But, as I was mentioning earlier, it seems that when it comes to guns, the direct mention of a 'well regulated militia' seems to be brushed to the side as a nuisance, and not much thought is given to that part of the sentence, where the second half is regarded as sacrosanct.

That angle is more scholarly than anything that's gained any traction in actual appellate opinions. I suppose a law enforcement agency could just decide, "hey, what about this part about militias! We're going to guns from all the creepy people!" That would be pretty aggressive. Would you be OK with agencies being similarly aggressive with regard to their scholarly theories regarding 4th amendment or other rights?

[cartman]

Dola,

And for the record, I am far from anti-gun. I believe by default you do have the right to keep and bear arms. My personal interpretation of a 'well regulated militia' is comprised of all of the citizens who are willing to understand and accept the responsibility the right to keep and bear these arms entails, and their actions with the firearms shows this. If you are unwilling (through acts of crime for example) or unable (due to mental and/or psychiatric issues, for example) to do so, then you exclude yourself from the 'well regulated militia', either by self-inaction (not keeping a firearm) or legislative action (barring felons from owning weapons).

[cartman]

Originally Posted by molson

That angle is more scholarly than anything that's gained any traction in actual appellate opinions. I suppose a law enforcement agency could just decide, "hey, what about this part about militias! We're going to guns from all the creepy people!" That would be pretty aggressive. Would you be OK with agencies being similarly aggressive with regard to their scholarly theories regarding 4th amendment or other rights?

If their scholarly theories had not been covered by existing 4th amendment case law, then that would be something for review. But the precise example you gave has already been ruled unconstitutional by the numerous examples of having to show probable cause. You have to keep bringing up these strawmen, because there simply aren't any Supreme Court rulings on that part of the 2nd Amendment as there are with the other Amendments.

[molson]

Originally Posted by cartman

If their scholarly theories had not been covered by existing 4th amendment case law, then that would be something for review. But the precise example you gave has already been ruled unconstitutional by the numerous examples of having to show probable cause. You have to keep bringing up these strawmen, because there simply aren't any Supreme Court rulings on that part of the 2nd Amendment as there are with the other Amendments.

People have all kinds of ideas of what violates their 4th amendment rights and right to privacy despite the lack of a specific United Supreme Court opinion on point with those facts. And some police activities are arguably distinguishable from United States Supreme Court opinions forbidding related tactics, but then are harshly beaten down on appeal anyway. And some law enforcement agencies are advised by their attorneys to refrain from certain tactics because they may violate the 4th amendment, and because they risk convictions for marginal benefit. It's really not that cut-and-dried, especially with the emergence of new technologies. But even with stuff that's more established, the fights in the appellate courts never end, there's always a different angle or different set of facts. Some agencies are more aggressive than others at pushing those envelopes. But when agencies do push those envelopes with regard to the 4th amendment, it's usually not too popular with the same crowd that wants them to push the envelope on 2nd amendment rights in the name of security. Just because those people don't personally value gun rights.

[cartman]

And, as I mentioned, there is much more unexplored area in regards to the 2nd Amendment as there is in regards to the 4th Amendment.

The GPO backs me up on this. In their recent released document regarding case law and the Constitution, there are only 6 pages with case law around the 2nd Amendment, while the 4th Amendment has 92 pages.

http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CON...nt-detail.html

[molson]

So what entity do you want to act here, and what exactly do you want them to do? And I don't just mean describe what kinds of people you don't think should have guns, what branch or agency should act and what exactly should they do, that's actually realistic?

[cartman]

If it were my call, here's what I'd do:

We already have a background check system in place, the NICS. No need to reinvent the wheel, when we have a good starting point already there. Work to consolidate the various silos of data, much like with what happened pre-CODIS/IAFIS. Every jurisdiction had it's own set of fingerprints and DNA records. Once that got consolidated, much less fell through the cracks and searching outside your silo got much improved. Right now, there is little to no sharing of data between lists. That would be a good, solid starting point. There doesn't have to be a new cabinet level organization to run this.

But there is such a huge push against something like this from the NRA, that it is a moot point. Their purpose seems to be to get as many guns out there as possible, and then prosecute on the back end, instead of trying to keep the people that already are prohibited (much less expanding that list) from getting them in the first place. It is one of the main reasons I stopped being a member, when in my opinion they moved from primarily a safety and sane gun usage organization to one that wants to be an absolute advocate for the retailing of firearms.

[Marc Vaughan]

Originally Posted by cartman

Dola,

And for the record, I am far from anti-gun. I believe by default you do have the right to keep and bear arms. My personal interpretation of a 'well regulated militia' is comprised of all of the citizens who are willing to understand and accept the responsibility the right to keep and bear these arms entails, and their actions with the firearms shows this. If you are unwilling (through acts of crime for example) or unable (due to mental and/or psychiatric issues, for example) to do so, then you exclude yourself from the 'well regulated militia', either by self-inaction (not keeping a firearm) or legislative action (barring felons from owning weapons).

A well regulated militia I would have thought would have comprised pretty much what Switzerland have - everyone within a certain age in the country has to spend 'x' days training each year so they could be called upon for defense if the need arises.

They have access to weaponry as its obviously required for these purposes.

That is a 'regulated militia' letting everyone carry guns isn't a militia at all - a militia has a purpose and training surely?

[Mizzou B-ball fan]