Interesting research on mass shootings

[Racer X]

The ban I am referring to is the 10 round limit on magazines in California, kicked back to the DC in California, to be heard by Judge Benitez again.

It's certainly difficult to keep them straight. There are 3? if not more in California alone, and I believe at least one is Federal. It is easier if they have the names attached, like the Heller and Bruen cases, or EPA v W Virginia, which decided that regelatory agencies don't get to make law, only Congress can, unless Congress votes them a specific power. That's why the ATF will eventually lose the fight on bump stocks, and pistol braces. That's the consensus of several retired federal judges I know, including a retired state Supreme Court judge who lives back east.

Really should be looking at legal and universally beneficial solutions like mental/emotional health, and enforcing all the laws already on the books each and every time. Otherwise we end up with tangential issues like retail fleeing downtown districts because theft is rampant. Charge all crimes, all the time.

[btfc]

“ The ban I am referring to is the 10 round limit on magazines in California, kicked back to the DC in California, to be heard by Judge Benitez again. “

Reading comprehension issues?

From DeusxMac‘s link:

“Assault weapons, prohibited in California since 1989, are defined in state law as semiautomatic firearms that either have a pistol grip or magazines that can hold at least 10 cartridges. “

“ The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals immediately put the ruling on hold, and the law remains in effect. But the Supreme Court has returned the case to Benitez for reconsideration under the standards it announced last year. “

“ Last week’s state appeals court ruling, meanwhile, was the first published appellate decision on the assault weapons law and its validity under the Supreme Court’s current standard. Unless overturned on appeal, it will be a binding precedent for all trial courts in the state’s 58 counties.

The ruling’s conclusions are not binding on federal courts — including the Supreme Court, which may have the last word on the issue — but they must defer to the appeals court’s interpretation of the California law. “


‘ National test scores show decline in history and civics proficiency ‘

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/05/03...y-00094935

Try and keep up with the rest of the class.

[Racer X]

so it sounds like you aren't interested in a civil civil discourse btfc. Good to know.

From deuxmac's link "But the Supreme Court has returned the case to Benitez for reconsideration under the standards it announced last year. “
here is the federal ruling (magazine capacity limit)
JUDGMENT
Entered: April 7, 2023
In light of the Supreme Court's decision in New York State Rifle & Pistol ***'n, Inc. v. Bruen, 142 S. Ct. 2111 (2022), the district court's judgment is vacated, and the matter is remanded for further proceedings. In remanding this matter, we take no position on the outcome previously
reached by the district court, and we do not retain jurisdiction. Rather, in the event that any party contests the district court's decision, a timely new notice of appeal should be filed. No costs are awarded. "

and the handgun roster challenge "Other California gun laws have also come under renewed legal attack, including the state’s limit of one gun purchase per month, a requirement that new handgun models “micro-stamp” their cartridges so that police can identify them at crime scenes and" https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch...amendment/ https://apnews.com/article/california-gu...f75555c044 This is Federal court, so any precedent here covers all states

And in that state ruling on the state's "assault weapon" ban isn't the final word because"The ruling’s conclusions are not binding on federal courts — including the Supreme Court, which may have the last word on the issue " That's the FEDERAL lawsuit that is parrallel that the article alludes to.

Lot's going on in just 1 state. Odd, how in another state, with a different court, Illinois, decided their "assault weapon" ban is illegal/unconstitutional, and issued an injunction. Same "Bruen" and "Heller" cites, different outcome so far. And Colorado killed their attempt at an "assault weapon" ban in light of everything going on. No reason to believe it would ever stick.

Maybe they should focus on mental/emotional health for prevention and enforcing existing laws to cut down on, or eliminate repeat offenders?

The VA really messed up in the Atlanta shooting this week.

[Ted King]

Never mind - decided to put this in it's own thread.