5 ms·

The issue, from a public safety and law enforcement perspective, is that intent is mostly a post-hoc construction. Whereas possession can be judged before an ac

by ethbr1 2y ago

The issue, from a public safety and law enforcement perspective, is that intent is mostly a post-hoc construction. Whereas possession can be judged before an act occurs. If the US intends to stick to the freedom-first philosophy with regards to possession, then it would behoove everyone to have a more nuanced legal view of intent. E.g. graduated escalating consequences for 'Making threats and remarks of a violent nature' to 'Taking actions that indicate preparation for violent action' etc. Like you, I think if people want to mess around with homemade explosives, and they have enough land to do so, then that's their business. BUT! There should also be a pattern of behavior, evidence, and witnessed statements where we say 'This particular individual has ceded the right to access dangerous things.' So essentially being able to charge and convict someone (with due process) of 'violent intent', with no financial or incarceration penalties, but temporary addition (5 year?) to lists that preclude their being able to access dangerous material (guns, explosives, etc). Of course, the NRA has historically been the biggest lobbyist blocker to anything of that nature, given their paranoia that any legal government consequences will spiral into a panopticon. Unfortunately, that view doesn't solve the fact that there are very troubled individuals out there, and we'd all be able to be afforded greater freedom if we did a better job in managing those particular people's access to lethal things.

giantg2 2y ago
"So essentially being able to charge and convict someone (with due process) of 'violent intent', with no financial or incarceration penalties, but temporary addition to a lists that preclude their being able to access dangerous material (guns, explosives, etc)." I'm not sure what you're getting at on this one. This individual faces potential incarceration. He is on bail and would be denied access to dangerous things... in theory. Of course he manufactured explosives, so it's not like he has to pass a background check to come into possession of them again. "and we'd all be able to be afforded greater freedom if we did a better job in managing those particular people's access to lethal things." Do you have some examples of additional freedoms we're missing currently? "Of course, the NRA has historically been the biggest lobbyist blocker to anything of that nature, given their paranoia that any legal government consequences will spiral into a panopticon." I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to that they oppose. But the legal term for a slippery slope is the Overton Window. Speaking of gun regulations generally, it's not hard to understand why a pro-gun group would be against the types of additional regulations that are already present in other states that arguable do not improve safety or could even reduce it in legitimate use circumstances (eg hollowpoint bans, etc).
- ethbr1 2y ago
  > This individual faces potential incarceration. He is on bail and would be denied access to dangerous things... in theory. The current US justice system is based around conviction of a crime (which usually requires having already committed it, or a VERY high bar for having intended to do so) in order to impose consequences (usually severe). Or limitations on individuals' rights after conviction of the above. There's no lesser standard of 'at higher risk to commit a crime', aside from a patchwork of short-duration city/state red-flag type laws, most of which are being challenged in court. > Do you have some examples of additional freedoms we're missing currently? Access to NFA-controlled devices? [0] E.g. a breach-loading potato gun > I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to that they oppose. But the legal term for a slippery slope is the Overton Window. The Overton Window isn't a legal term: it's a PR/clickbait term. The NRA has and currently opposes red-flag laws [1], even when constructed with due process procedures, because of its mistrust of any government firearm regulation. If they instead switched their lobbying approach to productively crafting due process procedures that would allow targeting individuals with a history of threats, abuse, and violence, the rest of us could benefit from greater freedom to dangerous devices. Instead, their tunnel vision on absolute freedom requires repeatedly casting a blind eye to inconvenient situations where disturbed individuals leverage that freedom to kill others. Solving problems requires clear-eyed appraisals of the risks and benefits of various approaches to arrive at optimal outcomes. The NRA has fueled the exact opposite, by leveraging histrionics and fear mongering, not least for its own financial gain. Fuck em. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons [1] https://www.nraila.org/search/?t=79503 https://www.nraila.org/search/?t=79503
  - giantg2 2y ago
    Oh, you're talking about red flag laws. What makes you think passing red flag laws will provide additional freedoms? It seems highly unlikely that those who support the current red flag laws would support any loosening of other firearm restrictions. Your statement also implicitly assumes that red flag laws would be significantly effective to allow looser restrictions overall. However, groups like RAND have found no conclusive evidence that red flags work. The best evidence they have is potentially reducing suicides. What would the protections you mention look like? The whole point of moving things like red flag laws or civil asset forfeiture to the civil side is because it lacks the protections on the criminal side - lower burden of proof, no right to representation, ex parte proceedings, etc. It's no wonder we see constant abuses of the process in traditional PFAs during divorces in many states. Surely we could fix the existing processes to ameliorate the problems and concerns thus providing a solid basis for the argument to expand them. Currently, the ACLU opposes most of the red flag laws due to civil liberties issues. I would bet that the NRA will propose ammendments to any national red flag legislation introduced, just as they helped shape the 1968 legislation once it looked inevitable. That's all a part of the political game. Sure, the Overton Window is associated with some clickbait, but it's a real and valid concept in politics. This is why groups aren't going to volunteer to help implement things that are counter to their goals, be it the NRA or Everytown. Do you really think Everytown would support something like national reciprocity in exchange for red flag laws? No, as they are also a hardliner and playing the game. "Solving problems requires clear-eyed appraisals of the risks and benefits of various approaches to arrive at optimal outcomes." So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome?
oceanplexian 2y ago
> Taking actions that indicate preparation for violent action The contradiction is that that’s literally the content and purpose of the 2A of the US Constitution. It’s not the right to bear arms for hunting deer, or the right to go target shooting. The language is pretty explicit, if it isn’t clear enough the founders took the time to explain the purpose of it in the Federalist Papers after they fought an armed revolution against their own government. My take on unstable people is that if you’re not stable enough to own guns you’re not stable enough to participate in society. If the person in this case made credible threats, they should charge him with a crime other than possession of a firearm accessory. There are plenty of other ways that deranged people hurt others (Like driving a vehicle into a christmas market). The only way we can claim to live in a free society is by maintaining a system of due process.
- stouset 2y ago
  Does the second amendment authorize me to bear nuclear weapons? If no, you acknowledge there is a line. We’re allowed to bear arms, but not any and all arms. If yes, maybe your views are consistent but you’re utterly insane.
  - oceanplexian 2y ago
    It should guarantee the right to carry the same weapon we give to 17 year kids in the military. Which is an M4 carbine. That would be the modern musket and more or less consistent with historic tradition.
    - stouset 2y ago
      You've conceded that there should be some limits. You think they should be at one point. I disagree. Since the second amendment itself doesn’t contain any express instructions as to who can bear which arms—which is a necessary consideration once you’ve accepted that everyone shouldn’t be able to bear every arm—we’re now solidly in the realm of political debate rather than second amendment absolutism.
      - 2y ago
ClumsyPilot 2y ago
> think if people want to mess around with homemade explosives, and they have enough land to do so, then that's their business. Do you also believe you should not need a driving license, or an electrician should not have any certification? Because an average person can watch a YouTube video and wire a circuit, or learn to drive by themselves, but their chances of making explosives without posing a danger for themselves or others are far, far lower. This should be a licensed activity where you need to demonstrate at least basic competence and mental stability.
- giantg2 2y ago
  A drivers license on your own land - no. Adding a circuit to your own house generally doesn't need a license but does need a permit. Driving without a license or doing electrical work without a license/permit usually isnt sending you to prison for years. Manufacturing explosives generally requires licenses and could otherwise result in years of prison. I'm not sure if the law works this way, but I would hope there are some exceptions for small quantities. I see plenty of stuff online about black powder manufacturing, which I think is cool as an insight into history. I'm sure it's dangerous, but in small quantities it's really only a danger to oneself. Honestly, I see that as less of a danger to others than reckless driving on a road or even electrical work after the house is sold.
  - ethbr1 2y ago
    Or to put it another way, the things we're regulating as a society should be an individual's ability to cause harm to others (either intentionally or unintentionally), as that deprives others of their freedom to live their own lives. If an individual is endangering only themselves in a way that poses no risk to others (e.g. blowing up stumps on their own large property), then that's a responsibility they should be given. Which does suggest stricter limits on higher density areas (read: cities), given the proximity of people and lack of empty, fuck-around space.

by ethbr1 2y ago

giantg2 2y ago

"So essentially being able to charge and convict someone (with due process) of 'violent intent', with no financial or incarceration penalties, but temporary addition to a lists that preclude their being able to access dangerous material (guns, explosives, etc)." I'm not sure what you're getting at on this one. This individual faces potential incarceration. He is on bail and would be denied access to dangerous things... in theory. Of course he manufactured explosives, so it's not like he has to pass a background check to come into possession of them again. "and we'd all be able to be afforded greater freedom if we did a better job in managing those particular people's access to lethal things." Do you have some examples of additional freedoms we're missing currently? "Of course, the NRA has historically been the biggest lobbyist blocker to anything of that nature, given their paranoia that any legal government consequences will spiral into a panopticon." I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to that they oppose. But the legal term for a slippery slope is the Overton Window. Speaking of gun regulations generally, it's not hard to understand why a pro-gun group would be against the types of additional regulations that are already present in other states that arguable do not improve safety or could even reduce it in legitimate use circumstances (eg hollowpoint bans, etc).

ethbr1 2y ago
> This individual faces potential incarceration. He is on bail and would be denied access to dangerous things... in theory. The current US justice system is based around conviction of a crime (which usually requires having already committed it, or a VERY high bar for having intended to do so) in order to impose consequences (usually severe). Or limitations on individuals' rights after conviction of the above. There's no lesser standard of 'at higher risk to commit a crime', aside from a patchwork of short-duration city/state red-flag type laws, most of which are being challenged in court. > Do you have some examples of additional freedoms we're missing currently? Access to NFA-controlled devices? [0] E.g. a breach-loading potato gun > I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to that they oppose. But the legal term for a slippery slope is the Overton Window. The Overton Window isn't a legal term: it's a PR/clickbait term. The NRA has and currently opposes red-flag laws [1], even when constructed with due process procedures, because of its mistrust of any government firearm regulation. If they instead switched their lobbying approach to productively crafting due process procedures that would allow targeting individuals with a history of threats, abuse, and violence, the rest of us could benefit from greater freedom to dangerous devices. Instead, their tunnel vision on absolute freedom requires repeatedly casting a blind eye to inconvenient situations where disturbed individuals leverage that freedom to kill others. Solving problems requires clear-eyed appraisals of the risks and benefits of various approaches to arrive at optimal outcomes. The NRA has fueled the exact opposite, by leveraging histrionics and fear mongering, not least for its own financial gain. Fuck em. [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Title_II_weapons [1] https://www.nraila.org/search/?t=79503 https://www.nraila.org/search/?t=79503
- giantg2 2y ago
  Oh, you're talking about red flag laws. What makes you think passing red flag laws will provide additional freedoms? It seems highly unlikely that those who support the current red flag laws would support any loosening of other firearm restrictions. Your statement also implicitly assumes that red flag laws would be significantly effective to allow looser restrictions overall. However, groups like RAND have found no conclusive evidence that red flags work. The best evidence they have is potentially reducing suicides. What would the protections you mention look like? The whole point of moving things like red flag laws or civil asset forfeiture to the civil side is because it lacks the protections on the criminal side - lower burden of proof, no right to representation, ex parte proceedings, etc. It's no wonder we see constant abuses of the process in traditional PFAs during divorces in many states. Surely we could fix the existing processes to ameliorate the problems and concerns thus providing a solid basis for the argument to expand them. Currently, the ACLU opposes most of the red flag laws due to civil liberties issues. I would bet that the NRA will propose ammendments to any national red flag legislation introduced, just as they helped shape the 1968 legislation once it looked inevitable. That's all a part of the political game. Sure, the Overton Window is associated with some clickbait, but it's a real and valid concept in politics. This is why groups aren't going to volunteer to help implement things that are counter to their goals, be it the NRA or Everytown. Do you really think Everytown would support something like national reciprocity in exchange for red flag laws? No, as they are also a hardliner and playing the game. "Solving problems requires clear-eyed appraisals of the risks and benefits of various approaches to arrive at optimal outcomes." So what's the solution? What's the optimal outcome?

oceanplexian 2y ago

> Taking actions that indicate preparation for violent action The contradiction is that that’s literally the content and purpose of the 2A of the US Constitution. It’s not the right to bear arms for hunting deer, or the right to go target shooting. The language is pretty explicit, if it isn’t clear enough the founders took the time to explain the purpose of it in the Federalist Papers after they fought an armed revolution against their own government. My take on unstable people is that if you’re not stable enough to own guns you’re not stable enough to participate in society. If the person in this case made credible threats, they should charge him with a crime other than possession of a firearm accessory. There are plenty of other ways that deranged people hurt others (Like driving a vehicle into a christmas market). The only way we can claim to live in a free society is by maintaining a system of due process.

stouset 2y ago
Does the second amendment authorize me to bear nuclear weapons? If no, you acknowledge there is a line. We’re allowed to bear arms, but not any and all arms. If yes, maybe your views are consistent but you’re utterly insane.
- oceanplexian 2y ago
  It should guarantee the right to carry the same weapon we give to 17 year kids in the military. Which is an M4 carbine. That would be the modern musket and more or less consistent with historic tradition.
  - stouset 2y ago
    You've conceded that there should be some limits. You think they should be at one point. I disagree. Since the second amendment itself doesn’t contain any express instructions as to who can bear which arms—which is a necessary consideration once you’ve accepted that everyone shouldn’t be able to bear every arm—we’re now solidly in the realm of political debate rather than second amendment absolutism.
    - 2y ago

ClumsyPilot 2y ago

> think if people want to mess around with homemade explosives, and they have enough land to do so, then that's their business. Do you also believe you should not need a driving license, or an electrician should not have any certification? Because an average person can watch a YouTube video and wire a circuit, or learn to drive by themselves, but their chances of making explosives without posing a danger for themselves or others are far, far lower. This should be a licensed activity where you need to demonstrate at least basic competence and mental stability.

giantg2 2y ago
A drivers license on your own land - no. Adding a circuit to your own house generally doesn't need a license but does need a permit. Driving without a license or doing electrical work without a license/permit usually isnt sending you to prison for years. Manufacturing explosives generally requires licenses and could otherwise result in years of prison. I'm not sure if the law works this way, but I would hope there are some exceptions for small quantities. I see plenty of stuff online about black powder manufacturing, which I think is cool as an insight into history. I'm sure it's dangerous, but in small quantities it's really only a danger to oneself. Honestly, I see that as less of a danger to others than reckless driving on a road or even electrical work after the house is sold.
- ethbr1 2y ago
  Or to put it another way, the things we're regulating as a society should be an individual's ability to cause harm to others (either intentionally or unintentionally), as that deprives others of their freedom to live their own lives. If an individual is endangering only themselves in a way that poses no risk to others (e.g. blowing up stumps on their own large property), then that's a responsibility they should be given. Which does suggest stricter limits on higher density areas (read: cities), given the proximity of people and lack of empty, fuck-around space.