Oops.

Especially in this day and age of mass shootings. It is easy to imagine the courts being willing to decide that financial responsibility is an intrinsic part of the right to bear arms.

I seriously doubt any individual liability policy would cover a mass shooting or any other criminal use of a firearm. It's against public policy because insuring against such conduct would encourage rather than discourage the conduct.

As to constitutionality, JPW pointed out the equal protection problem between the poor and those that could afford it. It's effectively a tax on a right that some can't afford.

Then there's a strict scrutiny analysis of how it's sold vs. what the policy will actually cover. It's being sold as something to address mass shooting and gun violence in general. While the required coverage is like car insurance and only "covers losses or damages resulting from negligent or accidental use of their firearm ..." In other words the required coverage is not narrowly tailored to address gun violence thus fails strict scrutiny.

Especially in this day and age of mass shootings. It is easy to imagine the courts being willing to decide that financial responsibility is an intrinsic part of the right to bear arms.

I seriously doubt any individual liability policy would cover a mass shooting or any other criminal use of a firearm. It's against public policy because insuring against such conduct would encourage rather than discourage the conduct.

As to constitutionality, JPW pointed out the equal protection problem between the poor and those that could afford it. It's effectively a tax on a right that some can't afford.

Then there's a strict scrutiny analysis of how it's sold vs. what the policy will actually cover. It's being sold as something to address mass shooting and gun violence in general. While the required coverage is like car insurance and only "covers losses or damages resulting from negligent or accidental use of their firearm ..." In other words the required coverage is not narrowly tailored to address gun violence thus fails strict scrutiny.

If only she had armed herself she would have been able to shoot the boy before he shot her. I am told that 2nd Amendment proponents feel that would have been a much more desireble[sic] result.

You've been talking to some f***ed up people. Find better acquaintances.

Not to mention using up outdated ordnance and testing new stuff on a real battlefield.

Then there's the intel gained from Russian use of some of their more sophisticated weapons systems.

Per Texas law ...

WTF does Texas law have to do with a case in New York Federal Court? While you're at it, tell us about stacked vs. consecutive sentencing.

What? Curmudgeon?

Mao is a character, nothing more.

Sounds like the Senator from Montana has swallowed the Yellowstone mythos hook, line and sinker.

I don't believe the Constitution says anything about making the manufacturing of guns illegal in the United States, does it?

You can't do through back-door that which you can't do through the front-door.

Step back a minute and think about what you wrote. The Constitution is about the formation of a government it is not about governance. Governance considers the Constitutional restraints on the government. The government can't infringe on the right to bear arms, with certain exceptions. Banning US gun manufacture or $5000 dollar bullets or any number of other knee jerk solutions is a run on the back-door. Ain't happnin.

Shouldn't I find that a little surprising or is that fairly normal to seek out opinions of non parties?

I think it's fairly normal when the cert. petition involves significant federal interests. Here that interest is non-discriminatory education.

I wouldn't call Allen a sh***ole nor would I smear a city as racist based on a sample of one.

#20 | Posted by GalaxiePete

Where did the kid get the idea? My guess, at that age, video games, TV, movies etc. I doubt the parents suggested to the kid that pointing a handgun at a person and pulling the trigger is appropriate.

The rest of your post is just cr** slung at the wall. Not enough information has been released to come to any conclusion.

Btw, iirc, the VA criminal standard is "recklessly" allowing access to a loaded firearm by persons under 14. More information is needed to assess that standard in this situation.

You do realize what he testified to in his hearing, and "egregiously wrong from the start" are polar opposites, correct?

Generally correct but unsure of the specific testimony you refer to.

And a change of opinion that wide would require an epiphany, right?

Any judicial nominee with limited experience with abortion law could reasonably change their opinion over 17 years and seeing many more cases.

Before you freak out, I disagree with Dobbs. I'm just here to swat at the "lie" meme.

It's the killing of pedestrians and t-boning semis is what's the problem.

Then keep 'em off surface roads. Restrict them to Interstates and four lane divided US Highways until the technology improves. You know, incremental progress rather than the whole shebang with a cherry on top.

... until roadways are tagged with devices (probably embedded in the middle of the road) to help self driving cars/trucks navigate.

Time for an infrastructure bill.

Necessity Defense in Criminal Cases

The defense of necessity may apply when an individual commits a criminal act during an emergency situation in order to prevent a greater harm from happening. In such circumstances, our legal system typically excuses the individual's criminal act because it was justified, or finds that no criminal act has occurred. Although necessity may seem like a defense that would be commonly invoked by defendants seeking to avoid criminal charges, its application is limited by several important requirements:

How do they go about doing that? Can someone petition to have a recall election or something?

POSTED BY EBERLY AT 2022-12-28 05:12 PM | REPLY

Only congress can vote to expell him. You can't recall him.

#19 | Posted by LauraMohr

But only for reasons related to Constitutional qualifications. Merely being a sack of s**t won't cut it.

Sheeit, that's why I got the f*** out of Colorado after three Winters.

In my part of North East Harris County it got down to 15 last night. I don't remember it getting that low since we moved here in '99. The kitchen sink and utility room froze (North exposure) but no significant impact.

It's irresponsible and stupid to say that the USA has the moral high ground.

Yes, it's irresponsible and stupid to say that [any country that starts a war of aggression] has the moral high ground. FTFY.

That said, you can't be a person. You must be a bot

To me, use of sir and maam is no more nor less than a show of respect.

In my early '70s Army bootcamp addressing a Drill Sergeant as Sir, there were no females, was usually met with something along lines; "Sir, don't call me sir, I work for a f*****g living." A reference to officers.

I use the terms daily with any and all persons with whom I interact. It's just a courteous habit taught to me by my Grandfather born in 1896.

Bottom line:

... the data could not be "accurately produced" and did not provide any materials to the attorney general.

#8

"Sensitive places" is a difficult concept for those that are challenged.

Bless 'em.

Pardon me, biennial.

Nah, idiot Texas legislators do "stupid studd"[sic] all year round. They only get to make it official every two years.

Chill out. This is the crazy period of the regular bi-annual legislative session, 140 days beginning 1-10. There's a filing deadline before the session begins. Thus the crazy s*** that typically is sent to committee never to see the light of day again.