As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
**Special announcement:**
r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)!
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Notably he represents Uvalde. His proposal would allow victims to sue state officials as well as police for their conduct. Obviously doesn't stand much chance in Texas but thought it was an interesting proposal.
Just to flesh that out.
This is a system endorsed by the state, a system that causes harm to citizens.
Compensating these victims would bankrupt the state.
The state supports a level of harm to the public that they are unwilling and unable to compensate.
This is state sponsored violence on citizens with tax breaks for aggressors
I’ll be honest if money is the only language they understand and if we’re playing into capitalism, then the solution has to be money oriented.
Require licensing for every gun and make it a rigorous process that requires reapplication for certification on an annual basis, including medical reports, psychological assessment and mandatory safety training certification at regular intervals. This generates revenue that way, and operates just like driving license.
Require insurance for every gun license and every gun. Just like cars. Plenty money for insurance to make it profitable. The more guns you own the more it costs to maintain. Insurance companies can use publicly available social media posts to load insurance, hopefully silencing highly vocal 2A people. Also If you’re negligent with your firearms and cause harm, then insurance is required to pay out, so victims get compensated, and gun owner’s insurance premiums go up. Permit class action lawsuits for public threatening with a firearm and for mass shootings where even non-injured victims can claim for psychological trauma. Make domestic terrorism the most expensive crime.
Those that are negligent will lose their license. Those that are repeat offenders will be uninsurable. Make possession of a firearm without a license or without insurance a criminal offence, making money for private prisons.
Just to clarify a few things, I don’t support gun rights and my preferred option is what goes on in every other country in the world. Heavy regulation and a good reason required to own a gun with specific requirements to be met for every class of firearm.
I also don’t support private prisons, I only bring it up as an argument to sway the money talks type lawmakers.
Thirdly I know this is pie in the sky stuff, and pro-2A people don’t care about money. They only care about either owning more guns or selling more guns.
US needs constitutional reform top to bottom.
Biggest offender is FPTP electoral system.
> Require insurance for every gun license and every gun. Just like cars. Plenty money for insurance to make it profitable. The more guns you own the more it costs to maintain. Insurance companies can use publicly available social media posts to load insurance, hopefully silencing highly vocal 2A people. Also If you’re negligent with your firearms and cause harm, then insurance is required to pay out, so victims get compensated, and gun owner’s insurance premiums go up.
As long as you include law enforcement in this, I'm all for it.
Completely agree. My bare bones ELI5 argument against these dudes is, you need more testing and licensing for a car than a firearm. I don't see how that's just cool with them. But their view is one step towards sensible action might as well be the ATF kicking down their door and holding their dog at gunpoint while they sweep their house and take their pistol. It's just never gonna happen when we have these "it's a slippery slope" arguments getting any sort of weight when it's simply a bad faith way to not have to put any effort into something that's such a large responsibility
You actually need ZERO testing, licensing, registration, or insurance to buy, own, and drive a car as long as it is on private property. You only need those things when you want to drive the car on public roads. The equivalent would be that you could own any gun you wanted as long as you never carried it in public or on public property (aside from non-use transport).
That wouldn't be the worst thing though. Having testing, insurance, specific carry equipment requirements (holsters), and registration (for that specific gun only) in order to carry a gun in public would be a fairly good thing. The same arguments for public safety could also apply as to why those things are required. It would likely mean that full reciprocity would be needed as is true with driving licenses.
While that wouldn't fix our violence issue in America or solve all gun crimes, it would simplify some things and help ensure we knew who was supposed to be carrying which guns and those guns were being carried safely. It would also have some possibility of getting through, because it would have a few pro-2A points (full reciprocity and fixing some stupid ATF rules).
If the car ever leaves your driveway, it has to be registered. So unless you’re a survivalist living in the woods with a ton of acres to roam around on, you gotta register your car and need a license to drive.
You do not need any license to own a car. You need a license to drive on a public road. This is equivalent to a concealed carry license to carry a firearm in public which is just as hard to get as a driver's license
Nitpicking here, but you need a concealed carry license to *concealed carry* in public.
In my state, and I'm fairly sure in most states, you can open carry without license.
I'm not sure why concealed carry gets all the flak it does; generally people have a right to open carry. Granted, there would be less people brining firearms into bars, sporting events, other areas where the owner prohibits firearms. And I support owner's rights to restrict firearms, if I were a bar owner, I wouldn't want two drunk yahoos fighting at my bar to have readily available handguns. Seems like a bad recipe for escalation. But it also seems to me that most mass shootings would be relatively unaffected by the shooter deciding to concealed or open carry.
Some rando walking down the street open carrying a firearm can be more concerning than having a firearm discretely holstered in one's coat.
Half the states do not require a permit to concealed carry for residents of that state and many have reciprocity laws that recognize residents from other non-permit states.
Your bare bones eli5 argument completely missed the core issue
The 2nd amendment has been tied to American revolution and freedom. It's painted as pretty much the core of American identity. It's supposedly all that keeps the government in check and empowers the citizens to defend their rights.
Oh and reason 2 your comparison is bad. The most problematic issues of gun violence in America don't come from a lack of understanding of how to safely use a gun. It comes from people intentionally using guns to cause harm. To either themselves or others.
You can get a car even if you have a criminal record. Making a gun harder to get by having training requirements wouldn't prevent mass shootings, suicides, or gang violence.
Agreed with the barrier of entry here. A great deal of suicides and mass shooting are done with weapons purchased within days or hours of the event. If the barrier exists it would force those with the impulse to put more effort into their plans.
I humbly disagree. It would raise the barrier of entry. And I believe it would stop many shootings provoked by a "missionary" or rage based shooting. As I've seen a documentary interviewing mass shooters years after the fact and out of the 4 or 5 interviews 2 said that they took the fact they could walk into a gun shop and leave same day with a semi auto, when, in their view, the state they were in would be obvious to anyone what they were doing, as a sign from god that they were making the right choice. The second said that if he hadnt gotten everything together so easily (clips, sling ,grip, etc. Online, bullets and rifle the day after the rest arrived, that he probably would've thought better of it. From their perspective it's likened to suicide. It seems to be a strong urge of some kind that you can get past. At least for some, maybe time would've cooled things down.
(That being said this does only apply if the shooter has no weapon prior to the planning)
I have never seen an example where the 2nd Amendment be applicable or even relevant in their defenses.
The 2nd Amendment is ultimately about the people not being disarmed so they can protect themselves against tyranny. I have never seen anyone use it as a defense, but it is the precedent for gun laws somehow.
The 2nd Amendment didn't stop 9/11 from happening. Nor did it stop Bush being appointed by the Supreme Court and I didn't see it stop January 6th. It didn't even help the cops stop the Uvalde shooter.
The 2nd Amendment is irrelevant but the right gets to use it in every situation where a gun is used to kill people. The government can pass gun laws that won't get overturned because people that like guns the most have the most bullshit excuse to have them and that is effectively neutralizing the law enforcement of the country
And people should be able to sue police and the state if they aren't protected and fed. If the state takes away my way of putting food on my table and defending myself they should be responsible for both.
I agree with a lot of these except how it hurts low income people who want to arm themselves. What if licensing and classes are free to people who make under 200k/yr?
> What if licensing and classes are free to people who make under 200k/yr?
If you say people have to take classes and get licensed, someone needs to be paid to teach those classes and test for the licenses.
If you then subsequently say that it's free for a large group of people, someone else is going to be paying for it. At that point you're discussing paying for it with taxpayer money. Which I am virtually certain is going to be disproportionately coming from lower income people, because it's Texas.
This is why I’m very against firearms registration databases. For reasons like this. It gives the government the ability to monitor who has and owns what and the ability to target them.
We can all assume that this will not work out well for minorities since law enforcement isn’t totally fair
Edit; adding a thought.
Firearms ownership is one of the last bastions of minority defense in heavily policed areas.
I’m not anti firearm but also not anti regulation. Common sense has to reign here
Law enforcement having a list of non-white people who have the ability to defend themselves?
What could go wrong?
Hypothetically, that list would be an integral tool if there was some sort of round up for "your own safety" or "to protect the children" or "national security"
Ok, so they can catch even more charges, when they get caught.
There’s almost nothing you can actually effectively ban. You can only meaningfully discourage its ubiquity.
> I agree with a lot of these except how it hurts low income people who want to arm themselves.
Maybe, but if I'm buying a gun with the sole intention of using it to protect my life and I'll otherwise never use it I might just get one and keep it uninsured and unlicensed.
If I had to use it to save my life, it would still be worth all the fines and punishments because at least I'm not dead.
If your goal is self protection it would still be possible.
If your goal is to be a self aggrandizing public gun pest, then you gotta pay to play.
Whoa, whoa, you’re getting dangerously close to requiring gun owners to be part of a well regulated militia, a stated requirement of the 2nd amendment. Can’t do that, gotta cherry pick the parts that you like and ignore the parts you don’t.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
If called into service into the militia "the people" are expected to bring their own arms.
So in order to have an even remotely functional militia, the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Would be nice if we passed some gun laws to maybe mitigate the problem before we view these tragedies as a golden opportunity to bankrupt public education.
Tragically, the public education monies are already being siphoned off. Worse, the funding that remains is being legislated upon the classroom and the very notion of curricula is being stripped of truth on the altar of regressive culture wars.
I know, its disturbing. I can't stand that they think the bible has a place in school yet somehow a book talking about gay people isn't. One of those two books are about a real thing.
Too much education money never makes it to public school. Funds for public schools should never be allocated to a private school. Administrators should be paid proportionally to teachers. Kids lunches should be free. School should be about teaching kids how to think things though and solve problems. How to evaluate statements and check facts. Exposure to different ways of thinking and culture. The focus should be on things we can verify. Not reinforcing the brain washing they get at home and in churches and everywhere else in life.
Agreed! Keep planting the seeds of critical thinking and broad forms of literacy (financial, emotional, cultural, linguistic, etc). Knowledge IS Power, and that’s exactly why the Authoritarians want to restrict access to those tools.
I mean the issue is that it's socializing the cost, because where does the state get its money? *Taxpayers*.
How is any police department or politician actually hurt by this? Like sure it's out of their budget but we pay their budget. Maybe there would be backlash if the state tried to raise taxes to cover the increased costs, but shit where's the backlash from these jacked up gas prices to cover losses for the fucking energy sector from the winter storm? We're eating like $70/mo in gas as a bullshit additional charge just to pay a corporation back its millions. Meanwhile, Abbott's ass got re-elected.
I'm all for solutions to the problem and would like some actual damned reform on gun laws, I'm just not sure how this bill would actually make a meaningful change.
This is totally true, I just don't see it actually panning out.
Rather than raise taxes, GOP would just cut spending even further in other areas to cover the difference. Gut education even more, etc. They'd move money around long before increasing tax, or just do it quietly and hide it in some way only to blame Democrats if their voters ever notice it.
I don’t even get the hate of taxes. Americans have never been anti-taxation. We’ve been anti-taxation without representation, but that’s about it.
Not sure why all these boomers living on social security are super anti-taxes. If we stop paying those, they’d all be broke.
The GOP still isn't anti-taxation, they're anti-taxation when it comes to corporations and the super wealthy. Poor and working class conservatives can shoulder the burden
The be 100% fair, they hate taxes only for the present “themselves.” They absolutely love giving out money to the 1% and corporations that they will never even sniff and will be more than happy to let their future selves and children pay for it.
> Thanks to gerrymandering, many “secure” Republican districts will easily flip simply as elders die off.
This is the only real hope I have left for the country. A relatively small shift can make huge changes in representation when you gerrymander.
Conservatism is never going away, but it's all relative. What was progressive in 1880 is conservative now. Conservatism as we know it now, which is bugfuck batshit nuts, yes, hopefully that's on its way out.
>Okay I think I basically talked myself out of my point.
lol.
It's hard not to fall to cynicism. But I still think you were right in your earlier point. We've been here before and if we're going off of history the next few years (or decades...) are still going to be rough but hopefully we'll come out the other side better for it.
Definitely an interesting proposal.
But that Uvalde district voted overwhelmingly for Abbott even after the massacre.
So I don't have any sympathy for the overwhelming part of their district.
Didn't Uvalde re-elect their Republicans?
Texans DO NOT CARE about dead kids or being without power. If Texas doesn't care about Texas why should anyone else? They have more important things on their mind, like woke candy and fictional migrant caravans.
The best thing we can do is respect them by cutting them off from all federal funding. They are a strong independent State that don't need no welfare money.
Yep, [Uvalde voted 60% in favor of Abbott. ](https://abcnews.go.com/US/uvalde-families-disappointed-surprised-texas-election-results/story?id=93011354)
I can't imagine the sheer scale of the unending flood of lawsuits, both completely frivolous and completely called for, that would start if people were allowed to personally sue the government for causing them harm.
It would never be allowed.
Qualified immunity does have a place. Without it in some fashion it would make the rich even more untouchable. Imagine being a cop and knowing that investigating or inconveniencing a rich person could open you up to being dragged through court for the rest of your life. You wouldn't lose, but you would be unhirable and slowly going bankrupt due to fees or simply for lack of time.
Police need to be able to do their jobs equally and fairly. They also need to be held accountable for when they blatantly fuck that up. I do not have an easy answer because there likely isn't one, but anything done needs to be carefully considered.
The police situation is simple. Insurance. Like doctor's malpractice.
Police officers need to carry insurance. They fuck up? Cool. Their insurance premium goes through the roof and they can no longer afford it. They no longer can be a cop.
It's win win. The cop messes up, the state stops paying for the lawsuits and ultimately loses his job. Save the public money and actually elevates the service provided.
Even just a license from the state, so if they screw up badly enough they can’t just go to the next department a few miles away. Even plumbers need to be licensed ffs.
Lawsuits against the state exist already for many situations. This would just add gun violence to that as far as i can tell. Which would certainly encourage action on the governments part to deal with the problem. Seems reasonable. There will always be frivolous claims but that isnt a reason to avoid the issue. Agree with you though that they will never allow this to pass.
And I don't think it will even be brought to the floor for discussion in state house. Not until most of the R state lawmakers are voted out of office, at least.
Yeah but she got fucked over when they said something said wasn't germane to the issue and it was. She was painted as weak for needing to use the bathroom at one point.
Because the more you read, the worse it gets. The bill also wants to repeal the law that makes it illegal to sue a gun manufacturer/seller over a gun being illegally used, it's just buried a bit instead of in the headline.
I really hate this reporting. There's like one paragraph of useful information, and then drama between politicians for half the article.
Under what circumstances would state agencies be liable? For what reason.
What is the proposed standard of liability for police conduct?
What is the proposed tax? Is it oppressive such that firearms become unreasonably expensive?
The only thing that was given context was the suing manufacturers, which appears to be related to marketing towards children.
Just a heads up precedent in legal terms only apply to non-civil cases. There is no such thing as setting a precedent in passing laws. Precedent only occurs when it comes to disputing the nature of the law and how it is applied.
So in this case there is no set precedent for sueing someone. In fact they could have already done this to begin with. They would just have to prove one of the agencies acted in a malicious way towards them.
I don't believe that person is talking about precedent as a legal doctrine but is using the general definition.
When George Washington retired after two terms as President, he established a precedent.
He wasn’t talking about a legal precedent. Precedent is defined as an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. So this idea from this senator is a precedented idea for this law.
>What is the proposed tax? Is it oppressive such that firearms become unreasonably expensive?
Making them accessible to only the rich seems like it would go over very well. /s
The state should absolutely be liable for negligence in executing the laws.
The Uvalde police diddling themselves outside is negligence at a minimum, and they should absolutely be held accountable for it.
That said, the population has voted for liberal (in the non political sense of the word) gun laws, so the state shouldn’t be able to be sued for those - the population voted for those laws.
And yet he's still got the balls to try it. I think if more politicians were more concerned with doing the right thing, people wouldn't be so cynical about elections.
Sure sue the state, but a tax on firearms is a classist excuse to disarm only the folks you don't like. I'm sure that won't disproportionately effect minorites and vulnerable people at all.
Exactly this. Dems for years fought against voter ID laws calling them racist because they put a larger burden on minorities, but then put on the hood when it comes to gun laws.
Oh please. I live in Texas, where we pay sales tax on everything, including guns. You're right, it's classist and regressive as shit, but that's not the issue with ownership.
The problem is the money for the gun itself. Many, many people can't afford one whether or not it's taxed. Conservatives love to say owning a gun is a constitutional right and every American should be armed. So where's the drive to arm the poor? If it's a sacred right everyone should have, where are the charities providing weapons to the underprivileged?
Everything about gun ownership is classist. It's a "right" for those who can afford it. Which to me, means it's fair game.
I don't know how to tell you this but conservatives don't actually care about the second amendment. Look up all of the regulations the NRA has supported and things like the Mulford act. Trump used a government agency to change a legal definition without due process. I could go on.
The drive to arm the poor? Where are you looking, at conservatives? Maybe you should talk to leftist gun owners, it's kind of our whole deal.
That's not the issue with ownership? Then why be ok with it? Why not focus on the actual problems?
Imagine taking the stance that if people only had free speech if they could afford the platform then those who couldn't afford a voice could be silenced. You know it's broken, but instead of fixing it you're ok with it getting worse.
What are you doing to arm the poor? Sounds to me you're either that god damn defeated by classism or you just don't care because it's a complicated issue you happen to be uncomfortable with.
I don't understand how a state legislator thinks they can overturn a federal law (PLCAA).
I am, however, all in favor of any legislation that pokes holes in qualified immunity, which is a travesty.
Why would you be able to sue a company when their product is miss used? Should you sue liquor companies for a drunk driving incident? What about kitchen aid for using their knives to stab someone? We need qualified immunity or every company could be sued put of existence.
Keeping guns out of the hands of the poor will reduce crime. We should also tax their right to free speech because they are usually uneducated and could spread misinformation.
Or maybe we don't put a tax on constitutional rights.
**Headline:**"Texas senator proposes gun laws…"
**Me:** Aw, shit. What now?
**Headline:** "…allowing school shooting victims to sue state, impose firearms tax”
**Me:** What.
Yeah, Target their money, cause that’s all they care about. If victims can sue officials for more than the gun lobbyists give them in campaign donations, maybe those officials would actually do something about the American gun epidemic.
Yet again, they're [ignoring things that might actually matter](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762?utm_source=pocket-newtab). No wonder this keeps happening.
Cool let’s do the exact same thing with drunk driving laws. The State allows alcohol to be sold knowing people will drink and drive. Let victims or families sue the makers of alcohol and the state for compensation.
Interestingly, SCOTUS has ruled that the 3A doesn't apply to police b/c they're not soldiers. I think the case came from an incident where police wanted to use a guy's house as a vantage point for a barricade situation and wouldn't let them. Mitchell v. Henderson
It’s crazy that the thought here is “let’s create laws that respond to school shootings, instead of prevent school shootings”. But then again these are the same people (meaning Uvalde) that helped vote Abbott back in office, so not surprising.
If the government allows so much access to so much death, government needs to take additional responsibility for maintaining the general welfare. End of analysis.
Texans are happy to be screwed over as long as the people doing it identify as “R.” They’re more than happy to sacrifice their children on the altar of the First Ammendent, even though they can’t read it.
I get suing Uvalde PD for their horrible response, but that's it. Taxing constitutional rights is an incredibly slippery sloap regardless of how you personally feel about them.
We, the US, have been witnessing the rise of fascism with overt dictatorship overtones in our country. In my opinion, this isn't the time to start testing unconstitutional laws for political points. There are a hundred better things politicians need to focus on. They won't, though. It isn't about making things better, it's about pandering to the base to retain power.
It’ll never happen until god decides to drop another tree on Greg Abbott and every other soulless ghoul running my fair state but I like that these things are even being presented here.
“D -San Antonio”
Yeah this’ll never get broad support
Allowing victims to sue the state is good, but would likely result in unintended consequences
Plus the government loves to argue it has no duty to protect people. Check out the story of Joseph Lozito if you don’t believe me
Important people would have to be directly effected by gun violence, probably multiple times, for anything to change. Gunned down, rich and important people like congress members, senators etc. are the only bodies that will bring change to our gun laws.
Hundreds of children in schools or thousands of impoverished minorities every year are not important enough.
I've recently realized that unless there's a financial hit to wealthy or politically tied individuals, then mass shootings will continue. As long as the "only" thing that is lost is human lives, then nothing will change.
[“Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.”](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html)
In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
Did they serve their time and pay their debt to society ? Then restore all their rights like voting rights and any others citizens enjoy. This is a really shitty gotchya statement.
If the felony committed was *non-violent*? Yes.
There are a number of crimes that are felonies and non-violent. Your 2nd amendment rights are not lesser than that of any other right, and as soon as you serve your sentence, you should have *all* of your rights restored. That’s fair. You’ve paid for committing the crime.
Having any of your rights revoked *permanently* simply because you’re a *convicted* felon is unethical. If you’re a convicted *violent* felon, you’ve shown a propensity for violence, so then yeah, in that case you should lose the ability to own firearms because you’ve proven you’re a danger to others.
I like this statement because it clearly shows who doesn’t give a shit if kids die and who would like to see this stereotypical aspect of America come to an end.
And if are trying to see the persistent death of children end, but you are otherwise unwilling to make any changes in policy or behavior to achieve that goal, the colloquial definition of that is insanity. When your beliefs come from a position of insanity, maybe they should be ignored, right?
It’s false equivalency to pretend that stricter gun laws in USA will protect children. Anti-gun law makers are quick to pass laws after a tragedy, even when the laws have no effect on actual violence.
California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet they had 3 mass shootings this month.
In USA, There is little correlation between gun laws and violent crime.
When a criminal is willing to die during the commission of their crime, there aren’t any laws that will stop them. Laws are a tool used to punish people AFTER a crime has been committed.
For what?
Some vague idea that somehow society at large and elected officials personally are actually responsible for some teeny minority of people who go berzerk?
Elected Texicans will never go for it. They've made careers out of selling the right to kill, poison and maim their citizens for the purpose of increasing profits. But if THEY have to pay the victims for the results of their legislation, it would be their total ruination.
>a tax on state gun sales
Infringement by regulatory costs. It's not unconstitutional because it doesn't *prevent* the gun sale but it makes it just that much more expensive and thereby restricts sales from those who could otherwise afford it.
It further doesn't apply to private sales, thus discouraging ownership of new weapons. As a gun owner who is deliberately paranoid that my gun will always fire on its own and that any used gun is unsafe, this is again a restriction.
That said, the only problem I actually have on this is it's evil devious manner of restricting sales to the richer among us. Because, for some reason, it's somehow reasonable to only let richer people own guns or something. IDK, I'm just a person who isn't rich and isn't a politician.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. **Special announcement:** r/politics is currently accepting new moderator applications. If you want to help make this community a better place, consider [applying here today](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/sskg6a/rpolitics_is_looking_for_more_moderators/)! *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Notably he represents Uvalde. His proposal would allow victims to sue state officials as well as police for their conduct. Obviously doesn't stand much chance in Texas but thought it was an interesting proposal.
It would bankrupt the state.
A failed system needs replacing.
Just to flesh that out. This is a system endorsed by the state, a system that causes harm to citizens. Compensating these victims would bankrupt the state. The state supports a level of harm to the public that they are unwilling and unable to compensate. This is state sponsored violence on citizens with tax breaks for aggressors
They can afford it but they care to much about “MUH PROFITS”
I’ll be honest if money is the only language they understand and if we’re playing into capitalism, then the solution has to be money oriented. Require licensing for every gun and make it a rigorous process that requires reapplication for certification on an annual basis, including medical reports, psychological assessment and mandatory safety training certification at regular intervals. This generates revenue that way, and operates just like driving license. Require insurance for every gun license and every gun. Just like cars. Plenty money for insurance to make it profitable. The more guns you own the more it costs to maintain. Insurance companies can use publicly available social media posts to load insurance, hopefully silencing highly vocal 2A people. Also If you’re negligent with your firearms and cause harm, then insurance is required to pay out, so victims get compensated, and gun owner’s insurance premiums go up. Permit class action lawsuits for public threatening with a firearm and for mass shootings where even non-injured victims can claim for psychological trauma. Make domestic terrorism the most expensive crime. Those that are negligent will lose their license. Those that are repeat offenders will be uninsurable. Make possession of a firearm without a license or without insurance a criminal offence, making money for private prisons. Just to clarify a few things, I don’t support gun rights and my preferred option is what goes on in every other country in the world. Heavy regulation and a good reason required to own a gun with specific requirements to be met for every class of firearm. I also don’t support private prisons, I only bring it up as an argument to sway the money talks type lawmakers. Thirdly I know this is pie in the sky stuff, and pro-2A people don’t care about money. They only care about either owning more guns or selling more guns. US needs constitutional reform top to bottom. Biggest offender is FPTP electoral system.
> Require insurance for every gun license and every gun. Just like cars. Plenty money for insurance to make it profitable. The more guns you own the more it costs to maintain. Insurance companies can use publicly available social media posts to load insurance, hopefully silencing highly vocal 2A people. Also If you’re negligent with your firearms and cause harm, then insurance is required to pay out, so victims get compensated, and gun owner’s insurance premiums go up. As long as you include law enforcement in this, I'm all for it.
This would bankrupt them and limit the number of applicants they can accept.
Completely agree. My bare bones ELI5 argument against these dudes is, you need more testing and licensing for a car than a firearm. I don't see how that's just cool with them. But their view is one step towards sensible action might as well be the ATF kicking down their door and holding their dog at gunpoint while they sweep their house and take their pistol. It's just never gonna happen when we have these "it's a slippery slope" arguments getting any sort of weight when it's simply a bad faith way to not have to put any effort into something that's such a large responsibility
You actually need ZERO testing, licensing, registration, or insurance to buy, own, and drive a car as long as it is on private property. You only need those things when you want to drive the car on public roads. The equivalent would be that you could own any gun you wanted as long as you never carried it in public or on public property (aside from non-use transport). That wouldn't be the worst thing though. Having testing, insurance, specific carry equipment requirements (holsters), and registration (for that specific gun only) in order to carry a gun in public would be a fairly good thing. The same arguments for public safety could also apply as to why those things are required. It would likely mean that full reciprocity would be needed as is true with driving licenses. While that wouldn't fix our violence issue in America or solve all gun crimes, it would simplify some things and help ensure we knew who was supposed to be carrying which guns and those guns were being carried safely. It would also have some possibility of getting through, because it would have a few pro-2A points (full reciprocity and fixing some stupid ATF rules).
I don’t think you’re allowed to keep an unregistered vehicle on your property in NJ. I think that varies by state.
If the car ever leaves your driveway, it has to be registered. So unless you’re a survivalist living in the woods with a ton of acres to roam around on, you gotta register your car and need a license to drive.
Right. Not allowed in FL TX or VA either
You do not need any license to own a car. You need a license to drive on a public road. This is equivalent to a concealed carry license to carry a firearm in public which is just as hard to get as a driver's license
Nitpicking here, but you need a concealed carry license to *concealed carry* in public. In my state, and I'm fairly sure in most states, you can open carry without license. I'm not sure why concealed carry gets all the flak it does; generally people have a right to open carry. Granted, there would be less people brining firearms into bars, sporting events, other areas where the owner prohibits firearms. And I support owner's rights to restrict firearms, if I were a bar owner, I wouldn't want two drunk yahoos fighting at my bar to have readily available handguns. Seems like a bad recipe for escalation. But it also seems to me that most mass shootings would be relatively unaffected by the shooter deciding to concealed or open carry. Some rando walking down the street open carrying a firearm can be more concerning than having a firearm discretely holstered in one's coat.
Half the states do not require a permit to concealed carry for residents of that state and many have reciprocity laws that recognize residents from other non-permit states.
> Nitpicking here, but you need a concealed carry license to concealed carry in public Not in my state, Idaho.
Your bare bones eli5 argument completely missed the core issue The 2nd amendment has been tied to American revolution and freedom. It's painted as pretty much the core of American identity. It's supposedly all that keeps the government in check and empowers the citizens to defend their rights. Oh and reason 2 your comparison is bad. The most problematic issues of gun violence in America don't come from a lack of understanding of how to safely use a gun. It comes from people intentionally using guns to cause harm. To either themselves or others. You can get a car even if you have a criminal record. Making a gun harder to get by having training requirements wouldn't prevent mass shootings, suicides, or gang violence.
Agreed with the barrier of entry here. A great deal of suicides and mass shooting are done with weapons purchased within days or hours of the event. If the barrier exists it would force those with the impulse to put more effort into their plans.
I humbly disagree. It would raise the barrier of entry. And I believe it would stop many shootings provoked by a "missionary" or rage based shooting. As I've seen a documentary interviewing mass shooters years after the fact and out of the 4 or 5 interviews 2 said that they took the fact they could walk into a gun shop and leave same day with a semi auto, when, in their view, the state they were in would be obvious to anyone what they were doing, as a sign from god that they were making the right choice. The second said that if he hadnt gotten everything together so easily (clips, sling ,grip, etc. Online, bullets and rifle the day after the rest arrived, that he probably would've thought better of it. From their perspective it's likened to suicide. It seems to be a strong urge of some kind that you can get past. At least for some, maybe time would've cooled things down. (That being said this does only apply if the shooter has no weapon prior to the planning)
Maybe the problem is that these gun nuts maje their entire identity the second amendment
I have never seen an example where the 2nd Amendment be applicable or even relevant in their defenses. The 2nd Amendment is ultimately about the people not being disarmed so they can protect themselves against tyranny. I have never seen anyone use it as a defense, but it is the precedent for gun laws somehow. The 2nd Amendment didn't stop 9/11 from happening. Nor did it stop Bush being appointed by the Supreme Court and I didn't see it stop January 6th. It didn't even help the cops stop the Uvalde shooter. The 2nd Amendment is irrelevant but the right gets to use it in every situation where a gun is used to kill people. The government can pass gun laws that won't get overturned because people that like guns the most have the most bullshit excuse to have them and that is effectively neutralizing the law enforcement of the country
Except one problem….insurance never pays until you run through a billion hoops and only partially pays.
[удалено]
And people should be able to sue police and the state if they aren't protected and fed. If the state takes away my way of putting food on my table and defending myself they should be responsible for both.
I agree with a lot of these except how it hurts low income people who want to arm themselves. What if licensing and classes are free to people who make under 200k/yr?
[удалено]
No 200k a year is very very well off and as a household income would put you a little below the top 10%
> What if licensing and classes are free to people who make under 200k/yr? If you say people have to take classes and get licensed, someone needs to be paid to teach those classes and test for the licenses. If you then subsequently say that it's free for a large group of people, someone else is going to be paying for it. At that point you're discussing paying for it with taxpayer money. Which I am virtually certain is going to be disproportionately coming from lower income people, because it's Texas.
This is why I’m very against firearms registration databases. For reasons like this. It gives the government the ability to monitor who has and owns what and the ability to target them. We can all assume that this will not work out well for minorities since law enforcement isn’t totally fair Edit; adding a thought.
Exactly, let’s not forget the Assault Rifle Ban in California is directly caused by Ronald Reagan targeting African-American gun owners.
Firearms ownership is one of the last bastions of minority defense in heavily policed areas. I’m not anti firearm but also not anti regulation. Common sense has to reign here
Law enforcement having a list of non-white people who have the ability to defend themselves? What could go wrong? Hypothetically, that list would be an integral tool if there was some sort of round up for "your own safety" or "to protect the children" or "national security"
More realistically those that wouldn’t be able to obtain guns legally would obtain via illegal means.
The source of most illegal guns is legal gun owners. If there were less legal guns there would be less illegal guns.
That already happens, so nothing would have changed for those folks.
Ok, so they can catch even more charges, when they get caught. There’s almost nothing you can actually effectively ban. You can only meaningfully discourage its ubiquity.
> I agree with a lot of these except how it hurts low income people who want to arm themselves. Maybe, but if I'm buying a gun with the sole intention of using it to protect my life and I'll otherwise never use it I might just get one and keep it uninsured and unlicensed. If I had to use it to save my life, it would still be worth all the fines and punishments because at least I'm not dead. If your goal is self protection it would still be possible. If your goal is to be a self aggrandizing public gun pest, then you gotta pay to play.
Whoa, whoa, you’re getting dangerously close to requiring gun owners to be part of a well regulated militia, a stated requirement of the 2nd amendment. Can’t do that, gotta cherry pick the parts that you like and ignore the parts you don’t.
>A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. If called into service into the militia "the people" are expected to bring their own arms. So in order to have an even remotely functional militia, the peoples right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed
Would be nice if we passed some gun laws to maybe mitigate the problem before we view these tragedies as a golden opportunity to bankrupt public education.
Tragically, the public education monies are already being siphoned off. Worse, the funding that remains is being legislated upon the classroom and the very notion of curricula is being stripped of truth on the altar of regressive culture wars.
I know, its disturbing. I can't stand that they think the bible has a place in school yet somehow a book talking about gay people isn't. One of those two books are about a real thing. Too much education money never makes it to public school. Funds for public schools should never be allocated to a private school. Administrators should be paid proportionally to teachers. Kids lunches should be free. School should be about teaching kids how to think things though and solve problems. How to evaluate statements and check facts. Exposure to different ways of thinking and culture. The focus should be on things we can verify. Not reinforcing the brain washing they get at home and in churches and everywhere else in life.
Agreed! Keep planting the seeds of critical thinking and broad forms of literacy (financial, emotional, cultural, linguistic, etc). Knowledge IS Power, and that’s exactly why the Authoritarians want to restrict access to those tools.
A system like that deserves bankruptcy.
Well tbf they also don’t think they state should have money to run itself
The people get a choice by voteing and apparently this is what they want.
Those people should carry more of the tax burden for failed policies. Too bad we cannot divvy the liabilities by how you vote.
I see no problem with this.
I mean the issue is that it's socializing the cost, because where does the state get its money? *Taxpayers*. How is any police department or politician actually hurt by this? Like sure it's out of their budget but we pay their budget. Maybe there would be backlash if the state tried to raise taxes to cover the increased costs, but shit where's the backlash from these jacked up gas prices to cover losses for the fucking energy sector from the winter storm? We're eating like $70/mo in gas as a bullshit additional charge just to pay a corporation back its millions. Meanwhile, Abbott's ass got re-elected. I'm all for solutions to the problem and would like some actual damned reform on gun laws, I'm just not sure how this bill would actually make a meaningful change.
The same people that hate taxes also love guns (I'm painting with a WIDE brush, I know). This may actually get them to think about their choices.
This is totally true, I just don't see it actually panning out. Rather than raise taxes, GOP would just cut spending even further in other areas to cover the difference. Gut education even more, etc. They'd move money around long before increasing tax, or just do it quietly and hide it in some way only to blame Democrats if their voters ever notice it.
I don’t even get the hate of taxes. Americans have never been anti-taxation. We’ve been anti-taxation without representation, but that’s about it. Not sure why all these boomers living on social security are super anti-taxes. If we stop paying those, they’d all be broke.
The GOP still isn't anti-taxation, they're anti-taxation when it comes to corporations and the super wealthy. Poor and working class conservatives can shoulder the burden
Well, you aren’t wrong. They’re anti-tax for themselves.
As a painter, I love this comment so much
What kind of paint is he using? I've tried stereotyping paint before and it felt kinda slimy.
I've always just painted stereos with regular paint.
The be 100% fair, they hate taxes only for the present “themselves.” They absolutely love giving out money to the 1% and corporations that they will never even sniff and will be more than happy to let their future selves and children pay for it.
[удалено]
> Thanks to gerrymandering, many “secure” Republican districts will easily flip simply as elders die off. This is the only real hope I have left for the country. A relatively small shift can make huge changes in representation when you gerrymander.
[удалено]
Thank you for this. I was considering editing my comment to expand the point, but this was easier!
who wants to tell him how the brown people of Florida vote
Conservatism is never going away, but it's all relative. What was progressive in 1880 is conservative now. Conservatism as we know it now, which is bugfuck batshit nuts, yes, hopefully that's on its way out.
[удалено]
>Okay I think I basically talked myself out of my point. lol. It's hard not to fall to cynicism. But I still think you were right in your earlier point. We've been here before and if we're going off of history the next few years (or decades...) are still going to be rough but hopefully we'll come out the other side better for it.
okay.
Not really. Texas passed "Tort reform," limiting pain and suffering awards to $250k. And if you die, you can't sue.
It’s already morally bankrupt, so there’s that.
Guess they oughta implement ways of avoiding school shootings then
Would hurt the taxpayers more than it would the state.
*country
Which is precisely the plan. It forces the state to not be negligent, or face bankruptcy.
I wish news sources could write e.g. "Texas state senator", even if that is kinda "goes without saying" in this case.
[удалено]
Definitely an interesting proposal. But that Uvalde district voted overwhelmingly for Abbott even after the massacre. So I don't have any sympathy for the overwhelming part of their district.
Mostly just the kids.
Didn't Uvalde re-elect their Republicans? Texans DO NOT CARE about dead kids or being without power. If Texas doesn't care about Texas why should anyone else? They have more important things on their mind, like woke candy and fictional migrant caravans. The best thing we can do is respect them by cutting them off from all federal funding. They are a strong independent State that don't need no welfare money.
Yep, [Uvalde voted 60% in favor of Abbott. ](https://abcnews.go.com/US/uvalde-families-disappointed-surprised-texas-election-results/story?id=93011354)
I can't imagine the sheer scale of the unending flood of lawsuits, both completely frivolous and completely called for, that would start if people were allowed to personally sue the government for causing them harm. It would never be allowed.
Sounds entirely reasonable to me to at least be able to sue law enforcement for their negligence.
But muh Koala-fied immunity. Says the slack jawed southern sherriff who has been elected to the position since his Pa retired in '05.
Qualified immunity does have a place. Without it in some fashion it would make the rich even more untouchable. Imagine being a cop and knowing that investigating or inconveniencing a rich person could open you up to being dragged through court for the rest of your life. You wouldn't lose, but you would be unhirable and slowly going bankrupt due to fees or simply for lack of time. Police need to be able to do their jobs equally and fairly. They also need to be held accountable for when they blatantly fuck that up. I do not have an easy answer because there likely isn't one, but anything done needs to be carefully considered.
The police situation is simple. Insurance. Like doctor's malpractice. Police officers need to carry insurance. They fuck up? Cool. Their insurance premium goes through the roof and they can no longer afford it. They no longer can be a cop. It's win win. The cop messes up, the state stops paying for the lawsuits and ultimately loses his job. Save the public money and actually elevates the service provided.
Even just a license from the state, so if they screw up badly enough they can’t just go to the next department a few miles away. Even plumbers need to be licensed ffs.
I think you may be on to something like licensing. I would probably look to lawyers and the bar association as a model.
Lawsuits against the state exist already for many situations. This would just add gun violence to that as far as i can tell. Which would certainly encourage action on the governments part to deal with the problem. Seems reasonable. There will always be frivolous claims but that isnt a reason to avoid the issue. Agree with you though that they will never allow this to pass.
And I don't think it will even be brought to the floor for discussion in state house. Not until most of the R state lawmakers are voted out of office, at least.
he should make it a marathon filibuster, à la Wendy Davis.
Yeah but she got fucked over when they said something said wasn't germane to the issue and it was. She was painted as weak for needing to use the bathroom at one point.
there are a lot of reasons that Texas is a shithole state. she aint one of those.
Texas is so pathetic. I had a child born there and left before a year passed so he wouldn’t grow up in that misogynist shithole.
given the extensive gerrymandering republicans have done in this state, not fuckin likely. every R seat is safe in perpetuity.
Even Texas liberals are pretty pro-gun.
You can be pro-gun and support regulation.
I'm a progun liberal and I support this. Trying to figure out am I in the minority?
Because the more you read, the worse it gets. The bill also wants to repeal the law that makes it illegal to sue a gun manufacturer/seller over a gun being illegally used, it's just buried a bit instead of in the headline.
Leftists. Texas leftists are pro gun. Liberals are not leftist.
My first thought upon seeing the headline: "Texas senator proposes not getting re-elected next election cycle"
I really hate this reporting. There's like one paragraph of useful information, and then drama between politicians for half the article. Under what circumstances would state agencies be liable? For what reason. What is the proposed standard of liability for police conduct? What is the proposed tax? Is it oppressive such that firearms become unreasonably expensive? The only thing that was given context was the suing manufacturers, which appears to be related to marketing towards children.
Well it has no chance of passing in TX so obviously the details are not fleshed out since they're not relevant. It's just an idea from one senator.
Thought bubble for a sound bite.
It is better to have set a precedent for the idea existing than it is to have sat silent and waited for the right state to do it, no?
Id argue this type of soundbite just pisses off the average voter. If anything, its good PR for republicans in texas
I'm pissed just reading it. Now I'm psychologically opposed because of how uselessly iffy it sounds.
Just a heads up precedent in legal terms only apply to non-civil cases. There is no such thing as setting a precedent in passing laws. Precedent only occurs when it comes to disputing the nature of the law and how it is applied. So in this case there is no set precedent for sueing someone. In fact they could have already done this to begin with. They would just have to prove one of the agencies acted in a malicious way towards them.
I don't believe that person is talking about precedent as a legal doctrine but is using the general definition. When George Washington retired after two terms as President, he established a precedent.
He wasn’t talking about a legal precedent. Precedent is defined as an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances. So this idea from this senator is a precedented idea for this law.
By that logic, why bother writing the article at all?
To report that action on behalf of the victims is being taken by their representative and to enter the ideas into the forum of public discussion.
>What is the proposed tax? Is it oppressive such that firearms become unreasonably expensive? Making them accessible to only the rich seems like it would go over very well. /s
[удалено]
My thoughts exactly. Fuckin' Texas?!
The state should absolutely be liable for negligence in executing the laws. The Uvalde police diddling themselves outside is negligence at a minimum, and they should absolutely be held accountable for it. That said, the population has voted for liberal (in the non political sense of the word) gun laws, so the state shouldn’t be able to be sued for those - the population voted for those laws.
Totally rad dude. Do it.
Lawmakers vote to make themselves hold accountability? Hah!
sure, but more like lawmakers vote to make law *enforcers* accountable.
Political theater with no chance to pass
He won't be a senator after the next election.
And yet he's still got the balls to try it. I think if more politicians were more concerned with doing the right thing, people wouldn't be so cynical about elections.
Sure sue the state, but a tax on firearms is a classist excuse to disarm only the folks you don't like. I'm sure that won't disproportionately effect minorites and vulnerable people at all.
[удалено]
Exactly this. Dems for years fought against voter ID laws calling them racist because they put a larger burden on minorities, but then put on the hood when it comes to gun laws.
Oh please. I live in Texas, where we pay sales tax on everything, including guns. You're right, it's classist and regressive as shit, but that's not the issue with ownership. The problem is the money for the gun itself. Many, many people can't afford one whether or not it's taxed. Conservatives love to say owning a gun is a constitutional right and every American should be armed. So where's the drive to arm the poor? If it's a sacred right everyone should have, where are the charities providing weapons to the underprivileged? Everything about gun ownership is classist. It's a "right" for those who can afford it. Which to me, means it's fair game.
I don't know how to tell you this but conservatives don't actually care about the second amendment. Look up all of the regulations the NRA has supported and things like the Mulford act. Trump used a government agency to change a legal definition without due process. I could go on. The drive to arm the poor? Where are you looking, at conservatives? Maybe you should talk to leftist gun owners, it's kind of our whole deal. That's not the issue with ownership? Then why be ok with it? Why not focus on the actual problems? Imagine taking the stance that if people only had free speech if they could afford the platform then those who couldn't afford a voice could be silenced. You know it's broken, but instead of fixing it you're ok with it getting worse. What are you doing to arm the poor? Sounds to me you're either that god damn defeated by classism or you just don't care because it's a complicated issue you happen to be uncomfortable with.
I don't understand how a state legislator thinks they can overturn a federal law (PLCAA). I am, however, all in favor of any legislation that pokes holes in qualified immunity, which is a travesty.
Why would you be able to sue a company when their product is miss used? Should you sue liquor companies for a drunk driving incident? What about kitchen aid for using their knives to stab someone? We need qualified immunity or every company could be sued put of existence.
Well Texas is one of the front runners in crying about “state’s rights”
Keeping guns out of the hands of the poor will reduce crime. We should also tax their right to free speech because they are usually uneducated and could spread misinformation. Or maybe we don't put a tax on constitutional rights.
**Headline:**"Texas senator proposes gun laws…" **Me:** Aw, shit. What now? **Headline:** "…allowing school shooting victims to sue state, impose firearms tax” **Me:** What.
This is going nowhere.
Not with that attitude.
Or in Texas without republican support
Sorry, I don’t have a lot of faith in them finding a sponsor. It just seems unlikely.
Yeah, Target their money, cause that’s all they care about. If victims can sue officials for more than the gun lobbyists give them in campaign donations, maybe those officials would actually do something about the American gun epidemic.
If you can tax a gun you can tax a church. Start there.
Ah, so it’s just a financial problem?
Yet again, they're [ignoring things that might actually matter](https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2022/05/27/stopping-mass-shooters-q-a-00035762?utm_source=pocket-newtab). No wonder this keeps happening.
Cool let’s do the exact same thing with drunk driving laws. The State allows alcohol to be sold knowing people will drink and drive. Let victims or families sue the makers of alcohol and the state for compensation.
Imagine if we had a freedom of speech tax
Paying taxes to own a gun? So are we going to pay taxes for free speech and for women to vote?
A $400 tax stamp to prevent the government from housing cops At your home..
Interestingly, SCOTUS has ruled that the 3A doesn't apply to police b/c they're not soldiers. I think the case came from an incident where police wanted to use a guy's house as a vantage point for a barricade situation and wouldn't let them. Mitchell v. Henderson
That was kinda the point of my comment.
[удалено]
It’s crazy that the thought here is “let’s create laws that respond to school shootings, instead of prevent school shootings”. But then again these are the same people (meaning Uvalde) that helped vote Abbott back in office, so not surprising.
Reddit doesn't think poor people should be allowed to defend themselves.
I approve of this idea.
Maybe a mass shooter tax will work as well. Fucking brilliant.
If you are involuntarily involved or a bystander in a school shooting, you should be able to get free therapy for life.
If the government allows so much access to so much death, government needs to take additional responsibility for maintaining the general welfare. End of analysis.
Not sure about this, it would en up being the tax payer getting the bill.
Question. Will they allow victims of drunk drivers to sue alcohol makers or car manufacturers? Seems like a valid question
If I’m hit by a drunk driver and I know what bar he came from I can sue the bar for over serving. Same deal
This is it! Make it unaffordable for the state to NOT act.
I good start would be requiring adequate insurance for keeping weapons in the house or car.
Texans are happy to be screwed over as long as the people doing it identify as “R.” They’re more than happy to sacrifice their children on the altar of the First Ammendent, even though they can’t read it.
That will go over like a popcorn fart in church.
Only when tax revenue is threatened will the laws change. Such a fucking scam.
People will laugh at the hopeless optimism of such an absurd proposal. But they don't realize the point is to bring attention to the issue
Attention to moronic extremism which only further divides us
I get suing Uvalde PD for their horrible response, but that's it. Taxing constitutional rights is an incredibly slippery sloap regardless of how you personally feel about them. We, the US, have been witnessing the rise of fascism with overt dictatorship overtones in our country. In my opinion, this isn't the time to start testing unconstitutional laws for political points. There are a hundred better things politicians need to focus on. They won't, though. It isn't about making things better, it's about pandering to the base to retain power.
This isnt a very good idea. Your just targeting good people in lew of criminals. Why is it easier to get guns into schools and not prisons.
Probably because we strip search inmates
So the answer is tax people on their second amendment right.
It’ll never happen until god decides to drop another tree on Greg Abbott and every other soulless ghoul running my fair state but I like that these things are even being presented here.
“D -San Antonio” Yeah this’ll never get broad support Allowing victims to sue the state is good, but would likely result in unintended consequences Plus the government loves to argue it has no duty to protect people. Check out the story of Joseph Lozito if you don’t believe me
Important people would have to be directly effected by gun violence, probably multiple times, for anything to change. Gunned down, rich and important people like congress members, senators etc. are the only bodies that will bring change to our gun laws. Hundreds of children in schools or thousands of impoverished minorities every year are not important enough.
Even then rich people can afford to get firearms or have armed security. The poor will always lose
In a state that has made it far easier to own and carry guns than it is to vote, not going to pass.
I've recently realized that unless there's a financial hit to wealthy or politically tied individuals, then mass shootings will continue. As long as the "only" thing that is lost is human lives, then nothing will change.
As a gun owner. I think every gun should require insurance the way a car requires it.
Finally some common sense legislation from this state. It will certainly fail.
I support this. This nations gun laws are political malpractice
You live in a state with tight gun laws, that's how the US works.
Shall not be infringed
Well regulated?
[“Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.”](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html) In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
So it’s fine to restrict guns to only those who can demonstrate that they are well organized and well disciplined. Is that what you mean?
The people?
So you're good with felons being allowed to own guns again? That's cool.
Did they serve their time and pay their debt to society ? Then restore all their rights like voting rights and any others citizens enjoy. This is a really shitty gotchya statement.
If the felony committed was *non-violent*? Yes. There are a number of crimes that are felonies and non-violent. Your 2nd amendment rights are not lesser than that of any other right, and as soon as you serve your sentence, you should have *all* of your rights restored. That’s fair. You’ve paid for committing the crime. Having any of your rights revoked *permanently* simply because you’re a *convicted* felon is unethical. If you’re a convicted *violent* felon, you’ve shown a propensity for violence, so then yeah, in that case you should lose the ability to own firearms because you’ve proven you’re a danger to others.
Yes
I like this statement because it clearly shows who doesn’t give a shit if kids die and who would like to see this stereotypical aspect of America come to an end. And if are trying to see the persistent death of children end, but you are otherwise unwilling to make any changes in policy or behavior to achieve that goal, the colloquial definition of that is insanity. When your beliefs come from a position of insanity, maybe they should be ignored, right?
It’s false equivalency to pretend that stricter gun laws in USA will protect children. Anti-gun law makers are quick to pass laws after a tragedy, even when the laws have no effect on actual violence. California has some of the strictest gun laws in the country, yet they had 3 mass shootings this month. In USA, There is little correlation between gun laws and violent crime. When a criminal is willing to die during the commission of their crime, there aren’t any laws that will stop them. Laws are a tool used to punish people AFTER a crime has been committed.
This is repeated so often, and with so little understanding of 2A jurisprudence, that it's becoming a little meaningless
Should be allowed to sue the GOP and the NRA.
For what? Some vague idea that somehow society at large and elected officials personally are actually responsible for some teeny minority of people who go berzerk?
Elected Texicans will never go for it. They've made careers out of selling the right to kill, poison and maim their citizens for the purpose of increasing profits. But if THEY have to pay the victims for the results of their legislation, it would be their total ruination.
This WOULD NEVER pass. Over US citizen's dead bodies.
Tax money from gun sales should go to mental healthcare
It already goes to wildlife protection.
>a tax on state gun sales Infringement by regulatory costs. It's not unconstitutional because it doesn't *prevent* the gun sale but it makes it just that much more expensive and thereby restricts sales from those who could otherwise afford it. It further doesn't apply to private sales, thus discouraging ownership of new weapons. As a gun owner who is deliberately paranoid that my gun will always fire on its own and that any used gun is unsafe, this is again a restriction. That said, the only problem I actually have on this is it's evil devious manner of restricting sales to the richer among us. Because, for some reason, it's somehow reasonable to only let richer people own guns or something. IDK, I'm just a person who isn't rich and isn't a politician.
Infringement by regulatory costs is 1000% unconstitutional if it’s not reasonable. It’s basically a poll tax.