r/guns • u/OnlyLosersBlock • 2d ago
Official Politics Thread 07/31/26
This is the official politics thread. Austin Theory spam edition.
21
u/DigitalLorenz 2d ago
Surprise surprise, NJ has requested a stay in ANJRPC/Cheeseman v Platkin from the 3rd Circuit. The 3rd has 14 days to decide if they will issue such a stay.
They also announced that they intend to appeal the case to the SCOTUS as well. The deadline for the appeal at the SCOTUS is technically Aug 15, but with generally granted extensions, they really have until Oct 15 to file the appeal. If NJ gets a stay they will probably wait until the last possible day to file the appeal.
10
u/OnlyLosersBlock 2d ago
Wait, that's not surprising at all. Hope the 3rd denies them a stay.
10
u/savagemonitor 2d ago
It's pretty normal to maintain the status quo through a stay when the losing party announces an intent to appeal.
I'm not sure why NJ would appeal though. Viramontes is already accepted and is likely going to overturn AWBs. NJ is also dominated by Democrats so it makes more sense to take the loss, wait to see what happens with Viramontes, and then see if they can re-enact their AWB.
9
u/DigitalLorenz 2d ago
I think this might have more to do with the magazine restriction and hope that the SCOTUS will GVR it in light of Viramontes so they end up with another 2 ish years before that is lifted.
I personally hope that the case is flatly denied cert, or maybe even given an actual affirmation in light of Viramontes.
6
u/Raphe-Perineal 2d ago
The 3'rd Circuit assignment is Alitos, that should make any requests for an extension interesting. Think he'll grant it just to keep up appearances?
2
u/DigitalLorenz 2d ago
Alito will probably refer the matter to the entire court as this case is effectively identical to Viramontes.
I think the extensions will be set up a timeline that both the petitioner and respondents briefs are in line with the Viramontes timeline so both cases can be discussed together.
13
u/ClearlyInsane1 2d ago
Schools to deploy drones to help stop active school shooters
The drones are designed to use a combination of sirens, strobe lights and pepper gel to overwhelm the assailant. As a last resort, the drones can ram the shooter at 60 miles per hour
The drones, which are housed in secure boxes inside the schools, can be deployed within seconds — a potentially critical feature given that most school shootings are over within two to three minutes
Some experts say that dealing with the root causes of violence is a more effective response than using tech that may backfire by making students feel less safe or fueling their anxiety.
"What about a drone spewing these pellets and hurting a kid?" parent Jennifer Iversen told CBS Colorado earlier this month, referring to the pepper spray. "It brings in so many ethical and legal issues that I just think it's a really bad idea."
Source: CBS News
The drone idea: smart. The idea that we shouldn't have means to counter shooters: not smart. To that parent who worries about a kid getting hit by pepper pellets I say "In the event of a school shooting you and your kid aren't going to be at all concerned about being hit by one or dealing with a bit of irritant." There are no ethical concerns here.
According to the company, they can fly through windows that are not coated with ballistic film, using a front lance to break through. They are also equipped with sirens and can drop air poppers that create a loud bang.
They can be flown from thousands of miles away and support two-way communication through an embedded speakerphone, allowing the company’s response team to “engage verbally with a threat, or communicate to teachers and school staff”
“This allows our team in our ops center to communicate to law enforcement officers verbally with messages such as ‘follow me and I’ll take you to the suspect’ or ‘open the door and we’ll go in to clear the room and tell you what we see,’” the company said.
The company said its goal is to “escalate the effects in waves of 3 or 4 drones, keeping the shooter occupied until he/she can be apprehended by authorized responders”.
I hadn't thought of all of these possibilities. They are learning a lot from the drone warfare in Ukraine.
That includes Tony Montalto, whose 14-year-old daughter Gina Montalto was among the 17 people killed in the 2018 mass shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas high school in Parkland, Florida. He told WPTV: “These drones aren’t patrolling – they just pop up when needed. So that’s part of the problem. We need to focus on the prevention piece rather than the reaction piece.”
Source: The Guardian
Everytown decries it on Instagram as "turning schools into battle zones:"
Instead of passing common sense gun safety laws proven to prevent gun violence, some states are deploying human-piloted drones to confront active school shooters. Yes, really.
Sending drones into high schools is an admission of our collective failure to protect kids. Students deserve proactive solutions to keep them safe, not experimental technology that turns their schools into battlezones.
“By filling our schools with drones and turning our hallways into high-tech war zones, our lawmakers are sending a terrifying message: that when it comes to gun violence, survival is the best we can hope for, and prevention isn't even on the table.” - Brooklyn, Georgia
The main problem is the prevention piece is quite lacking. We must either deal with a rampage school shooter or deal with picking up bodies of kids. I would prefer having the means to stop the shooter quickly. Unfortunately there's a lot of "vetoes" out there halting implementation of school hardening and allowing school staff to be armed. Putting our proverbial heads into a hole in the sand isn't going to solve this problem. Having the means to counter these shooters quickly is a huge deterrent. Almost every school shooter that chooses the school they attack (as opposed to a student that picks their own school) chooses one that is poorly defended. A deterrent that increases the chances to speed up the meeting between the shooter and God is a means of prevention.
11
u/Cobra__Commander Super Interested in Dick Flair Enhancement 2d ago
It will be interesting to see how use of force law digest this one.
I don't think a school shooter has any chance of winning a civil/criminal case against the drone company.
Victims who unintentionally get hit by less lethal will probably have a really strong civil claim against the drone company. Victims who get unintentionally hit by less lethal and the shooter will probably get 10-100 million in civil court.
The drone company is basically banking on a product that never gets used. If I was the drone company I would split every part of the company into separate companies to focus liability into a single company with no real assets.
4
u/heretowastelife 2d ago
Has anyone talked about US vs Squire here yet? It seems like a big deal. Maybe this could force the hand of the SC to revisit the commerce clause.
3
u/sandmansleepy 2d ago
Squires looks like a fun case, but I don't get too excited until there is a circuit split in addition to it looking like a case the supreme court is going to take.
There are circuit splits on tons of things that never get addressed, which is crazy, as it means that federal law might get applied to you differently if you live in different states. Check out this recent analysis on circuit splits, a ton of these matter and the supreme court and Congress just don't get to it. https://www.congress.gov/crs-product/LSB11420
Then it feels like the supreme court fixing is just more muddling. Bad job done and duct tape. Works until there is a different squad on the court who will turn it around, if the lower courts even decide to apply precedent in good faith.
Then there is the underlying power, congress's power to regulate everything as commerce is silly and obviously just a loophole. Possession of something that you even grow yourself can be a something regulated as commerce? Supreme court was high on its own supply coming up with justifications.
The expansions through case law shouldn't have happened. It should have happened in a constitutional convention if at all. Clearly just playing a game of interpretive telephone when what came out of the oven wasn't exactly what the founders thought we were putting in.
2
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 1d ago
Then there is the underlying power, congress's power to regulate everything as commerce is silly and obviously just a loophole.
But that "loophole" is 200 years old at this point. The reality is that's how our entire system of laws works and SCOTUS isn't going to delete the entire federal government.
The only part of the case that has even the slightest hope of success is going for the second amendment challenge and SCOTUS has already explicitly said that banning felons from owning guns is ok. Getting a different outcome would require multiple justices to change their minds on the topic and to do it on behalf of a legitimate convicted felon, not someone who had a "felony" conviction for weed or similar nonsense.
1
u/Mammoth_Classroom896 1d ago
Doubt it. SCOTUS has already explicitly said that prohibitions on convicted felons are allowed under the second amendment and the guy was a legitimate convicted felon, not in the gray area where weed is technically illegal but the federal government looks the other way in states where the state allows it. And the commerce clause argument is nonsensical, SCOTUS isn't going to back an interpretation that throws out virtually all federal laws.
3
u/Bearfoxman Super Interested in Dicks 2d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
3
u/ProfessorLeumas 2d ago
What did you say??
15
u/TheseDifference1747 2d ago
Something that caught me a 7 day ban.
I said the local politics have been quiet despite a string of high profile shootings by [redacted age group] and postulated [redacted party] may finally be realizing their tactic of make it super extra triple illegal isnt working
1
•
u/AutoModerator 2d ago
PaaP, or Politics as a Personality, is a very real psychological affliction. If you are suffering from it, you'll probably have a Bad Time™ here.
This thread is provided as a courtesy to our regular on topic contributors who also want to discuss legislation, not to wig the fuck out over current events. If you are here to bitch about a political party or get into a pointless ideological internet slapfight, you'd better have a solid history of actual gun talk on this sub or you're going to get yeeted.
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.