“As we continue to learn more details about this act of violence, there are early reports that this horror was related to a domestic dispute.
“This type of trauma is unfortunately not isolated. Two-thirds of mass shooters in America have a history of domestic violence. Victims and survivors in California should know they are never alone — we have tools and resources to support and protect you. Our state’s red flag laws allow victims, family members, coworkers, and others to work with local law enforcement and the courts to safely remove guns from those who may be a potential threat.
“We must continue to strengthen, defend, and use these laws. If you see red flags, say something — and in doing so, save lives.”
Earlier this summer, Governor Newsom announced the launch of GunSafety.ca.gov, a new website that provides critical information and multilingual, culturally competent materials on how Californians can use red flag laws — including Gun Violence Restraining Orders — to help protect their loved ones when someone poses a threat to themself or others. The website is part of an $11 million statewide campaign, launched by the Governor and administered by the California Governor’s Office of Emergency Services, to raise awareness, educate the public, and explain the steps required to obtain a Gun Violence Restraining Order.
In California, Gun Violence Restraining Orders were used to prevent 58 threatened mass shootings between 2016 and 2019 and have shown immense promise in reducing the incidence of firearm suicide.
— Gavin Newsom in In Wake of Cook’s Corner Mass Shooting, Governor Newsom Issues Statement and Urges Californians to Use Life-Saving Red Flag Laws
I’ll be the first to say it…. ONLY the Police are qualified to have guns !
“…GunSafety.ca.gov, a new website that provides critical information and multilingual, culturally competent materials on how Californians can use red flag laws…”
Hmm. Where have I seen this movie before? The one where the State encouraged its citizens to snitch on their family and neighbors? The one that didn’t end well for anyone?
Ahh, of course. My very first comment of the day is moderated. Just like yesterday, when I received the message “You’re posting too much” on my very first comment in the morning. Because reasons and rules nobody knows.
Maybe time to take a vacation from TTAG again.
Is this your second comment that’s getting through? Maybe make a throwaway comment for your first post?
It looked yesterday that your original post actually was posted a few hours after you advised that it was held up.
Pro tip: the word “boy – cott” trips the censorbot. Weird.
You mean you want the agents of the state to have a monopoly on violence?
That worked really well in Ottoman Turkey 1915-1917
Soviet Union 1929-1945
Germany 1933-1945
China 1927-1976
Guatemala 1960-1981
Uganda 1971-1979
Cambodia 1975-1979
Rwanda 1994
Venezuela 2018
China – Current (Xinjiang)
Hong Kong – Current
I’m gonna assume that’s sarcasm there. Cause the alternative is insanity.
“If you see red flags, say something — and in doing so, save lives.” ”
This October (oral arguments) and next late June (the decision) can’t happen fast enough… 🙁
Rahimi is a bad test case. I am hopeful that SCOTUS will see through the difference between dangerous (as defined by a guilty verdict) versus being irresponsible or accused of being dangerous via a restraining order.
I’m all for the “if you’re too dangerous to own a gun, then you are too dangerous to be a functioning member of society”, and that would include Mr. Rahimi. However, whether that is a winning or popular (in SCOTUS’s eyes) viewpoint, is a completely different matter.
I am hopeful SCOTUS goes the “5th Amendment” route that you cannot be deprived of Liberty (AKA RIGHTS) or property (Firearms), without Due Process, and clearly articulate that restraining orders and ex-parte findings are not due process.
Debbie must be giddy that many of the pro-government amicus briefs have used historical racist and religous laws as their argument for taking guns away. Hopefully some pro-2A briefs clearly articulate that while those laws did, at one time, exist, using a morally repugnant law to justify this one is terrible. The Founding Fathers were not perfect, all-knowing and wise, and we must recognize that.
“Rahimi is a bad test case.”
No argument there…
“I am hopeful that SCOTUS will see through the difference between dangerous (as defined by a guilty verdict) versus being irresponsible or accused of being dangerous via a restraining order.”
“Irresponsible” is subjective, not objective, and I think Thomas understands that all to well.
After all, it’s been the Fascist Left that have told us for over 50 years that “The mentally-ill are no more dangerous than anyone else”, and that was the justification they used to close the mental asylums. They can’t have it both ways, and it’s about time the Fascist Left gets to to be forced to walk the walk, concerning civil rights.
I think Thomas is looking forward to calling them out on their hypocritical bullshit.
“Debbie must be giddy that many of the pro-government amicus briefs have used historical racist and religous laws as their argument for taking guns away.”
And they think they are being clever in playing that card. Thomas will delight in making them regret that, with some actual racist history… 🙂
EDIT – It really would be sweet if Thomas gives them an education in that department. If it goes our way (And there’s a good chance of that) a whole lot of racist gun laws like melt temperatures stand fall in short order, and the shrieks of rage and impotence will be music to our tortured ears… 🙂
As far as there being a “good chance” it will go our way… I’m hopeful, but not optimistic.
Also, given the time-frame of any decision, it could have an impact (one way or the other) on voter turnout, much like the Mississippi 15-week abortion case ruling brought out the Dims in record numbers.
Oh, and I’m sure Thomas and Alito well understand the difference between dangerous and irresponsible / allegedly dangerous. However, those are 2 of 9, and it takes 5. The question is, does ACB (likely, given her lower-court ruling prior to being SCOTUS nominated), Kavanaugh and Goroush (could go either way). I think it’s a bridge too far for Roberts. So, that’s 5-4 best case… Not exactly solid ground.
“the difference between dangerous and irresponsible / allegedly dangerous“
I don’t think “irresponsibility” has anything to do with this case, the defendant is a violent man who should’ve been charged with attempted murder for shooting at a witness to his violent abduction of his girlfriend:
“In 2019 Rahimi threatened his then-girlfriend with a gun, and was seen dragging her into his car at a public parking lot before firing a gun at an eyewitness. Soon after, in February 2020, his girlfriend, who had ended the relationship, filed a restraining order against him.”
https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2023/07/supreme-court-rahimi-domestic-abuse-guns.html
For POTG to hang their hat on this case, climbing into bed with the violent kidnapper, is beyond foolish.
But it just bears out what I’ve said before, conservative Republicans don’t care who has access to firearms, and if anyone gets hurt it’s just collateral damage for violent people exercising their ‘rights’.
miner. Miranda was no saint, either. You have the same world view as all the other fascists in history. A few people are going to do bad. So punish all. No rights for anyone solves the problem of the few over reaching their rights.
“…the defendant is a violent man who should’ve been charged with attempted murder…”
But, he wasn’t. In a Fascist nation, like what ‘minor’ wants, just an accusation should be all that’s needed to deprive a citizen of their civil rights.
Click your heels and salute the fuhrer, Fascist ‘minor’… 🙂
Miner69 –
I don’t think “irresponsibility” has anything to do with this case.
Except that is exactly what DoJ, in their SCOTUS briefs, are arguing – that gun ownership is a privilege to those that are responsible.
It’s not hard. Get a felony conviction on Mr. Rahimi, and then take away his rights. Until that happens, the Government cannot deprive him of his Liberties (Rights, in this case K&B Arms) or Property (legally obtained firearms), per the 5th.
“But it just bears out what I’ve said before, conservative Republicans don’t care who has access to firearms …”
Liar.
Miner doesn’t seem to understand how the legal system works.
Rahini wasn’t a test case brought by FPC or other 2A organizations. It was an appeal of his criminal conviction made by his public defender counsel, who did what criminal defense attorneys are supposed to do: make any argument you can that might get your client off.
Once the legal issue was thus framed at the Fifth Circuit, it was going to get decided one way or another. If the 2A crowd sat this one out, all that would do would be to increase the chances of a decision that cut back on Bruen.
So the usual 2A amicus suspects did what they should have: make the point that yes, Rahini isn’t exactly a model citizen and probably needs to be locked up (albeit on other grounds), but Bruen means what it says.
I’m sure Mr. Rahimi appreciates you folks efforts on his behalf, he is really interested in getting back on the street because he has much work to perform.
“Relevant to this appeal are the state charges that were pending against him for offenses that occurred from December 2019 to November 2020. Three pending state charges resulted from Rahimi’s use of a firearm in the physical assault of his girlfriend in December 2019, and another state charge arose from an aggravated assault with a deadly weapon of a different woman in November 2020.”
https://casetext.com/case/united-states-v-rahimi-11#N30021
It’s so heartwarming to see so many on this list working to free Mr. Rahimi, another good guy with a gun back in society is always a win, right?
“Republicans don’t care who has access to firearms…”
I see your lie, and raise you a nugget of truth. We believe in due process of law.
miner is against due process. No surprise there. It’s called a police state and miner welcomes it.
Fascism is on the march in America.
American Communists have been at if for more than a century. They OWN the demtard party.
communism doesn’t exist anymore. There never was any difference between communism and fascism.
But money talks. Corporate billionaires own what used to be the left world wide. Even the chinese brand sold out to wealth.
The end result is the same. Cattle cars and showers for the deplorables.
And now we have Jethro the Janitor proving he is not only saidly deficient in the study of History but so damn dumb he was not intelligent to even look up the definition of Communism and Fascism. You really blew it big time Jethro.
Fascism : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (such as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition
Communism
a
: a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed
b
: a theory advocating elimination of private property
2
a
: a doctrine based on revolutionary Marxian socialism and Marxism-Leninism that was the official ideology of the Soviet Union
b
: a totalitarian system of government in which a single authoritarian party controls state-owned means of production
c
: a final stage of society in Marxist theory in which the state has withered away and economic goods are distributed equitably
I am sure you still do not know the difference.
It’s Listless Deplorables now
“Fascism is on the march in America.”
They are being marched to the edge of the cliff, and are too blind to see it… 🙂
You know what Newsom should do? He should end carve outs for police officers. NY and Illinois and other freedom hating states should do the same thing. 10 round mags are perfectly adequate for self defense. Dump those MRAPs and other milsurp gear too. Make them eat their own dog food. I want to see SWAT Teams going around with NYS complaint ARs.
“Two-thirds of mass shooters in America have a history of domestic violence.”
That’s false.
~60% of the ‘deadliest’ mass shooters (meaning the ones that shot the most people) have a history of domestic violence (in some aspect, either as a perpetrator or as a victim at some point in their lives). Not “Two-thirds of mass shooters”.
Over two thirds (68%) of (claimed to be) ‘mass shootings’ are domestic violence incidents… this means the shooter shot at least 1 family member – meaning in the home or in other words someone murdered their family or tried to murder their family or didn’t intend murder or accidentally shot someone in the home so its called ‘domestic violence’ to anti-gun and because more than 3 people lived in the home its called a ‘mass shooting’ even if the other non-shot family members were not in the home at the time. This is an anti-gun bias point they like to exploit to deceptively inflate the numbers with their math – they consider anyone simply in the general area to be a victim of a mass shooting, for example, if there is a mass shooting in an office building on the fourth floor if a person is in the lobby on the ground floor of a connected building they automatically ‘qualify’ as a victim of a mass shooting under the anti-gun math even though they were never in danger.
Hoggboy
To add:
But guess where his claim of “Two-thirds of mass shooters in America have a history of domestic violence.” originates from? It comes from the ‘Gun Violence Archive’ and they used a paper published in Injury Epidemiology by Lisa Geller, MPH, lead author of the paper and state affairs manager of the Educational Fund to Stop Gun Violence (EFSGV) – all bought and paid for by anti-gun groups. And Lisa Geller used data from the Gun Violence Archive for her study that covers the years between 2014 and 2019 – and that data was known to be flawed and incorrect and biased and has been repeatedly debunked by independent researchers. Lisa Geller reached two major conclusions – one of which was more than two-thirds (68.2%) of mass shootings analyzed, the perpetrator either killed family or intimate partners or the shooter had a history of domestic violence. But, Lisa Geller didn’t disclose that her ‘killed family or intimate partners’ in 90% of cases was only one person. Then she creates a whole new category of ‘mass shooting’ by calling it ‘DV-related mass shooting’ (Domestic Violence Mass Shooting) to try to move a single person shot in a DV incident from general DV crime to a ‘mass shooting’ and comes to the startling and biased conclusion that DV-related mass shootings were associated with a greater fatality rate. Well duh Lisa, an intentional shooting (murder) of one family or intimate partner in a home kinda has that effect. She regurgitated flawed and false data from the GVA to produce a study the GVA uses to supply the claim “Two-thirds of mass shooters in America have a history of domestic violence.” that Newsome is using.
Slick bias tricks all around. Plus they continually recirculate their own flawed and biased and debunked data to make it seem ‘fresh’ and startling like Newsome has done.
Was wondering whether they used the same 4-or-more-people-injured-however-so-slightly definition of “mass shooting” that the media has all adopted from GVA. That would be a lot of gang bangers with DV history.
Maybe the DV perpetrators should be locked up so they can’t go on to commit mass shootings?
to Booger brain
quote—–if there is a mass shooting in an office building on the fourth floor if a person is in the lobby on the ground floor of a connected building they automatically ‘qualify’ as a victim of a mass shooting under the anti-gun math even though they were never in danger.————quote
Falsehood:
U.S. statute (the Investigative Assistance for Violent Crimes Act of 2012) defines a “mass killing” as “3 or more killings in a single incident.”
The good governor is certainly free to lead by example.
For example he could disarm his security detail during their working hours, and have nobody on it who has personal firearms. Get rid of any guns in the governor’s household. That would send a loud and clear message that he practices what he preaches.
But he won’t.
Can you imagine if someone Red Flagged Gruesome Newsome? Not that it would ever happen, but what a show that would be….
Yet red flag laws didn’t stop him. Someone with a gun did.
I wonder – how he knew where to find her. How long would it have been before he encountered armed resistance had the bar been in FL. What happened to the dog.
“website is part of an $11 million statewide campaign, launched by the Governor”
How much of that $11mil ended up in the pockets of people who do NOT support Newsom.
As is usual in these events, at least one of the casualties was apparently a resister, but presumably unarmed. Often. there is more than one who died trying, but folks rarely talk about them. On very rare occasions, they succeed…
“How long would it have been before he encountered armed resistance had the bar been in FL.”
Current Florida law states carrying in bars is not allowed, unless over 50 percent of the establishment’s income is food, like at a Chili’s… 🙁
That law doesn’t make sense. If they’re going down that road, then they should make the laws just like drinc_ing* and driving. Everyone in a bar isn’t going there to get drunk. There could be a designated carrier just like designated drivers.
*avoiding moderation
“Current Florida law states carrying in bars is not allowed, unless over 50 percent of the establishment’s income is food, like at a Chili’s”
Think it would look suspicious if I asked to see the receipts upon entering the Applebee’s down the street?
Besides, who’s gonna know? Concealed means concealed. And if I get “caught,” they can only ask me to leave.
“And if I get “caught,” they can only ask me to leave.”
Same here in Florida.
BTW, your new moniker is starting to grow on me, in a twisted way…
*snicker* 😉
It hasn’t generated the insults that I thought it would. Oh well.
There are a bunch of us Floridiots … uh, I mean Floridians on the board.
Becauce newsob is a Gun Control zealot everything centers around the Gun. Never mind those prone to criminally misuse firearms as they are also prone to criminally misuse bricks, bats, knives, feet, fists, vehicles, matches, etc. If newsob wasn’t a self serving lowlife fixated on Gun Control he would have addressed the what ifs.
and if they had yet more unconstitutional gun laws, or differently worded unconstitutional red-flag laws would have made no difference in preventing this… he was a retired cop, laws and accountability never apply to them; and in cases of domestic abuse they are nearly immune to any sort of prosecution all the responsible parties DA’s, other law enforcement look the other way or assist in covering up domestic abuse when committed by cops… on a national average they are the largest group of bullies violent domestic abusers, far exceeding the NFL own rates of very public profiled abusers.
And once again the myth of only cops should have guns is busted, or that they are good guys…
The shooter wasn’t a responsible gun owner, he was a cop [they are rarely responsible with firearms]. And it looks like his motive was suicide by ‘biker gang’, he was going through an acrimonious and lengthy divorce process, not sure why he didn’t go the more traditional route of suicide-by-cop, other than he got some retribution shooting his (ex??) wife first
So he spent his entire career violating his oath and disarming through enforcing unconstitutional laws on innocent Americans, wouldn’t be the least bit surprised that his political ideologies will trend towards progressive democrat
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/bar-shooting-suspect-left-3-dead-identified-retired-california-police-rcna101616
Whoa whoa whoa. Prevented 58 mass shootiings?!? Or however many it was.
How would they know that. Does mr newsom see the future too, as well as being a buttplug? Thats talent
He knows all, sees all, smells all…
Maybe its the hair gel
“Maybe its the hair gel”
Hair jell is flammable.
Just sayin’… 🙂
They took someone’s guns away and that person didn’t commit a mass shooting – that’s 1 mass shooting prevented. Simple!
Of course, the Governor is correct.
Most abusers have a long record of abuse and tough red flag laws would swoop down on these nut cases and save thousands of lives every year.
This morning I learned about a nutcase husband that killed his wife and 3 young children and himself. This senseless tragedy would never have happened if my state had a tough red flag law that would have taken his gun away.
Of course, the demented paranoid Far Right scream they want no red flag laws at all. This is insanity because if a person is wrongly accused, he can still get his guns back. When we do not have red flag laws, we end up with rivers of blood flowing down the streets. Only the insane argue against red flag laws.
not unprecedented:
https://katu.com/archive/police-gresham-bar-was-shot-up-by-an-officer-11-26-2015
Does anybody believe that cops would serve a red flag against one of their own, retired or not?
40% of police officers are involved in domestic violence incidents while only 10% of the general population is.
Almost half of the police are self-medicating, wife-beaters with psychological issues at some point in the careers. Red flag them all?
Okay:
The attorney representing John Snowling in the divorce agreed there were no warning signs.
“There was certainly no red flag that anything like this would happen,” attorney Tristan Tegroen told Eyewitness News. “No one ever discussed restraining orders or domestic violence or anything like that.” https://abc7.com/orange-county-bar-mass-shooting-trabuco-canyon-crooks-corner/13694011/
UPDATE: Rare Breed vs ATF Customer List Update (note: spoiler, Rare Breed did not turn over customer list – basically, the ATF got a list of people without warrant, from the USPS who provided a Rare Breed shipping list to the ATF – and – also the DOJ subpoenaed shipping records from UPS).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R9ZAXMafgk0
The issue in Rahimi is due process. The vast majority of DV restraining orders are issued ex parte, i.e., without the input of the person whose arms will be seized. The orders are typically issued in chambers without a formal hearing. All that the Court really determines is that there is probable cause to believe, based on affidavits by the interested party, that the target is or may be prone to violence. There is no adjudication of the truth of the matter asserted, there is no, and can be, no conviction for domestic violence. To be convicted, the affected spouse must be served with a complaint, granted the opportunity to retain counsel, and appear and contest the allegations at a formal judicial hearing where proof beyond a reasonable doubt will be required for either a misdemeanor or felony conviction. In Rahimi, that had not occurred–and thus he was essentially presumed guilty and subjected to the order dispossessing him of a constitutional right.
If you’re the victim of red flag laws, turn around and sue the authorities for violating your constitutional right to due process.
How do you prove prevented mass shootings?
nearly all, if not all 50 states have legal, Constitutional methods of separating a potentially dangerous, mentally ill person from their firearms. Usually through the courts etc. Full due process. These “Red Flag” emergency protective orders are for the most part suspending or denying the right to defend yourself in court. Guilty until proven innocent. And are begging to be misused and abused by any number of vengeful ex or soon to be ex-spouses, upset relatives, easily frightened neighbors or coworkers, or deadbeat customers. As well as spiteful LEO’s and Politicians.
As much as I generally support LEO’s we do have some problems with police in general. First is the usual folks recruited are retiring or otherwise former military personnel. Being retired Army, that in and of itself is not the problem. What is the problem is the anyone not in uniform and not one of us is the enemy mindset. Sorry people, civilian police are still civilians. While your job may give you special privileges and authorities, you are still part of the civilian population and should be held to the same standards as anyone else. Unfortunately, many LEO’s will cover for and give the benefit of the doubt or outright protect their fellow officers if an officer is accused of something. Why do you think the internal affairs folks are so hated by rank and file officers?
Next is the idea that disarming someone will prevent them from committing an act of violence. In most cities and even out here in the back woods, if you have cash and want a gun, you will be able to get one. If someone is considered dangerous enough to be disarmed, aren’t they dangerous enough to be ordered into an involuntary hold and eval?
Last thing here. In the article, the lawyers stated no red flags or accusations of domestic issues was reported. No previous discussions of or cite for violence was claimed.
So exactly what would more unconstitutional laws would have somehow prevented this?
“Jobs created or saved.” The Zhou BaiDeng standard during the Obama maladministration.
May 2022:
“We passed a law, and we’re four years later. And thank God nothing like this has happened again in Florida,” Republican Rep. Randy Fine said.
Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle agree, the red flag law passed in the wake of the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting is working.
The petition is called a Risk Protection Order and according to the state, it’s been used 5,856 times.
“If I were to read some of those examples to you, everybody would agree that, yeah, they probably don’t need a gun until they have some mental health counseling,” said Polk County Sheriff Grady Judd.
It’s dishonest to plagiarize part of a published article and not list the source of the citation.
https://www.wesh.com/article/red-flag-laws-florida/40106712
Also from the same item:
“Despite unusually high bipartisan support, red-flag laws do have critics.
“Some say it violates the U.S. and state constitutions, including the right to bear arms, and others argue that laws already on the books in Florida made it unnecessary. Still, others say it discriminates against the poor: Because the hearing with a judge is not a criminal proceeding, low-income defendants aren’t provided with a free lawyer.”
That’s a plus for the fascist left. Poor people have no rights in their view.
https://media.gab.com/cdn-cgi/image/width=1136,quality=100,fit=scale-down/system/pending_media_attachments/files/001/978/685/original/f1afddb90bb673e9.png
The fact is that this kind of crime CANNOT and WILL NOT be prevented in a nation where firearms are so easily available as long as AMERICA has a rampant and misguided GUN CULTURE and the Gerneral Public seem unable to do anything constrctive about it. The fact is the NOBDY cares enough to do ANYTHING about it Not the General Public, Not the Governments and certainly notbthe GUN OWNERS themselves.
I see that one ortwo Syaes like CALIFORNIA and NEW YORK are trying to do something but as thiser incident showws as long as that availability exists it is an uphill struggel.
HOWEVERCALIFORNIS and NEW YORK have shown that there ARE wAYS and means because if CALIFORNIA can do it so canevery State inthe Union if that’s what the voters want. California has the SINGLE largest economy in the USA and would rate 6 OR 7 in the world if it weas a COUNTRY, and not a State. California has a GDP TWICE vthat of Russia on a good day If HISTORY is anything to go by the where CALIFORNIA goes today the USA goes tomorrow. –
Prohibition does not work. The war on drugs is an absolute failure. Now you want to add to the misery with a war on guns?
No wonder england is circling the drain. You brits aren’t very smart.
Comments are closed.