From Utah, a man was shot and injured after pulling a gun on people at a child’s birthday party. The man who was shot has been arrested; police have indicated they believe the shooter was acting in self-defense and will not be arrested or charged.
The article quotes local police as indicating that the man who was shot “was on a restricted list, meaning he isn’t allowed to own a gun. People typically are placed on that list because of felonies”.
From Ohio, the state has changed its laws regarding self-defense; people who use force in self-defense no longer have to prove their innocence–as with any other crime, the state must prove the defendant’s guilt. According to the article, Ohio had been the only state in the country where the burden on proof was put on the defendant in such cases.
(Although the article talks about “shooting”, and I’m posting it in this thread, I’d bet good money the law in question doesn’t actually specifically talk about firearms; presumably it would equally apply to someone who uses a knife or a blunt instrument in self-defense.)
A number of reforms to Texas gun laws that had been passed earlier in the year just took effect. They include:
[ul][li]Religious buildings will not be automatically off-limits to people who are lawfully carrying weapons. Texas requires a license to carry handguns (whether openly or concealed); to obtain a license, applicants must pass a criminal background check and complete a training course. There are laws allowing property owners to bar either concealed carry or open carry; signs barring concealed carry or open carry that meet the specifications of Texas law carry legal weight, so a church or mosque or synagogue could still ban concealed carry or open carry or both, but houses of worship will no longer have a special status under Texas law.[/li][li]Two other bills protect the rights of renters to possess firearms in their homes.[/li][li]Another bill allows gun owners with licenses to carry to store their guns in their locked cars in the parking lots of schools; actually carrying into the school is still prohibited.[/li][li]A bill provides a safe haven for people with licenses to carry who inadvertently enter an establishment that bans firearms as long as they immediately leave when asked. (Given that Texas has some pretty specific laws regarding signage, I’m not sure how exactly someone could “unknowingly” enter a place where guns are legally banned; or on the other hand how a place that lacks proper signage could actually still make it illegal to carry there under Texas law.)[/li][li]A bill will allow people to carry handguns for self-defense without a license during a declared state of emergency. (Federal and state laws continue to criminalize any possession of any firearm by felons, people convicted of certain kinds of domestic abuse, or people who have been involuntarily committed for mental illness.)[/li][li]A bill allows certain foster parents to have firearms in their foster homes, but they must still be kept in a locked location.[/li][li]Finally, a bill looses restrictions on the number of armed school marshals at public and private schools. That doesn’t seem to be a loosening of the restrictions on the standards of who can become a “school marshal”; that being the case I’m not sure what the point of arbitrarily restricting the number of such persons would be.[/li][/ul]
Moderator Note
This is the “Positive Gun News of the Day” thread, not the “Positive Gun Control News of the Day” thread. Gun control posts do not belong in this thread.
There are numerous gun control threads here on the SDMB. If you want to post something like this, post in one of those.
What about all the gun control measures in the post immediately above yours? Are gun control posts OK in this thread if they loosen gun control laws?
Yes, because those are POSITIVE gun news. More restrictions are not positive for gun rights or gun owners. Seems simple to grasp.
I’ve got no problem with the moderating decision here; the post in question was clearly outside the spirit and intention of this thread.
But let’s be clear about one thing: the post was not about “gun control.” A private entity refusing to allow guns on its premises isn’t gun control. The fact that you or I might not want guns in our houses isn’t a gun control issue, and the same applies to a private business. Kroger also probably forbids political campaigns and signature collectors from operating inside its stores, but that doesn’t mean it’s violating free speech rights in contravention of the first amendment.
But what about the grey areas here?
There are plenty of gun owners in the United States, for example, who support strengthened background checks. Some are supporting and some are opposing “red flag” laws, even though such laws probably wouldn’t help very much, and would represent a real threat to civil liberties. A bunch of gun owners came out in support of the bump-stock ban after the Las Vegas shooting, despite the fact that the ban probably won’t make America any safer at all. I was listening to a libertarian podcast yesterday where all of the panelists were in favor of gun rights, and opposed to things like “assault weapons” bans, but where at least a couple argued that restrictions on high-capacity magazines might be politically feasible and constitutionally acceptable.
I guess I’m asking: when we talk about positive gun news, are we restricting the definition of “positive” only to developments that are in line with the NRA’s talking points, or are we allowed to acknowledge that not all gun owners agree on exactly what constitutes a positive development?
Never mind. Wrong thread.
Sure, not all gun owners agree on everything. Believe it or not, many gun owners think the NRA is too willing to compromise (see their quick acquiescence on bump stocks, without gaining anything in return). But it seems obvious to me that further restrictions on open carry (whether by governments, businesses or private property owners) cannot be viewed as positive gun news. If someone wants to present such a development as positive, shouldn’t they have to articulate and develop support for this position, rather than simply post a link that is clearly meant to threadshit?
So if it were legal to give loaded Uzis to delusional schizophrenics, to throw handguns into kindergarten playgrounds and to drive around firing randomly out of one’s car windows, that would be “positive gun news” because it would represent fewer restrictions for gun rights and gun owners?
Look, I understand the point of this thread, but your definition isn’t “simple”; it’s simplistic. Responsible gun use and things that promote responsible gun use are good news. Things that facilitate irresponsible use are…less so. Where that line gets drawn is clearly debatable, but “no regulation is good regulation” - a logical conclusion from your statement - is a pretty extreme position.
Moderating: I agree. Discussing gun laws whether they are perceived as positive or negative to gun owners would be better suited in its own thread. Most likely in GD.
The OP of this thread cited a gun control law that was overturned by a pardon.
Moderating: the discussion of how this thread is moderated belongs in the current ATMB thread. Or the many others that have been opened in the past.
What constitutes responsible gun use is a topic for debate. That’s what GD is for. Questioning whether specific instances in this thread are examples of responsible gun use is fine.
Well, the reason that the NRA went along with the ban is that they recognize that Donald Trump is one of the very few people in the nation with more completely deranged supporters than the NRA itself. They didn’t want to cross him. Do you really think their response would have been the same if Obama had been president?
Well, I guess that’s a question for engineer_comp_geek then, isn’t it: would the post that ECG moderated have been acceptable if it had come with an explanation of WHY it might constitute positive gun news?
Questions/comments regarding moderation belong in ATMB.
Let me get this straight: we can’t even ask, IN THIS GODDAMN THREAD, what we are allowed to talk about IN THIS GODDAMN THREAD? Is that really what you’re saying here?
It’s like fight club. The first rule of positive gun news is you’re not allowed to talk about what positive gun news is.
From last month in Trinity, Florida: A man sought to aid a woman and her children who were the victims of domestic violence; the women screamed for help, then lowered her children out a window as the neighbor helped them escape. When the abuser confronted the helpful neighbor, the neighbor tried to defuse the situation, and retreated back to his own yard, but the abuser opened fire. The neighbor, who was also armed, returned fire, killing the abuser.
(Both men were armed in this case; note that federal law makes it a crime for any person convicted of domestic violence to possess any kind of firearm. That said, the article doesn’t actually say if the deceased had any previous convictions or not.)