ChiGoose

Juries are fickle and prosecutions of politicians are tricky. If you are going to come for the king, you best not miss. So you get every single piece of evidence you can to ensure a successful prosecution. Not to mention prosecutors generally don’t like to bring cases unless they are confident they can win. It would be a dereliction of duty to not get every piece of ammo they can.

Yeah, that’s really the difference here. When Swalwell was informed of the issue, he cut ties. Meanwhile, every time someone in Trump’s orbit found out they were talking to a suspicious person, they just tried to hide future connections or just ignored the warning altogether.

We need to start taking accelerationism more seriously. From the article in the tweet:

For all of the talk about incitement for the events of Jan 6th, this is actually where Trump himself probably had the greatest legal exposure. They have him on tape breaking the law and if they can get testimony on top of that from people close to him, it might make a successful prosecution very likely.

But I had been assured this was all just a partisan witch-hunt.

Fulton County Subpoenas Rudy Giuliani, Lindsey Graham, John Eastman, Cleta Mitchell, Kenneth Chesebro, and Jenna Ellis.

My understanding is that without PLCAA, such an occurrence would be in line with the same instance of other products. Companies strive to make their products safer because doing so reduces the cost of negative externalities. If your water filter has a small flaw that allows poisonous particles to get through, you correct it because it makes your product better AND avoids liability lawsuits. If your gun is overly lethal, or advertised towards kids, or could be changed to automatic fire with a quick modification, you are NOT liable for any damages because of PLCAA. Repealing PLCAA would incentivize manufactures to keep safety as a major component of their process and end product.

I agree with an exception for military service. Those who go through military training have far more expertise with firearm safety than their peers and that should be recognized. As for PLCAA, most industries are subject to liability for their products and advertising. PLCAA means that the firearms industry is essentially exempt from this liability. Repealing PLCAA means that firearms manufacturers have to be more careful about how they build and sell their guns, and how they advertise them. They would essentially be subject to the same restrictions as most American industries.

We have not always fetishized guns. We have not always targeted gun ads at kids. We have not always framed the discussion of guns around fighting tyranny or even the second amendment. Guns used to be a tool to be used responsibly, not a status symbol or way of proving how tough or cool or patriotic you are.

The suspected shooter has been apprehended.

Except that it doesn’t happen in our peer countries nearly as often as it happens here. Are you saying that Americans are just more angry and violent than people in other countries? We are inherently flawed and inferior to people like Canadians or the British?

We definitely have cultural issues around guns here, but other countries consume our pop culture and don’t have these problems, so I’m not sure how much of a driver it is. I would love to put tighter regulations around firearm marketing though. A lot of the material I’ve seen almost fetishizes guns. Groups like the NRA spend more time talking up the pseudo-military and 2A language than responsible gun ownership and safety.

I would start with treating firearms the way we do cars: license and registration with competency tests. Requirements can be on a sliding scale based on actual lethality: strict on handguns, less strict on hunting long guns. Improved tracing for prosecuting straw gun purchases. Nationwide red flag laws. Requirements for safe storage. Repeal PLCAA. Raise the minimum age to 21. Magazine capacity limits. Only in America though? Is your argument that Americans are more inherently problematic than our peers in other countries?

I would love to find a way to make this better. We are the only developed country in the world where this happens with this frequency. And yet, so many people claim it’s not the guns. Either Americans are inherently drastically more inclined to violent mental illness, or it’s the prevalence of guns. Any discussion that doesn’t center on limiting the access to guns is a distraction.

I don’t know much about the gun laws in Highland Park, but about 20 miles away in Chicago, most guns used in crimes come from outside the state. So the gun laws are reducing the guns purchased in the city from being used in crimes, but the lax laws in neighboring Indiana are flooding the streets with firearms. If you’re conclusion then, is that the gun laws in one city are not as effective unless similar laws are enacted in neighboring areas, then I’m glad we agree. If Indiana (and Wisconsin) tighten their gun laws, this area of the country would see a reduction in gun violence.

Yes, under ISL, the states would supersede the federal government and their actions could not be ruled on by state courts. I am not predicting that SCOTUS will rule in favor of ISL, but I am concerned they might. Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh have indicated they might support some parts of ISL. The fact that this iteration of the Court granted cert to this case does not give me optimism that they will end up rejecting ISL.

A lot of mass shootings seem to also be suicides. So while it is odd that this guy got away, I’m not sure how much a deterrent public execution would be to those who plan to die as part of their actions anyway.

6 Dead, 24 Wounded in Shooting at Highland Park Fourth of July Parade. Shooter at Large.

Right, because we currently don’t live under the Independent State Legislature doctrine. So we have these checks available. If SCOTUS changes that by adopting the ISL, then that will dramatically change the landscape.

The committee has stated it will release the transcripts at the end of the investigation, which they expect to be September. I don’t think it’s reasonable to expect them to release them sooner, but if they do not release them when they are done with the probe, they should be rightfully criticized and it would taint everything they have been working on.

…That’s not what the independent state legislature doctrine is about. The Constitution states that the states can set the time, place, and manner of federal elections but that the Congress may change the rules through law. So to your point, states could pass laws saying that senators were selected by state legislatures, not through a direct vote of the people. That could be changed through Congressional action or a constitutional amendment (or the state legislature could change it themselves). The US Congress can also set laws that create guardrails for elections and courts could review state laws to ensure they are constitutional. Under the Independent State Legislature (ISL) Doctrine, states get to set the rules and those rules are not reviewable by the courts. Also, when state law and federal law conflict, it should always be resolved in favor of the state (essentially endorsing nullification). This would allow states to do everything within their power to rig elections in favor of a particular party. The gerrymandered map that the Dems in NY tried to pass was thrown out by the courts. That can’t happen under ISL. In fact, the Dems would be incentivized to see if they could eliminate every GOP district. With no way for courts to challenge redistricting maps for things like compactness, they could draw a map that grabs a heavily blue area in NYC and connects that population to the Southern Tier. The natural endgame for ISL is to create single party states where only the most extreme candidates can win. It would further fracture the country and erode the voice of the people. It also has little to no basis in our history and is antithetical to the ideals of our Founding. Any jurist who actually believes in Originalism would reject ISL out of hand.

I do not seem to recall George W. Bush conspiring with a small group of aides to take actions they knew were illegal in order to delay or prevent the certification of the election. In fact, contrary to your statement, I have a hard time recalling any president who wanted to prevent the certification of the election, was told that doing so was illegal, and still pushed his people to try to make it happen.

Not if you read the article. While many articles we see today are following the laws to their logical conclusions, the article I posted included a doctor talking about the problems they are already seeing.

Minnesota lawmakers vote to legalize edibles. Some did so accidentally.

That would be a tremendous shock to the founders and the authors of the 9th amendment.