The Las Vegas Victims’ Fund has raised over $3 million; Zappos is doing matching donations here up to $1 million. We see some local firms and attorneys on the list of donors–thank you for your contribution. If you’re aware of other ways that attorneys can be of assistance, please let us know in the comments.
Attorneys are no longer allowed to bring cell phones into the CCDC. [RJ]
OJ Simpson was released from prison. [Las Vegas Sun]
AG Adam Laxalt postponed plans to launch his gubernatorial bid in the wake of the shooting. [KNPR]
One of the victims was a San Diego attorney. Prayers go out for her and her family
Guest
Anonymous
October 3, 2017 4:34 pm
So she may have allowed an inmate to use a cell phone and read/send text messages. I get how they may not want the person to have a cell phone, but allowing a tablet is ludicrous unless they block cellular service. I have an iPad Pro with AT&T service on it and can do Facetime and iMessages on it, and if my iPhone isn't too far from me, then I can also make audio calls and send SMS text messages through a wireless link to my iPhone. Are they going to put a Faraday cage around where attorneys meet their clients?
The big problem is that officers sometimes do not respond to the buzzer and many attorneys have been left in the visiting room with a client for long periods of time. I was stuck in there until after 5:30 pm on a Friday, after ringing the buzzer for over 45 minutes, until I was able to find a friend to call the front desk and ask them to let me out. The jail should have addressed this issue before taking away the cell phones.
AG Adam Laxalt was wise to postpone his announcement and frankly he should reconsider and resign in the wake of this massacre. His positions on gun control, background checks, and his marriage to the NRA should end his political career forever after this tragedy – same to Michele Fiore and anyone else who continues to fight for a violent gun culture that ends with the murder of thousands of innocent lives every year. If you are unwilling to protect me, my family, my colleagues, and my countrymen and women by removing from society all AK 47s, AR 15s and the bump stock that turns them into death machines, I am voting you out of office. Adequately fund the mental health problem while at it and we will live in a much safer world. Vegas Strong.
If the answer to the problem is to eliminate anything that can be used to harm another, be need to ban knives, automobiles, hammers, anything heavy or sharp or with a pointed end…
We already have a ton of laws on the books that if the gun control logic works would already prevent these crimes from occurring. It's already illegal to murder, commit a battery, steal, etc… We have how many laws concerning domestic violence, guess that means the problem has already been eliminated.
The problem is not the gun. It is just a tool, no different than a saw, hammer, car, etc. The problem is how the operator of that tool chooses to use it. Until we find a way to deal with operators than intend to use a tool for harm, the problem will continue to exist and repeat.
> It is just a tool, no different than a saw, hammer, car, etc.
Respectfully, 10:58, no. When was the last time a saw, hammer, car, etc. killed 50+ people in the span of a few minutes? Is a saw, hammer, or car specifically designed to kill things? A gun is fundamentally different.
By your logic then, 10:58, we shouldn't have laws against anything because people will disregard them anyway. Your tried and true NRA talking points do not hold up. Yes, a gun is a "too," and every tool has a specific purpose. The specific purpose of some or all of the "tools" used in this case is to kill human beings from hundreds of feet or yards away, as happened in this case. Other "tools" such as handguns and hunting rifles have legitimate purposes, but unfortunately are misused frequently. Background checks and licensing will reduce, but can never eliminate, this misuse. But the "tools" at issue here were used exactly in the manner intended and did exactly what they are supposed to do, which is why they should not be in civilian hands.
@11:06; not to get into a pissing match with you, search the internet for the instances where a vehicle was used to run over a large group of people. Off the top of my head without looking… London, Paris, Santa Monica, New York…
@11:11; The British of the mid/late 18th century would be in complete agreement with your contention. The very purpose of the 2nd amendment guarantee of civilian ownership of the same tools of war that the government has was to prevent governmental oppression of the people. The founders had just overthrown an oppressive government, were creating a new form of government from scratch and wanted to insure that if their invention failed that future citizens would have the ability and means to repeat the same feat they had just accomplished.
Somewhere along the lines, someone transformed the argument into owning firearms for sport and hunting, both of which are traditional non-war uses of the tools, but not the original reason for the 2nd amendment enactment.
@11:19 – Okay, so if the Second Amendment really means that civilians should be able to own the same tools of war that the government owns, do you believe it supports private ownership of nuclear weapons, RPGs, and Abrams tanks?
10:58 you’ve got to be kidding. Suppose you are in a group of thousands of people, and a madman wants to attack you with 15 assault rifles or 15 hammers. Do you still think they are equivalent? To my knowledge, people aren’t allowed to purchase RPG’s, but those are “arms” right? There is a wide spectrum of weapons, and some people, including myself, would chose to draw the legal line somewhere around revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles. Military style weapons should not be protected by the second amendment.
11:11 I disagree with your argument. “Militia” to the founders did not mean every Joe on the street. The founders gave Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline the “Militia.” Article I Section 8. Similarly, the President “shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the Militia of the several States.” Article II Section 2. Militia is probably best described as the present day army reserves. If you want to play with military weapons, join the reserves and be “well regulated.”
The bumpstock wasn't legal was it? If you actually impose harder sentences on those who kill, stop giving benefits to those who are incarcerated, impose death penalty and carry out in fewer years (saving taxpayer dollars) …. imagine. People might want to be decent. Also, teach children coping skills.
@1:01 – the bump stock is legal because it doesn't violate the law. Basically, you still have to pull the trigger for each round fired, you just use the rifle's recoil to do it for you. It comes off of the old bump firing technique.
Well hey, history lesson here. Once upon a time a bump stock manufacturer went bankrupt when the device was used in a mass shooting and they were sued by the victims. If Congress won't act maybe the legal process and "market forces" can keep these things from being sold. https://www.thetrace.org/2015/11/ar-15-bump-fire-legal/
I think a DOJ that gave a f*ck could easily make a pretty good argument that you are actually only pulling the trigger once when using a bump stock. If the machine is doing the rest for you, you're not the one pulling the trigger each time (you know, using your finger to pull it each time) – the mechanism of the machine is.
But could that same DOJ make a meaningful distinction between a semi-auto fired with a bump-fire technique and a semi-auto equipped with an accessory that merely makes that technique easier?
@2:30 – I don't think that argument would work. A bump stock makes bump firing easier, but having a bump stock on a semi-automatic rifle is not required to bump fire. There's video on youtube if you want to see someone bump-firing an AR-15 a without a bump stock.
At one point people were using rubber bands and shoelaces to help bump fire (around 2006-2007); the BATF threatened to arrest and prosecute anyone who actually tied a rubber band or shoelace to a semi-automatic rifle. The BATF never actually arrested anyone that I'm aware of, and later abandoned their policy as legally indefensible.
The point is the DOJ hasn't tried very hard to make the argument. The 9th Circuit (and probably the 2nd, 4th, and 6th) would likely accept the argument that a bump stock basically converts a weapon to a full-auto or all intents and purposes. You can make a good argument that if the mechanical device makes it so that you don't have to repeatedly extend and contract your trigger finger, the device is doing all the work, and the weapon is a full auto in all essential characteristics. Not a slam dunk argument, but hardly frivolous, especially in a gun-reg friendly Circuit. The point is, DOJ apparently hasn't even tried to make the argument.
Watch a slo-mo bump fire video. The trigger finger remains stationary. The weapon recoil is causing the continuous firing. That's basically the definition of a full auto.
Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from taking them….just sayin…..
Guest
Anonymous
October 3, 2017 5:53 pm
Not only will he not resign, but he will probably be re-elected, unless he decides to run for higher office, which he may be elected to as well.
His base of support(which tends to be conservative) will believe it was merely a lone wolf shooter, and that there is no need to let the massacre re-open or generate any dialogue about gun ownership and access.
I have my doubts about the lone wolf story line. It's a great and convenient narrative to minimize the damage to the tourism industry, but doesn't necessarily make it true. Only time will tell if this was a lone wolf attack or a part of a larger longer term game plan.
That being said, I like Laxalt and the work his office has done. Unlike many of our prior AG's, his office frequently does thing quietly in the background without frequent press conferences to showcase "how great I am". I would much rather have an AG that works for the benefit of the citizens of the state, even when I may disagree with a position or two along the way, than one that only acts when it politically benefits themselves.
Uh right. #1 ALL he does is act on politics. #2 Quiet? Here is a link to his press releases, 12 just for the months of September you can do your analysis of the countless others. http://ag.nv.gov/News/Press_Releases/
Guest
Anonymous
October 3, 2017 6:03 pm
No, it was a terrorist.
Guest
Anonymous
October 3, 2017 6:04 pm
What does "get over yourself" mean? AG Laxalt is an embarrassment. Don't underestimate the voters who clearly told him what to do and he ignored them. Sisolak was campaigning hard yesterday with MGM by his side.
Did you like how Sisolak had his campaign button photo on the gofundme page. He changed it at some point. Also, I laughed because I watching msnbc for las vegas news conference yesterday morning and all the politician took their turn talking about how important they were to the process and then when they got to our AG Adam Laxalt, they decided to cut away to Matt and Savannah.
Laxalt isn't so bad. He represents the views of about half of Nevadans and is the kind of guy most people want in charge even if he's in the other party – a hardass who isn't corrupt or a sexual predator. So he was a mediocre lawyer who inherited a big name and the political support that goes with it. I get it, a meritocracy would be better. But that's par for the course in politics. Ross Miller was no different in that regard, and Laxalt's successor will probably be the same. FFS, Carolyn Goodman is the Mayor of Las Vegas!
I loved the moment in the Press Conference when Dina Titus called on all of the AirBnB operators to show some charity and open their homes. You mean the AirBnB operators that are strictly prohibited under County Ordinances? You mean the short term rental operators who applied under the City's new Special Use Permit and were almost (with a very limited exception) denied licensure? Maybe she didn't know what was going on in her District but yes, Congresswoman, you just encouraged people who the bureaucracy has not allowed to exist to show charity to the same system cracking down on it.
This is Adam Laxalt, deflecting, delaying and waiting for the "right time" [NRA talking piece] to try and argue against all of the really good reasons (posted on this thread) to enact safety measures for our Nevada people and visitors. HIS "right time" is when WE lose interest in this massacre and the issue dies.
Laxalt was unable to provide even one substantive response in that interview. He deflected on EVERY issue. It's a safe bet that for Laxalt, there will never be a good time to discuss Nevada's gun laws and his refusal to enforce the will of "his" constituents.
Guest
Anonymous
October 3, 2017 6:56 pm
I am pro guns, but feel fully automatic weapons and bump stocks should be illegal.
I very much enjoy the few guns I own and love taking my kids out to learn and practice shooting. However, I also like being alive and don't like that my kids go through active shooter training at their elementary school. For fucks sake, why can't we have some discussion about sensible gun control?
I really appreciate the gun owners speaking up about automatic weapons, bump stocks, and keeping our children safe at schools while we are not there to protect them. It is your voice that needs to be heard by our supposed leaders who are continuing to do the NRAs bidding at a traumatic cost to the public.
^ why we can't have discussions on sensible gun control.
Guest
Anonymous
October 3, 2017 7:31 pm
The issue with an assault weapons ban is that you're not taking any assault weapons off the streets. You're stopping new assault weapons from getting onto the streets. The bans are not retroactive (see the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, or the National Firearms Act of 1934, as examples).
So I have doubts about the statistical efficacy of many gun control proposals. I'm not a fan of passing laws because "we need to do something," provide a proposal that will have a real, substantive impact.
Unlike Europe or Australia, the US has (1) a cultural connection with guns, and (2) a constitutional protection of the right to own and use guns. Somewhere between 30-40% of Americans own a firearm, and many consider it to be an important part of our history. Until those two factors change significantly (and they are changing as our populace transitions from rural to urban), I don't see how effective gun control can be politically achieved.
Nor does the screaming from either side help us address the problem – needless stupid preventable deaths. The shrills on the left, calling people trolls, murderers, and whatnot, are alienating allies needed to pass meaningful gun control reform – rural voters who actually have a need for certain types of firearms. And the gunnuts on the right need to understand that the same laws that allow them to stockpile mountains of firearms and ammunition allows the mentally ill and those who want to do evil the same freedom.
Now let the screaming match continue. It will change nothing.
I understand grandfathered fully-automatic weapons exist and will continue to. Natural attrition is undeniable though since the ban on new builds. Legal FA should at the very least be subject to more stringent tracking and registration. Closing the gun show loophole is another good start. There's no reason (except the $25 fee which I think is B.S.) why sales can't go through FFA dealers.
Now I hear this "it's too late to do anything anyway" argument and I reject it. If we start now then in thirty-forty years we may have a society where semi-daily mass murders aren't a thing. I read "So I have doubts about the statistical efficacy of many gun control proposals" and think "we've done nothing and we're all out of ideas."
I don't claim to have a solution in hand but I do claim it's time to talk about it.
Australia instituted a gun buyback program when it banned certain types of weapons; it spent over $500 million Aus. just over 20 years ago to take about 700,000 firearms off the street. I agree with you that if we banned semi-automatic rifles (which is really what we're talking about here – fully automatic rifles are highly regulated due to the NFA) and required that everyone turned them in, then we would see violence plummet. Would some people hold out and hide them? Sure. No law is perfect. It would make it much harder for those who currently do not have access to semi-automatic rifles to get them.
But we don't see that proposal, do we? That's because politically it's still too unpalatable.
I'm all for talking about solutions Lawyer Bird. I'm just incredibly pessimistic that anything of importance will actually happen.
Even if you could make every semi-automatic rifle and pistol disappear so that no one could ever get one in the US even illegally (and someone who is hell-bent on this kind of thing is going to get one in Mexico if they have to), I don't see that reducing the number of incidents. It could reduce the scale of carnage, although more nuts will resort to IEDs, arson, poison, etc., so who knows. Timothy McVeigh didn't fire a single round, and he killed several times as many people as this latest wacko. I think the most appropriate legal response, if any, would be to do something about mental health services, both voluntary and involuntary. The brain is where the "rubber meets the road," so to speak. That's where the decision to act out happens. Once that decision is made, a clever enough person will figure out how to create mass destruction. That won't catch everyone, either, but it will probably be more effective than banning particular types of weapons.
1:59 here. I should add that I would support a full-auto ban without grandfathering anything. Also, I don't see why bump stocks are legal. Not an expert in this area, but it seems to me they are essentially components of a full-auto weapon. If not already illegal, no problem with a ban. A semi-auto ban is much harder to justify. Even a double-action revolver is essentially a semi-auto. You can't leave people with essentially pre-Mexican War single-shot firearms to defend themselves against criminals and (heaven forbid) the state.
Guest
Anonymous
October 3, 2017 9:04 pm
Wow, I just saw a copy of the self-fellating "UNLV Law magazine." How can I get off this waste-of-paper mailing list?
Guest
Anonymous
October 3, 2017 9:29 pm
What are you going to do with 3-D printing though? If I'm not mistaken, bump-stocks (and maybe even other components to make or modify guns to fire fully auto) can be printed by anyone in the privacy of their own homes.
I think that's a legit question given the breakthroughs in tech, but banning them would still have purpose. You can cook your own meth at home too, doesn't make the crime of possessing it any less illegal.
Guest
Anonymous
October 3, 2017 9:44 pm
It's starting to look like this guy's motivation might have been gambling debt. Anyone ready to ban gambling, which destroys many more lives per year than this single event did, although more slowly and painfully?
My "straw man" was that guns killed 59 innocent victims and wounded 500+ people. That is the data in the newspaper. I asked for data whether "Gaming kills 59 innocent victims and wounds 500+ a year." So I was wanting statistics that problem gaming murders 59 innocent bystanders a year.
You gave me a website that has ZERO statistics and then stated "BTW, the stats back up my assertion." Generally if you want to make the assertion that statistics back up an assertion, you would present statistics. Furthermore I would presume you would have something which would create some form of equivalency between gaming and 59 people lying dead who will never go home to their parents or children. I am thinking you don't know what the term "straw man" means.
The site gives stats on divorce, substance abuse, crime, and suicide caused by gambling. Read the site. I've done enough of your research for you. I said gambling "destroys many more lives per year," not causes gun deaths. I'm not responding to your straw man that gambling causes shooting rampages. Apparently, you are the one who doesn't understand what a "straw man" argument is.
Guest
Anonymous
October 3, 2017 11:13 pm
I will say that I'm impressed with the civility of the gun control discussion today, with only a couple of comments devolving into name-calling. It's good to see people discussing the problem from different points of view without getting nasty. Hopefully this continues.
Guest
Anonymous
October 4, 2017 2:58 pm
Yes this discussion has been very good, intelligent and needs to never stop. The media outlets have already started moving on, and Las Vegas and its people/visitors have yet to begin healing. We need to pass sensible gun control legislation at the federal and state level that is new, good and intended to save lives. Only then can the “it will happen anyhow” camp honestly make their arguments. I am hopeful their argument goes away because we see the effects in a positive way. If anyone has ANY evidence that passing reasonable gun control measures will NOT save lives, please circulate it NOW. Vegas Strong
"Sensible" and "reasonable" are entirely ambiguous terms that mean vastly different things to different people. What are the distinctions that turn an unreasonable firearm into an acceptable one? Rate of fire? Does that mean that a skilled shooter can accidentally turn into a criminal by firing off rounds too quickly? Capacity? The ability to eject a spent cartridge and load a fresh one every time the trigger is pulled, meaning only single-load rounds (e.g. bolt-action) are acceptable? Are pistol grips unacceptable, even when the capacity and caliber is identical to a plinking rifle? For example, I have a .22 from my grandfather. It holds 18 rounds in a tubular magazine. Should that be illegal? If not, why characteristics does it possess that you believe makes it a "good" gun?
It's not enough to deal in amorphous feel-good weasel words. Get out your brass tacks.
We all have a line for what is acceptable and was not acceptable. For example, we would all agree that one does not have the right to own a bazooka, rocket propelled grenade, or an M50 machine gun (I hope). It is figuring out where that line should be, taking into consideration the 2nd amendment and balancing it with sensible gun control. Too bad our politicians are working for special interests and not the public. I do not think in my lifetime that anything will be worked out.
I am of the opinion that reasonable and sensible means something is dedicated toward preventing mass murders. It is not me using "weasel words", but instead, me using words that can appeal to even the most anti-gun control voter in this State. Note, I am not proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. We need to start with common ground. I don't have the answer as to where the line is, but we will find out. I am willing to hear the criticism so keep it coming but instead of saying nothing will work, let's see if we can come to an agreement on some basic safety measures that might prevent or mitigate another mass murder.
One of the victims was a San Diego attorney. Prayers go out for her and her family
So she may have allowed an inmate to use a cell phone and read/send text messages. I get how they may not want the person to have a cell phone, but allowing a tablet is ludicrous unless they block cellular service. I have an iPad Pro with AT&T service on it and can do Facetime and iMessages on it, and if my iPhone isn't too far from me, then I can also make audio calls and send SMS text messages through a wireless link to my iPhone. Are they going to put a Faraday cage around where attorneys meet their clients?
The big problem is that officers sometimes do not respond to the buzzer and many attorneys have been left in the visiting room with a client for long periods of time. I was stuck in there until after 5:30 pm on a Friday, after ringing the buzzer for over 45 minutes, until I was able to find a friend to call the front desk and ask them to let me out. The jail should have addressed this issue before taking away the cell phones.
http://www.abajournal.com/news/article/lawyer_whose_firm_defended_casino_in_vegas_shooters_tort_case_says_he_was_s
Marty doing the Lord's (MGM's) work already.
Who was the PI atty in that case? What does s/he have to say?
He appropriately declined to comment.
AG Adam Laxalt was wise to postpone his announcement and frankly he should reconsider and resign in the wake of this massacre. His positions on gun control, background checks, and his marriage to the NRA should end his political career forever after this tragedy – same to Michele Fiore and anyone else who continues to fight for a violent gun culture that ends with the murder of thousands of innocent lives every year. If you are unwilling to protect me, my family, my colleagues, and my countrymen and women by removing from society all AK 47s, AR 15s and the bump stock that turns them into death machines, I am voting you out of office. Adequately fund the mental health problem while at it and we will live in a much safer world. Vegas Strong.
Oh boy. Resign? Get over yourself.
If the answer to the problem is to eliminate anything that can be used to harm another, be need to ban knives, automobiles, hammers, anything heavy or sharp or with a pointed end…
We already have a ton of laws on the books that if the gun control logic works would already prevent these crimes from occurring. It's already illegal to murder, commit a battery, steal, etc… We have how many laws concerning domestic violence, guess that means the problem has already been eliminated.
The problem is not the gun. It is just a tool, no different than a saw, hammer, car, etc. The problem is how the operator of that tool chooses to use it. Until we find a way to deal with operators than intend to use a tool for harm, the problem will continue to exist and repeat.
Its sad and tragic.. but a truism nonetheless.
Give it up, NRA troll.
> It is just a tool, no different than a saw, hammer, car, etc.
Respectfully, 10:58, no. When was the last time a saw, hammer, car, etc. killed 50+ people in the span of a few minutes? Is a saw, hammer, or car specifically designed to kill things? A gun is fundamentally different.
So much for the new rule about personal attacks. If you can't address the message, attack the messenger…
By your logic then, 10:58, we shouldn't have laws against anything because people will disregard them anyway. Your tried and true NRA talking points do not hold up. Yes, a gun is a "too," and every tool has a specific purpose. The specific purpose of some or all of the "tools" used in this case is to kill human beings from hundreds of feet or yards away, as happened in this case. Other "tools" such as handguns and hunting rifles have legitimate purposes, but unfortunately are misused frequently. Background checks and licensing will reduce, but can never eliminate, this misuse. But the "tools" at issue here were used exactly in the manner intended and did exactly what they are supposed to do, which is why they should not be in civilian hands.
"tool"
@11:06; not to get into a pissing match with you, search the internet for the instances where a vehicle was used to run over a large group of people. Off the top of my head without looking… London, Paris, Santa Monica, New York…
So let the criminals run rampant with weapons and keep the innocent people defenseless. So not cool.
Love to hear the argument why bump stocks should remain legal.
@11:11; The British of the mid/late 18th century would be in complete agreement with your contention. The very purpose of the 2nd amendment guarantee of civilian ownership of the same tools of war that the government has was to prevent governmental oppression of the people. The founders had just overthrown an oppressive government, were creating a new form of government from scratch and wanted to insure that if their invention failed that future citizens would have the ability and means to repeat the same feat they had just accomplished.
Somewhere along the lines, someone transformed the argument into owning firearms for sport and hunting, both of which are traditional non-war uses of the tools, but not the original reason for the 2nd amendment enactment.
@11:19 – Okay, so if the Second Amendment really means that civilians should be able to own the same tools of war that the government owns, do you believe it supports private ownership of nuclear weapons, RPGs, and Abrams tanks?
10:58 you’ve got to be kidding. Suppose you are in a group of thousands of people, and a madman wants to attack you with 15 assault rifles or 15 hammers. Do you still think they are equivalent? To my knowledge, people aren’t allowed to purchase RPG’s, but those are “arms” right? There is a wide spectrum of weapons, and some people, including myself, would chose to draw the legal line somewhere around revolvers, shotguns and bolt action rifles. Military style weapons should not be protected by the second amendment.
11:11 I disagree with your argument. “Militia” to the founders did not mean every Joe on the street. The founders gave Congress the power to organize, arm and discipline the “Militia.” Article I Section 8. Similarly, the President “shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and the Militia of the several States.” Article II Section 2. Militia is probably best described as the present day army reserves. If you want to play with military weapons, join the reserves and be “well regulated.”
The bumpstock wasn't legal was it? If you actually impose harder sentences on those who kill, stop giving benefits to those who are incarcerated, impose death penalty and carry out in fewer years (saving taxpayer dollars) …. imagine. People might want to be decent. Also, teach children coping skills.
@1:01 – the bump stock is legal because it doesn't violate the law. Basically, you still have to pull the trigger for each round fired, you just use the rifle's recoil to do it for you. It comes off of the old bump firing technique.
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2017/10/foghorn/bumpfire-stock-exist/
@1:10 thank you for the correction/information.
Well hey, history lesson here. Once upon a time a bump stock manufacturer went bankrupt when the device was used in a mass shooting and they were sued by the victims. If Congress won't act maybe the legal process and "market forces" can keep these things from being sold.
https://www.thetrace.org/2015/11/ar-15-bump-fire-legal/
I think a DOJ that gave a f*ck could easily make a pretty good argument that you are actually only pulling the trigger once when using a bump stock. If the machine is doing the rest for you, you're not the one pulling the trigger each time (you know, using your finger to pull it each time) – the mechanism of the machine is.
But could that same DOJ make a meaningful distinction between a semi-auto fired with a bump-fire technique and a semi-auto equipped with an accessory that merely makes that technique easier?
@2:30 – I don't think that argument would work. A bump stock makes bump firing easier, but having a bump stock on a semi-automatic rifle is not required to bump fire. There's video on youtube if you want to see someone bump-firing an AR-15 a without a bump stock.
At one point people were using rubber bands and shoelaces to help bump fire (around 2006-2007); the BATF threatened to arrest and prosecute anyone who actually tied a rubber band or shoelace to a semi-automatic rifle. The BATF never actually arrested anyone that I'm aware of, and later abandoned their policy as legally indefensible.
The point is the DOJ hasn't tried very hard to make the argument. The 9th Circuit (and probably the 2nd, 4th, and 6th) would likely accept the argument that a bump stock basically converts a weapon to a full-auto or all intents and purposes. You can make a good argument that if the mechanical device makes it so that you don't have to repeatedly extend and contract your trigger finger, the device is doing all the work, and the weapon is a full auto in all essential characteristics. Not a slam dunk argument, but hardly frivolous, especially in a gun-reg friendly Circuit. The point is, DOJ apparently hasn't even tried to make the argument.
Watch a slo-mo bump fire video. The trigger finger remains stationary. The weapon recoil is causing the continuous firing. That's basically the definition of a full auto.
Making drugs illegal didn't stop people from taking them….just sayin…..
Not only will he not resign, but he will probably be re-elected, unless he decides to run for higher office, which he may be elected to as well.
His base of support(which tends to be conservative) will believe it was merely a lone wolf shooter, and that there is no need to let the massacre re-open or generate any dialogue about gun ownership and access.
I have my doubts about the lone wolf story line. It's a great and convenient narrative to minimize the damage to the tourism industry, but doesn't necessarily make it true. Only time will tell if this was a lone wolf attack or a part of a larger longer term game plan.
That being said, I like Laxalt and the work his office has done. Unlike many of our prior AG's, his office frequently does thing quietly in the background without frequent press conferences to showcase "how great I am". I would much rather have an AG that works for the benefit of the citizens of the state, even when I may disagree with a position or two along the way, than one that only acts when it politically benefits themselves.
Uh right. #1 ALL he does is act on politics. #2 Quiet? Here is a link to his press releases, 12 just for the months of September you can do your analysis of the countless others.
http://ag.nv.gov/News/Press_Releases/
No, it was a terrorist.
What does "get over yourself" mean? AG Laxalt is an embarrassment. Don't underestimate the voters who clearly told him what to do and he ignored them. Sisolak was campaigning hard yesterday with MGM by his side.
Laxalt is worse than an embarrassment, he's a carpet bagger. He has no business holding public office in Nevada based solely on his name.
Is Sisolak our only possible choice against governor trump?
Did you like how Sisolak had his campaign button photo on the gofundme page. He changed it at some point. Also, I laughed because I watching msnbc for las vegas news conference yesterday morning and all the politician took their turn talking about how important they were to the process and then when they got to our AG Adam Laxalt, they decided to cut away to Matt and Savannah.
Laxalt isn't so bad. He represents the views of about half of Nevadans and is the kind of guy most people want in charge even if he's in the other party – a hardass who isn't corrupt or a sexual predator. So he was a mediocre lawyer who inherited a big name and the political support that goes with it. I get it, a meritocracy would be better. But that's par for the course in politics. Ross Miller was no different in that regard, and Laxalt's successor will probably be the same. FFS, Carolyn Goodman is the Mayor of Las Vegas!
Laxalt totally incompetent and only trying to climb. Total embarrassment.
I loved the moment in the Press Conference when Dina Titus called on all of the AirBnB operators to show some charity and open their homes. You mean the AirBnB operators that are strictly prohibited under County Ordinances? You mean the short term rental operators who applied under the City's new Special Use Permit and were almost (with a very limited exception) denied licensure? Maybe she didn't know what was going on in her District but yes, Congresswoman, you just encouraged people who the bureaucracy has not allowed to exist to show charity to the same system cracking down on it.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/5596972101001/?#sp=show-clips
This is Adam Laxalt, deflecting, delaying and waiting for the "right time" [NRA talking piece] to try and argue against all of the really good reasons (posted on this thread) to enact safety measures for our Nevada people and visitors. HIS "right time" is when WE lose interest in this massacre and the issue dies.
"Laxalt totally incompetent and only trying to climb. Total embarrassment."
You just described almost every politician in the history of the world.
Laxalt was unable to provide even one substantive response in that interview. He deflected on EVERY issue. It's a safe bet that for Laxalt, there will never be a good time to discuss Nevada's gun laws and his refusal to enforce the will of "his" constituents.
I am pro guns, but feel fully automatic weapons and bump stocks should be illegal.
Gun owner here. Agreed.
I very much enjoy the few guns I own and love taking my kids out to learn and practice shooting. However, I also like being alive and don't like that my kids go through active shooter training at their elementary school. For fucks sake, why can't we have some discussion about sensible gun control?
If not now then when?
I really appreciate the gun owners speaking up about automatic weapons, bump stocks, and keeping our children safe at schools while we are not there to protect them. It is your voice that needs to be heard by our supposed leaders who are continuing to do the NRAs bidding at a traumatic cost to the public.
^ why we can't have discussions on sensible gun control.
The issue with an assault weapons ban is that you're not taking any assault weapons off the streets. You're stopping new assault weapons from getting onto the streets. The bans are not retroactive (see the 1994 Public Safety and Recreational Firearms Use Protection Act, the Firearms Owners Protection Act of 1986, or the National Firearms Act of 1934, as examples).
So I have doubts about the statistical efficacy of many gun control proposals. I'm not a fan of passing laws because "we need to do something," provide a proposal that will have a real, substantive impact.
Unlike Europe or Australia, the US has (1) a cultural connection with guns, and (2) a constitutional protection of the right to own and use guns. Somewhere between 30-40% of Americans own a firearm, and many consider it to be an important part of our history. Until those two factors change significantly (and they are changing as our populace transitions from rural to urban), I don't see how effective gun control can be politically achieved.
Nor does the screaming from either side help us address the problem – needless stupid preventable deaths. The shrills on the left, calling people trolls, murderers, and whatnot, are alienating allies needed to pass meaningful gun control reform – rural voters who actually have a need for certain types of firearms. And the gunnuts on the right need to understand that the same laws that allow them to stockpile mountains of firearms and ammunition allows the mentally ill and those who want to do evil the same freedom.
Now let the screaming match continue. It will change nothing.
I understand grandfathered fully-automatic weapons exist and will continue to. Natural attrition is undeniable though since the ban on new builds. Legal FA should at the very least be subject to more stringent tracking and registration. Closing the gun show loophole is another good start. There's no reason (except the $25 fee which I think is B.S.) why sales can't go through FFA dealers.
Now I hear this "it's too late to do anything anyway" argument and I reject it. If we start now then in thirty-forty years we may have a society where semi-daily mass murders aren't a thing. I read "So I have doubts about the statistical efficacy of many gun control proposals" and think "we've done nothing and we're all out of ideas."
I don't claim to have a solution in hand but I do claim it's time to talk about it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/las-vegas-shooting-australia-gun-laws-control-stephen-paddock-2nd-amendment-nevada-firearm-a7980671.html
Australia instituted a gun buyback program when it banned certain types of weapons; it spent over $500 million Aus. just over 20 years ago to take about 700,000 firearms off the street. I agree with you that if we banned semi-automatic rifles (which is really what we're talking about here – fully automatic rifles are highly regulated due to the NFA) and required that everyone turned them in, then we would see violence plummet. Would some people hold out and hide them? Sure. No law is perfect. It would make it much harder for those who currently do not have access to semi-automatic rifles to get them.
But we don't see that proposal, do we? That's because politically it's still too unpalatable.
I'm all for talking about solutions Lawyer Bird. I'm just incredibly pessimistic that anything of importance will actually happen.
Even if you could make every semi-automatic rifle and pistol disappear so that no one could ever get one in the US even illegally (and someone who is hell-bent on this kind of thing is going to get one in Mexico if they have to), I don't see that reducing the number of incidents. It could reduce the scale of carnage, although more nuts will resort to IEDs, arson, poison, etc., so who knows. Timothy McVeigh didn't fire a single round, and he killed several times as many people as this latest wacko. I think the most appropriate legal response, if any, would be to do something about mental health services, both voluntary and involuntary. The brain is where the "rubber meets the road," so to speak. That's where the decision to act out happens. Once that decision is made, a clever enough person will figure out how to create mass destruction. That won't catch everyone, either, but it will probably be more effective than banning particular types of weapons.
1:59 here. I should add that I would support a full-auto ban without grandfathering anything. Also, I don't see why bump stocks are legal. Not an expert in this area, but it seems to me they are essentially components of a full-auto weapon. If not already illegal, no problem with a ban. A semi-auto ban is much harder to justify. Even a double-action revolver is essentially a semi-auto. You can't leave people with essentially pre-Mexican War single-shot firearms to defend themselves against criminals and (heaven forbid) the state.
Wow, I just saw a copy of the self-fellating "UNLV Law magazine." How can I get off this waste-of-paper mailing list?
What are you going to do with 3-D printing though? If I'm not mistaken, bump-stocks (and maybe even other components to make or modify guns to fire fully auto) can be printed by anyone in the privacy of their own homes.
I think that's a legit question given the breakthroughs in tech, but banning them would still have purpose. You can cook your own meth at home too, doesn't make the crime of possessing it any less illegal.
It's starting to look like this guy's motivation might have been gambling debt. Anyone ready to ban gambling, which destroys many more lives per year than this single event did, although more slowly and painfully?
Gaming kills 59 innocent victims and wounds 500+ a year? Wow, I cannot wait to see the statistics and data you will use to back up this assertion.
http://www.calpg.org/societal-impact-of-problem-gambling/
BTW, the stats back up my assertion, not your straw-man assertion.
My "straw man" was that guns killed 59 innocent victims and wounded 500+ people. That is the data in the newspaper. I asked for data whether "Gaming kills 59 innocent victims and wounds 500+ a year." So I was wanting statistics that problem gaming murders 59 innocent bystanders a year.
You gave me a website that has ZERO statistics and then stated "BTW, the stats back up my assertion." Generally if you want to make the assertion that statistics back up an assertion, you would present statistics. Furthermore I would presume you would have something which would create some form of equivalency between gaming and 59 people lying dead who will never go home to their parents or children. I am thinking you don't know what the term "straw man" means.
The site gives stats on divorce, substance abuse, crime, and suicide caused by gambling. Read the site. I've done enough of your research for you. I said gambling "destroys many more lives per year," not causes gun deaths. I'm not responding to your straw man that gambling causes shooting rampages. Apparently, you are the one who doesn't understand what a "straw man" argument is.
I will say that I'm impressed with the civility of the gun control discussion today, with only a couple of comments devolving into name-calling. It's good to see people discussing the problem from different points of view without getting nasty. Hopefully this continues.
Yes this discussion has been very good, intelligent and needs to never stop. The media outlets have already started moving on, and Las Vegas and its people/visitors have yet to begin healing. We need to pass sensible gun control legislation at the federal and state level that is new, good and intended to save lives. Only then can the “it will happen anyhow” camp honestly make their arguments. I am hopeful their argument goes away because we see the effects in a positive way. If anyone has ANY evidence that passing reasonable gun control measures will NOT save lives, please circulate it NOW. Vegas Strong
This is the starting point for that question. Check it out, it unfortunately isn't completely clear how well it worked. I am all for high capacity mags being banned if that could be passed at least.
http://www.factcheck.org/2013/02/did-the-1994-assault-weapons-ban-work/
"Sensible" and "reasonable" are entirely ambiguous terms that mean vastly different things to different people. What are the distinctions that turn an unreasonable firearm into an acceptable one? Rate of fire? Does that mean that a skilled shooter can accidentally turn into a criminal by firing off rounds too quickly? Capacity? The ability to eject a spent cartridge and load a fresh one every time the trigger is pulled, meaning only single-load rounds (e.g. bolt-action) are acceptable? Are pistol grips unacceptable, even when the capacity and caliber is identical to a plinking rifle? For example, I have a .22 from my grandfather. It holds 18 rounds in a tubular magazine. Should that be illegal? If not, why characteristics does it possess that you believe makes it a "good" gun?
It's not enough to deal in amorphous feel-good weasel words. Get out your brass tacks.
We all have a line for what is acceptable and was not acceptable. For example, we would all agree that one does not have the right to own a bazooka, rocket propelled grenade, or an M50 machine gun (I hope). It is figuring out where that line should be, taking into consideration the 2nd amendment and balancing it with sensible gun control. Too bad our politicians are working for special interests and not the public. I do not think in my lifetime that anything will be worked out.
I am of the opinion that reasonable and sensible means something is dedicated toward preventing mass murders. It is not me using "weasel words", but instead, me using words that can appeal to even the most anti-gun control voter in this State. Note, I am not proposing a repeal of the 2nd Amendment. We need to start with common ground. I don't have the answer as to where the line is, but we will find out. I am willing to hear the criticism so keep it coming but instead of saying nothing will work, let's see if we can come to an agreement on some basic safety measures that might prevent or mitigate another mass murder.