I had a hard time believing what I was reading in this piece. This opinion piece basically confirms almost every data point and firearm position we as gun owners have been touting for as long as I can remember. And by the NYT's opinion section no less. So I'm curious. What do you think this is signaling in terms of where the Left might be heading now assuming SCOTUS rules as they seem to think they will?
Link

The gun safety movement finds itself on the precipice of disaster.

With new grass-roots and advocacy organizations, better financing, and stronger support from the Democratic Party, it has, arguably, never been stronger. But on Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear a case that is likely to call into question many of the reforms at the top of the movement’s agenda.

The justices are considering the constitutionality of a New York law that makes it hard for residents to obtain a permit to carry concealed firearms in public. The court, with three conservative pro-gun justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, will almost certainly say New York’s law is too restrictive under the Second Amendment — which will lead, predictably, to more guns on city streets and more violent crime.

The New York case could also signal the beginning of a new era of judicial hostility to gun laws, especially to the bans on assault weapons and large-capacity magazines that the reinvigorated gun safety movement has fought so hard to get enacted. With a single decision, the Supreme Court majority could transform life in many American cities — and stymie the growing political movement for gun reform.

Advocates and activists need an agenda that can survive the Supreme Court’s new interpretation of the Second Amendment. Fighting to restrict the quantity and kinds of guns owned by citizens will be a losing battle. Instead, it is time to focus on policies that will reduce the violence all those guns in America bring.

A good place to start would be community-based intervention programs like Operation Ceasefire, an initiative launched in Boston in 1996. Studies show that a small percentage of the population, such as gang members and hardened criminals, commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime. By bringing together community leaders, former gang members and the police for outreach to those most likely to use firearms, gun violence intervention programs have a proven track record of reducing gun crime.

Such programs, however, require resources and personnel at a time when social services and law enforcement are already stretched thin, and the political will to fund them adequately has never really materialized. That’s where the new strength of the gun safety movement can be a boon. Instead of spending political capital on a national ban on assault rifles that the justices are likely to overturn, the movement could use its muscle to push for federal and state legislation to fund vibrant and effective gun violence intervention programs in every major and midsize city across America.

The gun safety reform movement should also prioritize strengthening federal efforts to crack down on gun trafficking. While the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives, or A.T.F., has federal gun law enforcement authority, the National Rifle Association and its allies have shackled it with outdated technology, insufficient funds, and absurd restrictions. With an ever-increasing number of guns in the United States, A.T.F.’s intentional impotence comes at a deadly cost.

By law, A.T.F. is prohibited from using electronic databases to trace guns found at crime scenes and barred from electronically searching the records it does have. So when a gun is found at a crime scene, agents have to travel to individual gun stores and sort through boxes of documents to find out who bought it. A.T.F. is also prohibited by law from making more than one unannounced, warrantless inspection per year of any licensed gun dealer. And A.T.F. is still operating with roughly the same number of employees it had in 2001, and about 20 percent fewer inspectors, even though the number of guns in the United States has skyrocketed, and we now average at least 30 million gun sales a year. In a country where there are now more licensed gun dealers than branches of Starbucks and McDonald’s combined, these artificial restraints on A.T.F. should be lifted.

The gun safety movement should also launch a renewed push for universal — and better — background checks to make it harder for criminals and abusers to obtain firearms. There is broad public support for universal background checks, even among gun owners, and the court is unlikely to declare them unconstitutional.

Background checks, however, are only as good as the underlying databases. In 2015, a background check error allowed Dylann Roof to buy a handgun, weeks before he shot and killed 9 people in the Emanuel A.M.E. Church in Charleston, S.C. In 2017, more than two dozen churchgoers were killed by another shooter whose domestic violence conviction wasn’t reported to the F.B.I. The current system has significant gaps, especially when it comes to disqualifying mental health records. The federal database is missing hundreds of thousands of mental health records, and state reporting is shockingly uneven.

Gun safety advocates have long recognized these problems — and have been among the lone voices pushing for exactly these reforms. Yet proposals with more obvious popular appeal, like banning assault rifles, have taken center stage over the past decade. An expansive new interpretation of the Second Amendment by the Supreme Court warrants a reordering of priorities.

An agenda that focuses on intervention, beefing up gun law enforcement, and better background checks would not only be more likely to survive in the court, it might also do more to reduce gun violence. While assault rifles look menacing, they are responsible for only a fraction of gun deaths in America each year. While these weapons have been used in some of the most notorious massacres, most mass shootings are actually committed with handguns.

The same principle applies to large-capacity magazine bans. Though good in theory, they’re consistently ignored in practice. Advocates convinced lawmakers in New Jersey to ban them in 2018, but there doesn’t seem to be any evidence that gun owners have turned in or thrown away their now illegal magazines.

For decades now, the N.R.A. has said we don’t need more gun laws, just better enforcement of existing gun laws. It’s time for the gun safety movement to take the N.R.A. up on its challenge. By dropping the excessive focus on banning certain types of weapons, and instead prioritizing reforms that do more to crack down on gun violence, gun safety advocates may be able to avoid the harsh scrutiny of the new Supreme Court — and, in the end, save more lives.

Just had some on the radio about how often the ‘gun charge’ is dropped when the plea gets worked out. That’s often the ‘felon with a gun’ charge, rather straight forward.

The gun control advocates want new laws, but don’t seem to care as much about enforcing what’s already there. Remember Kim Foxx in Chicago, with the ‘gang shootout’. I’m sure there were all types of gun crimes present, before you even get to the shooting, no prosecutions.

Since IL got concealed carry, anything is possible.

The article is wrought with with so many misconceptions that make reading this a complete waste of time.
They consider mere having a gun - THE problem of gun safety.

quote:

Originally posted by bigdeal:
I had a hard time believing what I was reading in this piece. This opinion piece basically confirms almost every data point and firearm position we as gun owners have been touting for as long as I can remember.

Nah, Don't be taken in by them moderating their tone, it's still the same old NYT nonsense, just packaged in a 'make lemonade out of lemons because we don't have our majority in the Supreme Court anymore' wrapper.

I didn't catch the link (and don't/won't visit the NYT site anyway) so will just go with the text from the OP. Excerpts, for illustrative purposes:

quote:

The court, with three conservative pro-gun justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, will almost certainly say New York’s law is too restrictive under the Second Amendment — which will lead, predictably, to more guns on city streets and more violent crime.

Don't know any gun owners who think fixing NY law to become Constitutional will increase street crime there.

quote:

By bringing together community leaders, former gang members and the police for outreach to those most likely to use firearms, gun violence intervention programs have a proven track record of reducing gun crime.

...push for federal and state legislation to fund vibrant and effective gun violence intervention programs in every major and midsize city across America.

The same 'defund the police' crowd wants to push for money for 'outreach' to the gang-bangers. Don't put them away, pay bureaucrats to coddle them. Words fail.

quote:

By law, A.T.F. is prohibited from using electronic databases to trace guns found at crime scenes and barred from electronically searching the records it does have.

In a country where there are now more licensed gun dealers than branches of Starbucks and McDonald’s combined, these artificial restraints on A.T.F. should be lifted.

Hmmm....universal gun registry database. What could possibly go wrong?

quote:

The gun safety movement should also launch a renewed push for universal — and better — background checks to make it harder for criminals and abusers to obtain firearms. There is broad public support for universal background checks, even among gun owners, and the court is unlikely to declare them unconstitutional.

A topic that's gotten some discussion here, and I don't recall it being extremely well regarded.

quote:

The same principle applies to large-capacity magazine bans. Though good in theory,

So, that's a big box of insect parts, with a bit of breakfast cereal thrown in. In other words, a fine example of NYT journalism. At least it was on the opinion page, not masquerading as news.

Gun grabbers will never quit. They will not be satisfied with any type of gun laws till it is illegal to own any type of firearm.

I have talked to family and friends till I’m blue in the face and never had any significant success with changing their view points. I still try but being 71 years old and talking for many decades I don’t have much hope. I hope others have more success then I have had.

Unlike the OP, I didn’t find the NYT in the midst of sea-change with respect to guns, gun owners, and the NRA. Look at this sentence in the second paragraph, I wanted to stop right there.

quote:

The court, with three conservative pro-gun justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, will almost certainly say New York’s law is too restrictive under the Second Amendment — which will lead, predictably, to more guns on city streets and more violent crime.

Sounds like the old NYT to me. The only difference seems to be that they don’t believe gun and magazine bans will be enacted. FJB

The NYT has been a mouthpiece for socialism/communism all the way back to the 1920’s. They had Leninists working for them then.

Do we really expect any different from them?

quote:

Originally posted by Slowlane:
Gun grabbers will never quit. They will not be satisfied with any type of gun laws till it is illegal to own any type of firearm...

This needs to be tattooed on every gun owner's brain. Unfortunately, many of them think compromising with commies is a good idea. "They will leave us alone, if we just concede this one time".

quote:

y law, A.T.F. is prohibited from using electronic databases to trace guns found at crime scenes and barred from electronically searching the records it does have. So when a gun is found at a crime scene, agents have to travel to individual gun stores and sort through boxes of documents to find out who bought it. A.T.F. is also prohibited by law from making more than one unannounced, warrantless inspection per year of any licensed gun dealer. And A.T.F. is still operating with roughly the same number of employees it had in 2001, and about 20 percent fewer inspectors, even though the number of guns in the United States has skyrocketed, and we now average at least 30 million gun sales a year. In a country where there are now more licensed gun dealers than branches of Starbucks and McDonald’s combined, these artificial restraints on A.T.F. should be lifted.

This is utter bullshit. They call the manufacturer and they tell them who they sold it to, then they call the dealer and HE looks it up on the phone and gives who he transferred it to the agent. I've been a ffl for 32 years and have been called 5 times for traces.

What comes next?

The left is working on packing the Supreme Court, their bogus 'commission' is already signaling that is what their recommendation will be (obvious from the start). If that doesn't work, there is growing pressure from the left to start ignoring SCOTUS rulings.

On a side note, I read an article the other day that indicated that SCOTUS was going to rule on a very narrow basis in this case. I can't find the link, but it was by a former clerk who was reading into the questions that were asked and it was pretty convincing and in line with most SCOTUS rulings - to be as narrow and technical as possible.

The interesting part to me is to read many of the individual points they make where they almost seem to understand the problem, then see the illogical conclusion that their mind interprets that to mean.

Their mental approach is to do the same thing over and over and expect different results. When they see something done differently and it works, the whole point seems to go right over their heads.

The truth is, it doesn't just apply to firearms. They do the same thing with entitlements and all sorts of government programs.

quote:

Studies show that a small percentage of the population, such as gang members and hardened criminals, commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

Brilliant journalism here.

quote:

Originally posted by 12131:

quote:

Originally posted by Slowlane:
Gun grabbers will never quit. They will not be satisfied with any type of gun laws till it is illegal to own any type of firearm...

This needs to be tattooed on every gun owner's brain. Unfortunately, many of them think compromising with commies is a good idea. "They will leave us alone, if we just concede this one time".

The ultimate goal is to make us like Japan or Singapore.

quote:

Originally posted by shovelhead:

quote:

Studies show that a small percentage of the population, such as gang members and hardened criminals, commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

Brilliant journalism here.

(Begin Extreme Heavy Sarcasm)I am shocked, shocked I tell you. (End Extreme Heavy Sarcasm). Well that is as close to the truth that a progressive commie can get.

Gun safety reform, advocate, program, etc.....that sounds almost just like the NRA.

Such hand wringing!

So the banners expect to get blocked on one or more vectors and the opinionator here wants the banners to shift to other targets.

You can tell they're desperate when they try to jink back to a position they abandoned after the 1968 legislation: i.e. "AR15s aren't the problem, handguns are". Now lets see what happens when whoever wrote this gets around to reading Heller and realizes that the SCOTUS has already said that "handguns are particularly suited to self-defense".

If the SCOTUS starts rigorously enforcing the 2A, look for calls from the left wing states to revoke the 2A. Of course, that's essentially a political impossibility.

More crap from the New York Slimes.

"The justices are considering the constitutionality of a New York law that makes it hard for residents to obtain a permit to carry concealed firearms in public. The court, with three conservative pro-gun justices appointed by former President Donald Trump, will almost certainly say New York’s law is too restrictive under the Second Amendment — which will lead, predictably, to more guns on city streets and more violent crime."

With ZERO changes in firearms regulations, but NYPD hamstrung by "Defund the Police" BLM supporters in charge of the city, New York's violent crime rate has risen expotentially due to policies that enable criminals to do what they want without fear of consequences and now the New York Times is worrying about violent crime because the law abiding will possibly have an increased ability to protect themselves??? Of course, they want to blame the former President and SCOTUS for these injuries and deaths, even though they immediately followed the 2020 BLM rise to power.

You just can't make this stuff up to be more idiotic!!!

quote:

Originally posted by shovelhead:

quote:

Studies show that a small percentage of the population, such as gang members and hardened criminals, commit a disproportionate amount of violent crime.

Brilliant journalism here.

I almost spit my drink, when i read that fooking line in the article
.....and the more i think about the funnier it gets