MASSIVE SHOOTING in MAINE RIGHT NOW and shooter on the lose

[Independent thinker]

Stupid enough to identify, incarcerate, and hear his plans of shooting people and then LET HIM GO!! WTF happened? Anyone? (This is NOT a 'gunner' thread) How do we allow something like that?

We really are that stupid.

Most of the common sense gun control legislation wanted by democrats would not have prevented most mass shootings but Democrats always jump on that bandwagon anyway after every shooting.

If we just locked up KNOWN dangerous people, just like this one, many of our mass shootings would not have happened. In most cases, we already have enough on them to keep them locked up, BUT, we just let them right back out, like we did with this guy.

Now the left will be right back out with wanting gun control legislation again, instead of wondering why this guy was walking around loose in the first place.

 

[The Duke]

You dope....

• Maine’s Yellow Paper law works as follows: When relatives are concerned that a family member is suffering a mental health crisis and may be a threat to the safety and well-being of themselves or others, they may call law enforcement to seek an order temporarily restricting that person’s access to firearms. The law requires that the individual be taken into temporary police custody until such time as a medical evaluation can be completed. If a medical professional determines that the person is a threat to themselves or others, they may certify that the person should not have access to firearms. A court may then order that police are allowed to remove firearms from the person’s residence, and that the person is not to possess or maintain firearms for a temporary period of time. As of 2023 the law is having an impact but is an involved process.

Extreme Risk Protection Orders (Red Flag Laws) — Maine Gun Safety Coalition

In Maine 89% of gun deaths are suicides and our children are experiencing severe mental health crises. A legislative priority for us is to enact a true red flag law, not a yellow flag law. This would permit a judge, after a hearing, to enter an extreme risk protection order permitting law enforcemen

www.mainegunsafety.org

And his doctors also knew he was an actual threat...

Failure of government.

The 2nd Amendment just says arms. Not all arms are protected by that. BTW, AR-15's didn't exist in 1791 either.

All the arms at that time were. Including all cannons and mortars.

 

[The Duke]

How did government fail?

He should not have been released into the streets at all.

 

[bodecea]

And....another male shooting.

lol says the deflecting troll. I live in your head rent free.

Keep....deflecting...to...blacks.............. We see you.

 

[Captain Caveman]

How weak of a reply.

 

[RoshawnMarkwees]

Probably another pothead.

 

[bodecea]

This guy was on the FBI's watch list.

Was he? Link please.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

If we just locked up KNOWN dangerous people, just like this one, many of our mass shootings would not have happened. In most cases, we already have enough on them to keep them locked up, BUT, we just let them right back out, like we did with this guy.

So, you are saying we should lock people up based on their words and what they might do?

 

[bodecea]

Bodecea's and Ropey's Heroes.

And even more deflecting due to your jealousies over white MALES being held accountable for mass shootings they do.

 

[bodecea]

Keep trying to sell it.....he told psychiatric doctors he wanted to do a mass shooting.......they had him in a looney bun...

You fail as your god, "Governmemt," failed

"shall not be infringed", right?

 

[bodecea]

Yep......they need gun free zones because they need the innocent murder victims....

Today is a gun control holiday and they are celebrating

Were the bowling alley and bar "gun free zones"?

 

[bodecea]

Get back to us on your elevated morality while supporting the murders of over 60 million babies for the horrible bourgeois crime of Inconvenience. So far it's just been laughable lunatic hypocrisy on your part.

And even MORE deflecting from someone jealous that white MALES are being pointed out when they do mass shootings.

 

[Independent thinker]

So, you are saying we should lock people up based on their words and what they might do?

Ummmmmmmm, this guy was committed to a mental institution and had said that we wanted to be a mass shooter. He had already been committed and yet was running around loose. Many of these people have already committed acts which should keep them in jail but we don't do that and innocent people die.

I remember a case many years ago in Cleveland (I believe it was) where a guy had been in prison for murder and throughout his incarceration he said he was going to murder more when he got out. His sentence was up, never even checked up on the guy, and found out later that he had murdered several more people, just like he had promised.

 

[bodecea]

The democrats used to have laws on the book keeping blacks from voting and using the same businesses as white democrats...those were unConstitutional too

And when Democrats became woke and passed civil rights laws, all the racists abandoned that party and went GOP.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Ummmmmmmm, this guy was committed to a mental institution and had said that we wanted to be a mass shooter. He had already been committed and yet was running around loose. Many of these people have already committed acts which should keep them in jail but we don't do that and innocent people die.

He voluntarily checked himself in, he was not committed, it is a very big difference.

He did say he was having these thoughts, and then he said he was better.

Is it your position that he should have keep kept locked up for life because of his words?

 

[bodecea]

For God's sake, you moron. The shootings in Maine were not inner city or gang related.

MAGAts are upset that the MALE shooter wasn't black or Middle Eastern.

 

[bodecea]

Beatimg the democrats who started the Civil War and passing Civil Rights protections for blacks whole the democrats created the kkk and jim crow.

"passing civil rights protections for blacks".......................

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Yeah, you left out the rest of that.....


Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.
We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
--------






Opinion of the Court[edit]



In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court vacated the ruling of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court.

-

------





As to “dangerous,” the court below held that a weapon is “dangerous per se” if it is “ ‘designed and constructed to produce death or great bodily harm’ and ‘for the purpose of bodily assault or defense.’” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692 (quoting Commonwealth v. Appleby, 380 Mass. 296, 303, 402 N. E. 2d 1051, 1056 (1980)). That test may be appropriate for applying statutes criminalizing assault with a dangerous weapon. See ibid., 402 N. E. 2d, at 1056. But it cannot be used to identify arms that fall outside the Second Amendment.



First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).



Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly. Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581. Under the decision below, however, virtually every covered arm would qualify as “dangerous.” Were there any doubt on this point, one need only look at the court’s first example of “dangerous per se” weapons: “firearms.” 470 Mass., at 779, 26 N. E. 3d, at 692.

Nothing was left out.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

How weak of a reply.

A gun free zone is still a gun free zone. All those people who normally carry must be seething right now. They could easily have stopped the carnage but enemy democrat gun grabbers stopped them.

 

[bodecea]

Yeah....so it was a rare event vs. the 10s of thousands of murders in democrat party cities.

Because gun rights "shall not be infringed", right?