If the guy knew he was a drug addict, then yes, he’s an idiot. I doubt he knew.
He originally got a deal from the prosecutor that would only be given to someone with power and wealth. It was political pressure that highlighted the deal, hence the pressure to look into the details of what was/is considered an overly soft plea deal. Eventually the judge rejected the deal for some legal reason that I am not bothered to look into. The only reason it’s news is that it’s someone well known. I would be shocked if there was jail time as it’s his first offence and the firearm was not linked to another crime. There will be some kind of punishment, not sure what a justifiable punishment would be (fine, ankle monitor, house arrest, ?).
Republicans will always have interest in gun control (less restrictive), even saying that, I haven’t heard of a group of people that want “addicted to drugs” removed from gun forms.
I find the check marks on a firearm form a strange thing as it’s only relevant after the fact and doesn’t help keep guns away from people that shouldn’t have them. e.g. this case where it’s linked to another crime. I can’t make up my mind which one would be worse, a gun owner that is addicted to drugs or a gun owner that is not taking their medication. Obviously neither should have guns.
It’s not that much of a federal election issue (gun control).
" 2022 U.S. Supreme Court decision known as New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. Bruen, which said gun laws must have strong historical roots — a finding that led to challenges of many of the nation’s gun laws.
“Our history and tradition may support some limits on an intoxicated person’s right to carry a weapon, but it does not justify disarming a sober citizen based exclusively on his past drug usage.”
Why would it surprise anyone when we already know that the gun nuts and their political lobbyists already think it’s perfectly fine for violent spousal abusers and people on terrorist watch lists to own guns (and have dragged the courts along with them) , so why not drug addicts ?
There is a lot of common ground amongst the public on stronger background checks. Many Second Amendment types who definitely want their guns still recognize that background checks need to be stronger. But the gun lobby influencing policy is way more extreme than the public.
I will never understand the fascination with guns here. I was home for vacation in Bombay a few years ago and our neighbor came over. Super sharp lady:
Neighbor: what is it with Americans and guns?
Me: I don’t know (but not in @cynicaloldgit’s surly tone just to be clear)
Neighbor: how do they explain it?
Me: mental illness
Neighbor: you don’t think we have mentally ill people here?
If the curry has a coconut taste… Might need to change the famous scouse phrase now that is often mimicked by all - As if it wasn’t already difficult enough :0)
They could if 6 of the Justices weren’t taking money from the NRA.
Anyway interesting decision from the SC to put the gun debate, where most Americans support greater control, back on the agenda right before an election.
