this post was submitted on 16 Jan 2025
121 points (98.4% liked)

Seattle

1600 readers
24 users here now

A community for news and discussion of Seattle, Washington and the surrounding area

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 8 points 2 days ago

public buildings, parks, fairgrounds and playgrounds where “children are likely to be present."

That all seems like a pretty good idea to me.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 23 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'd like to take, "Laws that will be overturned by Bruen v. NYSPRA precedent" for $100, Alex.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (3 children)

SCOTUS would need to create new precedent, this isn't a carry ban it's a location ban.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

It's a pretty short series of hops from Heller v. D.C. to McDonald v. Chicago to Bruen v. NYSPRA to this. If you're banning carrying at almost every place, public and private, then it's a de facto ban.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 0 points 2 days ago (1 children)

If you want to argue it's a de facto ban then go right ahead. But the reality is most of the places we go are privately owned these days.

[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

I think that yes, banning firearms in certain privately owned spaces should be forbidden by law. We shouldn't be, IMO, be broadly outsourcing permissions to exercise rights to corporations, and allowing private companies to determine whether or not we have rights. We've already ceded too much power to corporations and private interests, and it's time to take it back.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)
[–] HelixDab2@lemm.ee 1 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

I don't believe that corporations should have rights in the first place.

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 1 points 5 hours ago

I'm less worried about corporate rights and more worried about employee rights.

Its true scotus doesn't want guns in their presence.

[–] stormeuh@lemmy.world 4 points 2 days ago

But current SCOTUS will gladly use this as an excuse to establish that precedent.

[–] jaggedrobotpubes@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Such an obviously good idea.

So good of an idea that the stupid 30% of this country will hate it.

[–] dual_sport_dork@lemmy.world 17 points 3 days ago (6 children)

If approved, the state would prohibit possession at public buildings, parks, fairgrounds and playgrounds where “children are likely to be present.”

State law already prohibits possession in restricted access areas of airports, jails, law enforcement and public health facilities, courtrooms and other related areas, bars and places off-limits to minors.

Something's not adding up, here.

[–] Bacano@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago

Authoritarianism goes brrr

[–] phoenixz@lemmy.ca 3 points 3 days ago

Republicans: fetuses are babies! The word "gay" corrupts a child! Won't anyone think of the Children??

Also republicans: were not paying for kids lunches, fuck those kids. Kids have school shooting problems? Then get a bullet proof blanket you whiny bitch! Guns are not allowed where we adults have fun, or work, but around kids? All fine, shut your whining!

Such a nice group of caring people

[–] kinther@lemmy.world 7 points 3 days ago (1 children)

What? Bars, taverns, wineries, etc are all 21+.

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 11 points 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days ago) (1 children)

Everybody is so caught up on the idea that banning guns at schools is ineffective. You see, clearly, you have to allow the guns, but ban the kids.

[–] teawrecks@sopuli.xyz 3 points 3 days ago (1 children)

Isn't that Trump's plan with the Dept of Education?

[–] JasonDJ@lemmy.zip 3 points 2 days ago

No, his plan there is to just ban the schools. Galaxy-brain, right there.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›