Judge Rules No Cameras for James Holmes Next Court Appearance

By Jeralyn, Section Colorado News
Posted on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 10:45:11 PM EST
Tags: aurora shootings, james holmes, gun control (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Arapahoe County District Court Judge William Sylvester entered this order today denying the media's request for expanded media coverage (audio, video and still photography) for Aurora shooting suspect James Holme's advisement on Monday. The hearing is open to the public and media who want to attend in person. The hearing is to advise Holmes of the charges the DA has filed against him.

A federal law enforcement source has leaked details to the media of the specifics of the explosive devices inside Holmes' apartment: [More...]

The floor and carpet were soaked with gasoline, meant to catch fire. The blaze would be started by different containers, each with different chemicals that when knocked over by a trip wire and mixed together, would trigger fire.

The floor was also littered with mortars about the size of a cannon ball, according to the source....The source says the theory is the suspect wanted the gas to catch fire, in turn causing the bullets within to explode, scattering shrapnel around the apartment like grenades.

Also described by the source:

On top of the refrigerator was what’s described as a fireworks igniter box with numerous wires coming out of it. It was similar to one that would be used to set off fireworks in professional shows.

According to the source, all of the items can be purchased lawfully on the internet.

Also, Tactical Gear weighs in, affirming its belief in the Second Amendment, after some misinterpreted its earlier statement on the shootings. Some will disagree with this statement,

I personally believe that if some members of the audience had concealed carry weapons at hand that night perhaps less blood would have been shed.

But I don't see how anyone can disagree with this one:

No amount of gun control is going to prevent a sociopath hell-bent on terrorism from hurting a large group of people.

As I've opined before, if Holmes couldn't get guns and ammo, he would probably have relied on explosives and caused a lot more damage.

Colorado does not have lax gun laws. Nor does the federal government. As our current Governor says:

“I’m not sure there is any way in a free society to be able” to stop a deranged individual from assembling a deadly arsenal, Governor John Hickenlooper, a Democrat, said today on CNN’s “State of the Union.” If there were no assault weapons available and no this or no that, this guy is going find something, right?” he said. “He’s going to know how to create a bomb.”

While some Democrats are predictably trying to politicize the tragedy by calling for gun control measures they've supported all along, so far President Obama, to his credit, is not in agreement. Of course that could change at any moment, but I predict, when he does address it, he'll take the usual middle ground: enforce existing laws and close some loopholes. No one should expect him to push for a reinstatement of the assault weapons ban.

Asked by a reporter aboard Air Force Once as the president flew to Aurora, Colo., where the theater shooting occurred last week whether the gun lobby precludes any sort of policy response in terms of access to firearms, White House spokesman Jay Carney said the president "believes we need to take steps that protect Second Amendment rights of the American people but that ensure that we are not allowing weapons into the hands of individuals who should not, by existing law, obtain those weapons."

"But the president's view is that we can take steps to keep guns out of the hands of people who should not have them under existing law. And that's his focus right now," Carney said.

No one should expect Congress to do much either.

Fear of new gun control laws does have one predictable result: A rush to buy guns.

Update: Another sign court orders mean little to law enforcement when it comes to restrictions on extra-judicial comments:

The law enforcement sources spoke on condition of anonymity after a judge placed a gag order on virtually everyone in the criminal justice system with knowledge of the investigation and the case against Holmes.

The Court's order restricting extra-judicial comments is here.

A. From the date of this Order until the completion of the trial or disposition without trial, law enforcement officers shall not release or authorize the release of any extrajudicial statement for dissemination by means of public communication, if the law enforcement officers know or reasonably should know that it will have a substantial likelihood of prejudicing a criminal proceeding. Law enforcement officers and agencies are subject to the same restrictions as set forth above for attorneys in Section I regarding extrajudicial statements
....The Court Orders the District Attorney’s Office to comply with Colorado Rule of Professional Conduct 3.8(f) in exercising reasonable care to ensure all applicable law enforcement agencies including Aurora Police Department, Arapahoe County Sheriff’s Department, Colorado Bureau of Investigation, Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives all receive prompt notice of this Order and comply with this Order accordingly.

< Tuesday Morning Open Thread | Wednesday Morning Open Thread >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Judge Rules No Cameras for James Holmes Next Court Appearance | 62 comments (62 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

I'll vote for him, but not because of (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by oculus on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 10:49:51 PM EST

this:

so far President Obama, to his credit, is not in agreement.

Totally agree with you (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 11:58:10 PM EST

These shootings aren't practical, they're emotional. Whatever the object is, it isn't to kill XX people by whatever means is easiest. What goes on in the mind of someone like this is pretty much unknowable to the rest of us, but I see no reason why your analysis of it isn't pretty close to the mark.

: Which is to say (none / 0) (#5)
by gyrfalcon on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 11:59:45 PM EST

it isn't in the same category as somebody who wants their business partner, for whom a knife is as effective and just somewhat more inconvenient than a gun.

: the comment you are replying to (none / 0) (#7)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 02:53:44 AM EST

was deleted for language.

Americans fear of gun control laws... (5.00 / 3) (#10)
by Dadler on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:55:08 AM EST

...is as irrational as any of our irrationalities. I wish someone would at least admit that. No one in this country has trouble getting any gun they want, never really has. So when Americans rush to buy guys, they are acting on the same ignorance that has a huge percentage of them unable to find their own country on a blank map. I have no desire to take anyone's guns, I just wish the gun-loving folks (especially those who don't hunt regularly for food) would get a little more honest about their own bullsh*t. I live without a gun, and have had them pointed at me in anger more than once. I have felt a cop's shotgun on my back as I was face down in a parking lot for no reason. I have had hardcore L.A. gang members stick a 9mm in my face just for fun. All any of these experiences has done is make me want a gun less. So I'm just a wacky unarmed nutjob, that's me. But if you want your gun, go have it and be happy. Just don't claim to be the oppressed ones. Keep that steaming pile at home.

If everyone who had a gun was (5.00 / 5) (#11)
by Anne on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 09:26:12 AM EST

informed that, effective immediately, their gun ownership made them members of the US militia, required them to submit to training, and included an annual service requirement that could include being attached to the National Guard and being on call to assist in disaster areas, I suspect there would suddenly be a lot fewer gun owners.

Some would be thrilled, no doubt, but if I have to keep hearing about 2nd Amendment rights, I'd like a lot of the absolutists to put their absolutism to the test.


: I'd be fine with this as long as you can't be (none / 0) (#18)
by redwolf on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 02:23:12 PM EST

fired for being called up, the training is free, and people's age and health is taken into account. A lot of gun owners are older people who can't fight back physically when attacked and wouldn't be suited for disaster recovery work.

Maybe their rush to buy guns (none / 0) (#12)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 09:54:08 AM EST

is out of a desire to prevent further incidents. According to some posters here, if everyone was armed there would not be so many of these incidents.

I don't really believe that - I agree with you that they have been hoodwinked by arms dealers and their mouthpiece the NRA into thinking they need to stock up.


Just my 2 cents on the gun control issue (5.00 / 5) (#14)
by Makarov on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 11:56:39 AM EST

I'm a long time gun owner, with several handguns and 2 weapons that were banned under the old Assault Weapons Ban. I also support a nationwide ban on handguns and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns.

We have many laws in our country. DUI is against the law. Despite tougher penalties and enforcement, beginning in the 1980s, we still have DUIs. Yet, no one would use this as an argument to make DUI legal.

When people say, "a shooter would have used a knife, bomb, or sledge hammer to kill instead of a gun," they are making a straw man argument. The truth is, I don't know exactly how many murders and other shootings would be prevented by banning handguns and semi-automatic weapons. I do know that an overwhelming majority of gun deaths involve handguns, and an overwhelming majority of mass shootings (at a single location, as opposed to spree shootings which involve multiple locations) involve semi-automatic weapons.

I have no idea if the murderer in Aurora would have killed fewer or more people without access to semi-autos. That isn't the point. The point is access to semi-autos and handguns make mass murders a lot easier, without a corresponding social benefit.

You don't need a semi-automatic weapon to hunt. In my home state of Pennsylvania, only semi-auto shotguns may be used in hunting and then only for small game (rabbit, fox, etc) and water fowl (duck, geese, etc). You can't use a semi-auto rifle to hunt. Somehow, most PA hunters have no problem getting their deer limit every year.

Aside from carrying by police officers, I see no social benefit to handguns at all. There is absolutely no need for individuals to carry large amounts of cash today, necessitating a personal firearm. Armored car security can, and should, carry shotguns. For home protection, a shotgun is also the weapon of choice. A 9mm handgun round, far from the most powerful, can easily penetrate an exterior wall and enter a close neighbor's home. 00 Buckshot pellets (not even legal in all states), are significantly less likely to penetrate 2 layers of drywall and kill someone like a family neighbor in the next room. If you want to feel safe at home with a gun, buy a shotgun.

An outright ban on semi-autos and handguns wouldn't have huge, immediate impact. Guns would be retained by owners, probably still passed down within families, and some would find their way to be used in crimes. My best guess is it would take 5 to 10 years before we'd see significant reduction in gun deaths. We might even see an accompanying increase in bombings, especially as they relate to mass murders.

Is such a ban politically possible? Not right now, certainly. That doesn't mean it isn't still a policy that makes a lot of sense. Other countries that ban such weapons have significantly fewer gun deaths.

Thank you for your thoughts (none / 0) (#16)
by sj on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 12:33:54 PM EST

It occurs to me, however, that if your first sentence was "I don't own a gun" instead of what it is, that you would have had the local "militia" all over your virtual a$$. :) It might still happen even though you're a gun owner. I'm curious to see.


: I'm thinking (none / 0) (#51)
by Rojas on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:31:22 PM EST

The guy must have one hell of a pad.
A load of 00buckshot would go through every partition in my house and the same is true for damn near every house I've been in.
They say size matters...

Well, I disagree. (none / 0) (#19)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 02:30:14 PM EST

I don't think you'd ever see a significant reduction in gun deaths in the US by banning handguns and semi-auto rifles and shotguns.

I could go through your comment, point by point, but what would be the use?


Why must lives saved be "significant"? (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by Towanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 03:42:22 PM EST

I don't get that argument, and I see it often: The why-try-anyway argument.

How many lives must we save to be sufficiently significant to make such a law worthwhile?

Why can't we have some more gun control to at least save some more lives? As we did when assault weapons were outlawed until 2004. . . .

And yet, the Republic still stood.

As did more survivors of attacks by crazies with other weapons.


Huh? Are you in possession of knowledge (none / 0) (#31)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 05:27:49 PM EST

of lives saved by the AWB that the rest of us are not?


Why, no, not at all -- as the info is out there (5.00 / 1) (#38)
by Towanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:54:42 PM EST

for anyone, if google is their friend.

For starters, from Wikipedia:

The Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence examined the impact of the Assault Weapons Ban in its 2004 report, On Target: The Impact of the 1994 Federal Assault Weapon Act. Examining 1.4 million guns involved in crime, it determined that since the law was enacted, "assault weapons have made up only 1.61% of the guns ATF has traced to crime -- a drop of 66% from the pre-ban rate."


See also this (5.00 / 1) (#42)
by Towanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:09:13 PM EST

from the Brady Fndn:

he NRA commonly cites the 2% figure . . . but it is very misleading. In fact, that is 2% of all crimes. If you only consider GUN crimes, assault weapons were used by 6.8% of gun criminals prosecuted by state officials, and 9.3% of federally prosecuted gun criminals. Since assault weapons make up only about 1% of the guns in circulation, we consider those numbers to be significant. In addition, the Department of Justice just released a study that noted "assault weapons account for a larger share of guns used in mass murders and murders of police, crimes for which weapons with greater firepower would seem particularly useful. . . ." Indeed, a very recent Justice Department study stated: "The ban prevent[ed] a few thousand crimes with assault weapons annually."

And more in this WaPo Q&A.


: Thanks, so no evidence that fewer (none / 0) (#44)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:32:12 PM EST

homicides occurred due to the AWB.

And, again I ask, (5.00 / 1) (#39)
by Towanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:56:44 PM EST

lest we get distracted from my point about your point: How many lives meet your definition of "significant"?


"My" definition? I used the terminology (none / 0) (#45)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:33:16 PM EST

of the poster to whom I was responding, my definition is whatever his definition is.


That can't be so, since (none / 0) (#52)
by Towanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:47:06 PM EST

that commenter used the term re other countries, and you write of a significant reduction in the U.S. So, what is your definition of a sufficiently significant reduction in deaths in the U.S. that would make it worth it?

Worth it, that is, to put words on paper and pass it as a bill.

If I could save even one life by doing so, hand me the pen.

And you?


: My best guess is it would take 5 to 10 years (2.00 / 1) (#66)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 01:42:25 AM EST

My best guess is it would take 5 to 10 years before we'd see significant reduction in gun deaths.
is the "significant" terminology used by the commenter that I was responding to. You see, it is so, despite your protestations to the contrary...

I will point to some statistics (5.00 / 2) (#35)
by Makarov on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:37:48 PM EST

In 2005, 75% of the 10,100 homicides committed using firearms in the United States were committed using handguns, compared to 4% with rifles, 5% with shotguns, and the rest with a type of firearm not specified.

That's taken from this data table which clearly indicates that handguns cause the vast majority of gun deaths. While certainly a portion of those are planned well in advance, some are simply impulse crimes. The easily concealable nature of handguns is what poses their greatest threat to society.

Sure, some murderers would just use a shotgun or rifle instead, or perhaps even make their own handheld zip guns. Once handguns are not easily obtainable, however, their share of gun deaths would drop dramatically and likely reduce the total number of gun deaths as well.

In the UK, where handguns are virtually illegal outside the police, the homicide by gun rate is about 2% of that in the USA.


Perhaps you can clarify your proposal (none / 0) (#41)
by Rojas on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:04:51 PM EST

Do you mean ban as in sale or manufacture as of date XX/XX/XX?
Or do you mean turn 'em in or face arrest/confiscation as of date XX/XX/XX?


Turn them in (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Makarov on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:48:58 PM EST

You'd have to turn them all in for it to work, I believe. Even then, you'd have people who won't (both criminals and the paranoid), which is why I don't think you'd see significant impacts for 5 to 10 years, perhaps even longer. It will take time to remove guns from circulation.

One thing I would write into the amendment (the Supremes have ruled handguns cannot be banned by acts of states or Congress) is guaranteed amnesty for anyone who turns in an illegal gun, regardless how long the law has been in effect. The goal should be to remove these weapons from private ownership, and that should never be secondary to punishing those who flaunt the law.

I'm also inclined to severely restrict possession of handguns by off duty law enforcement, except when really necessary or otherwise impractical.


: Absolutely, it will take that and more (none / 0) (#58)
by Rojas on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 09:13:57 PM EST

Than you've proposed to get to European levels.

Ya, like statistics are on your side. (none / 0) (#70)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:01:33 AM EST

The year after the Supreme Court struck down the District of Columbia's handgun ban and gun-lock requirements, the capital city's murder rate plummeted 25 percent.
The forthcoming third edition of "More Guns, Less Crime" shows that in the 17 years after a ban on new handguns went into effect, there were only two years when Chicago's murder rate was as low as it was in 1982.
The Windy City's murder rate fell relative to America's other 50 largest cities before the ban and rose relative to them afterward.
For example, Chicago's murder rate went from equaling the average for those other U.S. cities in 1982 to exceeding their average murder rate by 32 percent in 1992.
There is no year after the ban that Chicago's murder rate fared as well relative to other cities as it did in 1982.

[Wasington Times]


: I do note, though, that you quickly (none / 0) (#71)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:03:52 AM EST

backed off your AWB claim. Pretty sure we all know why.

I completely disagree (none / 0) (#55)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:51:35 PM EST

And I cited the statistics here.

But, since a ban on handguns is not going to happen, I'm not going to spend more tiem repeating why we don't need one.

Guns didn't cause this shooter's rage or mental illness, whichever it was. Guns (and explosives) were the means by which he expressed them.

Giving up one's rights doesn't lead to making us safer, it only leads to us being less free. The Patriot Act is a good example. Gun rights are another. Give the government more power, and it never gives it back. Given them an inch and they take a mile.


Gun homicides may not be a problem in CO (none / 0) (#63)
by Makarov on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:08:30 PM EST

but they are elsewhere, especially in our major cities. I lived near Philadelphia for a decade. The CDC compiled gun deaths for residents of major metropolitan areas for the years 2006-2007.

In Philadelphia alone, there were 644 gun homicides, a rate of 20 per 100,000. Chicago had 700, 11.6 per 100K. Washington DC had 249 or 19 per 100K. Oakland had 190 or 26.6 per 100K.

To put that death rate in perspective, the ranges of lung cancer death rates in the US by state are 18 to 75 per 100K. The ranges of breast cancer deaths by state are 16.7 to 26.5. The motor vehicle death rate in Philadelphia is 7.1 per 100K, vs 20 for gun deaths.

More shocking are the numbers for youths aged 10-19 killed by firearms. Over 47 per 100K in Newark, NJ. 20 per 100K in Chicago. Over 30 in Philadelphia. 42 in Miami. The rate is over 50 per 100K in St. Louis, MO.

In the city of Denver, the gun death run for youth is 17.7 per 100K. In New Orleans, it's over 106. That's right. 1 gun death for every 1000 youths over a 2 year period.

Everything may be great in Colorado. Kudos. However, using statistical data that shows gun deaths are low in one particular state, doesn't mean things are great elsewhere.


: However, the statistical data regarding (none / 0) (#72)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 02:08:27 AM EST

handgun bans and homicides does not support your contentions at all. It does not surprise me that you ignore it. Good luck with your fishing!

But government gave back the AWB (none / 0) (#64)
by Towanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:16:24 PM EST

aka Assault Weapon Ban. Were it still in force, we would be having a discussion about other weapons, yes, but perhaps a different death toll, too.


What other weapons? (1.00 / 1) (#65)
by Rojas on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:34:22 PM EST

An AWB complient AR15 with an actual functioning magazine?
Or perhaps a couple of slide action .22 rimfires from 1908 that would have been more effective in the enviornment and less likely to malfunction than the combination this guy chose?


: Perhaps. But that's not (5.00 / 1) (#76)
by Towanda on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:46:27 AM EST

my point.

Maybe. (5.00 / 3) (#29)
by lentinel on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 04:43:53 PM EST

But the fact is, Holmes could get guns and ammo. Easily.
And he did. And he used them.

This is just me, I'm sure, but I would like these items to be unavailable to the general public.

To be sure, any idiot with a jar of germs could destroy a city.

But that doesn't mean that I would like to have assault weapons available by mail order either.

Not going to argue... (4.78 / 9) (#2)
by magster on Tue Jul 24, 2012 at 11:07:49 PM EST

... just going to say that I think letting the Brady ban lapse was bad for the country, and I'm for stronger gun control.

Do you know how many people are murdered (5.00 / 1) (#6)
by redwolf on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 12:41:05 AM EST

with assault weapons every year? Google the FBI numbers on it(Rifles = assault weapons). More people are murdered by unarmed people than by assault weapons each year.

Given that rifles are so rarely used by murder why does every gun control advocate hate them so much?


As you have pointed out... (5.00 / 2) (#9)
by heidelja on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 05:30:27 AM EST

...they are unnecessary! (LOL)


If anyone is murdered (5.00 / 1) (#40)
by Towanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:01:00 PM EST

why not hate the weapons? And try to limit at least some of the weapons? The battle to do so about handguns would take more than my lifetime, but I don't see why that is a reason to not battle for what we may be able to accomplish. That is the mantra for so much else here at this blog, after all. . . .

Or perhaps Jeralyn ought to just give up fighting for even incremental progress in protecting rights of the accused? And against the death penalty?

And BTD ought to stop arguing for fighting the good fight to move our Blue Dog Dems at least a little leftward?

Etc.


Towanda, have you read the (5.00 / 2) (#43)
by Anne on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:20:11 PM EST

Jason Alexander (George Costanza) rant on this whole situation? He had tweeted that he didn't understand people who support public ownership of the kind of weapon that was used in the Aurora shooting; needless to say, he got some pushback, and he wrote a long response.

Here are a few excerpts:

Then I get messages from seemingly decent and intelligent people who offer things like: @BrooklynAvi: Guns should only be banned if violent crimes committed with tomatoes means we should ban tomatoes. OR @nysportsguys1: Drunk drivers kill, should we ban fast cars?
I'm hoping that right after they hit send, they take a deep breath and realize that those arguments are completely specious. I believe tomatoes and cars have purposes other than killing. What purpose does an AR-15 serve to a sportsman that a more standard hunting rifle does not serve? Let's see - does it fire more rounds without reload? Yes. Does it fire farther and more accurately? Yes. Does it accommodate a more lethal payload? Yes. So basically, the purpose of an assault style weapon is to kill more stuff, more fully, faster and from further away. To achieve maximum lethality. Hardly the primary purpose of tomatoes and sports cars.
[snip]
Then there are the folks who write that if everyone in Colorado had a weapon, this maniac would have been stopped. Perhaps. But I do believe that the element of surprise, tear gas and head to toe kevlar protection might have given him a distinct edge. Not only that, but a crowd of people firing away in a chaotic arena without training or planning - I tend to think that scenario could produce even more victims.
Lastly, there are these well-intended realists that say that people like this evil animal would get these weapons even if we regulated them. And they may be right. But he wouldn't have strolled down the road to Kmart and picked them up. Regulated, he would have had to go to illegal sources - sources that could possibly be traced, watched, overseen. Or he would have to go deeper online and those transactions could be monitored. "Hm, some guy in Aurora is buying guns, tons of ammo and kevlar - plus bomb-making ingredients and tear gas. Maybe we should check that out."
But that won't happen as long as all that activity is legal and unrestricted.

The whole thing is worth a read.


Yes -- (5.00 / 2) (#46)
by Towanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 07:33:56 PM EST

and I agree, all of it is a contribution to this national discussion. Wait, are we still having national discussions, as we were told we would do?


A great contribution (none / 0) (#49)
by Rojas on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:17:16 PM EST

incorrect on every technical point, but a great contribution nonetheless...


Well, admittedly, I'm not (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by Towanda on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:21:07 PM EST

technically an expert on tomatoes or sports cars. . . .


Or the 5.65x45mm cartridge (none / 0) (#56)
by Rojas on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:52:09 PM EST

for the AR15. Widely considered a varmit/target round by most hunters wich is illegal for use on game animals in many states, including Colorado by the way.
Perhaps for your next act you and Jason Alexander can share your thoughts on the variable valve timing as implemented by Totota on the Lexus V6.


I just love how (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by sj on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 09:40:31 AM EST

you can take what may be a small technical error and use that to conclude that everything is invalid. You better hope you don't make a small technical error on something or every single comment you have made here becomes suspect.


: Small technical error.... (2.00 / 1) (#80)
by Rojas on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:46:29 AM EST

Or an emotion filled spew lacking any basis in fact. That's not a position to create effective legislation or even have a meaningful debate on a blog for that matter.
The design intent for the M16 was to create a light rifle with low recoil and compact ammunition with enough power to disable enemy combatents. Compact ammunition is a logistics issue. Less powder, brass, lead, warehouse space, transportation cost and individual soldiers can carry more.
Note disable is a key word. It was a deviation from historical US military ammunition which had standardized on the 30-06 and later the .308 which is still in service. The 5.56 has less than 1/2 of the muzzle energy of the latter.
Those two cartridges are widely used for hunting and have terminal ballistics that make them suitable for such use.

That whole essay (none / 0) (#79)
by sj on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 10:02:01 AM EST

from Jason Alexander was terrific. I've never been a huge fan of his so I might never have read it if not for the heads up. Thanks for the link.


It's important to remember what the AWB did (none / 0) (#25)
by Makarov on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 02:55:49 PM EST

The Assault Weapons Ban didn't ban assault weapons. It banned importation and newly manufactured assault weapons. Same for "high capacity" magazines.

You could still buy an AR-15, in some cases 'new' because it was manufactured and stockpiled pre-ban, in the late 90s. You could also buy a used one. You could also buy a used high capacity magazine.

There was actually quite a business by manufacturers who literally gave police departments new magazines for free in exchange for their old, pre-ban ones which they then resold to civilians, legally under the AWB. This was common for AR-15 style mags and, even more so, for 9mm.

The biggest thing the AWB did was diminish sales of large frame 9mm handguns, since they were most popular for 15 round magazines. Instead, the .40 caliber S&W cartridge grew in popularity as they were standard with permissible 10 round mags.

The AWB certainly reduced availability and sales of certain weapons. It did not, and was not designed to, eliminate them. I don't believe it would have deterred the alleged Aurora shooter since reports indicate he spent thousands of dollars to carry out his attack.


Now really.... (none / 0) (#8)
by heidelja on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 05:28:19 AM EST

...who seriously thinks that anonymous agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives view little ole Arapahoe County District Court Judge William Sylvester as havibg jurisdiction over them if receiving "prompt notice of this Order and [to] comply with this Order accordingly"?

: Yes, they care. (none / 0) (#88)
by Jeralyn on Fri Jul 27, 2012 at 02:32:36 AM EST

First, the prosecutors care. Second, the FBI and ATF also care. See below.
Colorado Rule 3.8, Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor:
bq. (f) except for statements that are necessary to inform the public of the nature and extent of the prosecutor's action and that serve a legitimate law enforcement purpose, refrain from making extrajudicial comments that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused and exercise reasonable care to prevent investigators, law enforcement personnel, employees or other persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor in a criminal case from making an extrajudicial statement that the prosecutor would be prohibited from making under Rule 3.6 or this Rule.
[6] Like other lawyers, prosecutors are subject to Rules 5.1 and 5.3, which relate to responsibilities regarding lawyers and nonlawyers who work for or are associated with the lawyer's office. Paragraph (f) reminds the prosecutor of the importance of these obligations in connection with the unique dangers of improper extrajudicial statements in a criminal case. In addition, paragraph (f) requires a prosecutor to exercise reasonable care to prevent persons assisting or associated with the prosecutor from making improper extrajudicial statements, even when such persons are not under the direct supervision of the prosecutor. Ordinarily, the reasonable care standard will be satisfied if the prosecutor issues the appropriate cautions to law- enforcement personnel and other relevant individuals.
See the ABA Standards on Prosecution Function.
Here are the states that adopted the ABA Model Rules. Colorado adopted them in 1992.
As for the FBI and ATF, they are personnel within the Department of Justice and also subject to restrictions.

I think getting functioning explosive devices (none / 0) (#13)
by ruffian on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 10:14:57 AM EST

into a public place and detonating them as planned is harder than it sounds. Someone who was apparently good with bombs at home chose to use guns for the part of the operation where logistics made guns easier. It is impossible to say he would have killed more people with bombs.

Quit Note on Quote (none / 0) (#15)
by ScottW714 on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 12:12:00 PM EST

The problem with that quote is the assumption that the a person carrying a weapon would respond at all. Statistically speaking, several people at that theater had a concealed carry weapon.

It was a gun-free zone. (none / 0) (#17)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 01:45:09 PM EST

I am sure most people who were legally carrying looked at the sign and thought:

Might as well leave my gun in the car, that sign will stop anything untoward from happening.


Most CCW people obey stuff like that... (none / 0) (#21)
by redwolf on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 02:36:47 PM EST

because they'll loose their CCW otherwise. There was a famous case in Texas where a women did that when going into a gun free restaurant.
A crazed gunman ran his truck into the restaurant and started shooting a bunch of people including her father while her gun stood useless in the car. Her father died right in front of her because of the gun free zone.


: Of course (4.25 / 4) (#23)
by jbindc on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 02:40:48 PM EST

It's pure speculation on both your part, and the woman you cite in the Luby's massacre, that a) she would have been able to get to her gun, b) she would have been able to fire her gun and not miss, and c) that the shooter wouldn't have seen her gun and taken her out first, thereby giving him access to another weapon.
Coulda woulda shoulda.

The problem with your quote (none / 0) (#20)
by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 02:32:46 PM EST

Statistically speaking, several people at that theater had a concealed carry weapon.

is that you are not aware that the theater chain prohibits CCW's.


Provide a link to the military experts, please. (none / 0) (#34)
by Wile ECoyote on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:29:14 PM EST

Surrendering on a battlefield is a little different than attempting to surrender to a someone shooting up a theater, don't you think?

Yes, I do think (5.00 / 1) (#36)
by NYShooter on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 06:43:34 PM EST

that, when giving an opinion, based on personal and studied observation, that there will be those who will find a fragment to dispute. I have spent a lot of time studying this case, and hours reading opinions regarding it. If really interested, you can do the same.

And, yes, "Surrendering on a battlefield is a little different than attempting to surrender to a someone shooting up a theater, don't you think?"

I do think.


i deleted your comment (none / 0) (#57)
by Jeralyn on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 08:53:46 PM EST

because you didn't state it as an opinion but as fact and provided not sourcing or support for it.


That's fine (none / 0) (#61)
by NYShooter on Wed Jul 25, 2012 at 09:57:17 PM EST

But, just so I'm clear on this, if my last sentence was, "this is my opinion only," it would have stayed?


yes, really it should have been your (none / 0) (#73)
by Jeralyn on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 03:22:17 AM EST

first sentence. Instead you led with "virtually everyone and the military agrees...." when I don't believe that since I see the opposite. Then you gave no support or studies to show you were right. Without facts to back you up, that position, which is opposite to mine, is not worthy of reprinting here. It's unsupported.


: Hey, thank you (none / 0) (#74)
by NYShooter on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 03:44:18 AM EST

I think I'm getting it now. Although I don't agree that "it's not supported," my mistake was in not giving acceptable evidence.
Believe it, or not, I'm not an anti gun guy. I own quite an arsenal myself, and I was a member of the NRA before you were born. But, every organization needs intelligent rules if it's going to be successful. And, when I see the leaders of an organization not acting in the best interests of its members I'd like to speak out about it.
But, now that I have a better handle on your rules, I'll try to speak out, and remain within those rules.
And, thanks again. I really mean it.

Erroneous datums as basis for (none / 0) (#83)
by Rojas on Thu Jul 26, 2012 at 11:47:36 AM EST

legislation brought us oxygenated fuels that spewed more pollution and poisoned the ground water,
Desperate sentences for crack cocaine possession that imprisoned a generation of young black men,
Mandatory minimums that turned the US into incarceration nation.