[geeks] Followup on weapons seizure

[Brian]

Thinking of Thomas Paine's Common Sense as I read the below post about the
will of gov't.

    Bri

----- Original Message -----
From: "Kurt Huhn" <kurt at k-huhn.com>
To: "The Geeks List" <geeks at sunhelp.org>
Sent: Saturday, January 18, 2003 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: [geeks] Followup on weapons seizure


> "Chris Byrne" <chris at chrisbyrne.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > But I do believe in the licensing of individuals, not weapons. Not
> > because I think it's the 100% correct thing to do, but because I
> > believe we will never see a fully unregulated environment under our
> > current governement, and that if we must have regulation we should at
> > least have regulations that are effective and make sense.
>
> I refuse to believe that bending to the will of the government is an
> amenable solution to repression.  What if the same were to be said of
> computers?  Computers *are* dangerous in the wrong hands, and the days
> isn't that far off (see DMCA, RIIA, and any other methods used to
> control how we use *our* computers) where this will be reality.  Then
> where will we be?
>
> The erosion is slow, but steady...
>
> >
> > It's really simple. I believe that there should be a minimum standard
> > of competency and safety that must be achieved and maintained to
> > operate a firearm or other explosive projectile weapon. This standard
> > should be arrived at by the governments of the several states, the
> > federal government, the armed forces, police and other law enforcement
> > agencies, and weapon owners and users together. I believe the safety
> > and competency standards used and taught by the NRA are more than
> > adequate for the task, and in fact these standards are used by at
> > least 10 of the states that issue permits largely unmodified.
> >
>
> This is only if you believe that firearm ownership is a priviledge and
> not a right.  I believe it is a right.  Your opinion may vary, it's a
> good thing we're allowed to disagree :)
>
>
> > All citizens or permanent resident aliens should be eligible for this
> > license unless they have been convicted of a violent, alcohol, or drug
> > related felony or involuntarily commited to a mental institution.
> > These are already public records considered when applying for a permit
> > so they do not extend the invasion of privacy any further.
> >
>
> I fail to see how someone convicted a felony 20 years ago, released, and
> has become a contributing member of society, should be barred from
> weapons ownership.  This is a double standard.  A pre-LART as it were.
> I disagree wholeheartedly with this.
>
> > Any illegal use of any weapon by a permit holder would be an immediate
> > cause for revocation. Any charge of felonius violent crime, DWI/DUI,
> > or posession of a controlled substance would result in its suspension
> > pending the outcome of the charges.
>
> I also disagree with this point.  DWI/DUI is not a sever enough crime.
> I don't subscribe to the "legalize drugs" group, but this also is not a
> severe enough crime.  Assuming I had agreed to the licensure of
> individuals to begin with...
>
> >
> > All waiting periods would be abolished. All additional background
> > checks would be abolished. If you have a license you can buy a weapon
> > and amunition. If you don't you cant.
>
> FFL.  Which I have.  I'm thinking this would be similar to each and
> every person getting an FFL.  God, imagine the infrastructure needed to
> support this...
>
> >
> > This license would allow all holders to carry, concealed or open, at
> > all times and in all places. Including public buildings, police
> > stations, courthouses, and schools.
> >
>
> I think this should be allowed anyway...
>
> > There should be a rider on the law bringing this license into
> > existence barring all litigation against weapon and ammunition
> > manufacturers and dealers if the weapon is sold to a license holder
> > and is then misused.
>
> Again, I thinkthis should *already* be in place.  A gun is no more
> dangerous than a car, the use thereof is the dangerous part.  My truck
> is far more an effective and efficient killing machine than all my guns
> put together.  However, it seems absurd to sue Dodge if I used that
> truck to run down hundreds of people, doesn't it?
>
> >
> > I don't think we will ever see this, or anything like it. I think we
> > are going to have worse wnd worse messes of legislation, patchwork
> > from state to state and even city to city. I think there are some
> > places where it will be effectively impossible to own a weapon, and
> > some where everyone does. Just like today only more so.
> >
>
> Cincinatti, Ohio.  Just try and buy a gun there.  San Francisco recently
> announced legislation (I don't know if it passed or not) banning the
> sale and posession of .50BMG rifles inside city limits.  As if someone
> is going to walk into the corner store and hold up the place with an EDM
> Windrunner...
>
> I disagree on a very base level with your proposal, but hey - opinions
> differ.
>
> --
> Kurt                "I remember that I've got a solid base of worms and
> kurt at k-huhn.com      ant eggs.  I puke like a hero all night long."
>                                                       -- Tony Bourdain
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks