Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
First CCW righteous shoot under Wisconsin's new law
9 views
Skip to first unread message
David R. Birch
Feb 5, 2012, 5:35:26 PM2/5/12
to
<http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/aldi-customer-wont-be-charged-in-shooting-sk42et0-138688529.html>
I'm exchanging email with Nazir so I can buy him a box of the ammo he used.
David
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.net
-----------------------------------------------------------------
nord...@yahoo.com
Feb 5, 2012, 11:40:41 PM2/5/12
to
# <http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/aldi-customer-wont-be-charged-in-s...>
#
# I'm exchanging email with Nazir so I can buy him a box of the ammo he used.
Glad everything turned out for the best and that only the bad guy
experienced any damage, but a formerly convicted armed robber may not
be the poster child the CCW movement is looking for.
#
# I'm exchanging email with Nazir so I can buy him a box of the ammo he used.
Glad everything turned out for the best and that only the bad guy
experienced any damage, but a formerly convicted armed robber may not
be the poster child the CCW movement is looking for.
Wayne
Feb 6, 2012, 5:56:43 PM2/6/12
to
wrote in message news:jgnlk8$ic9$1...@news.albasani.net...
# <http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/aldi-customer-wont-be-charged-in-s...>
#
# I'm exchanging email with Nazir so I can buy him a box of the ammo he
used.
<Glad everything turned out for the best and that only the bad guy
<experienced any damage, but a formerly convicted armed robber may not
<be the poster child the CCW movement is looking for.
<
clean upon reaching adulthood.
nord...@yahoo.com
Feb 6, 2012, 8:07:17 PM2/6/12
to
# <Glad everything turned out for the best and that only the bad guy
# <experienced any damage, but a formerly convicted armed robber may not
# <be the poster child the CCW movement is looking for.
#
# Well, it occurred when he was a kid.
If a lawfully armed citizen had been in any of the stores he robbed at
gunpoint they'd have been within their rights to cut him down. It's
more than ironic.
# I thought liberals wiped the slate
# clean upon reaching adulthood.
I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. I'd be happy to
deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life,
regardless when he committed his offense. How about you?
Larry Fishel
Feb 7, 2012, 8:21:21 PM2/7/12
to
On Feb 6, 8:07=A0pm, nordrs...@yahoo.com wrote:
# I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. =A0I'd be happy to
# deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life,
# regardless when he committed his offense. =A0How about you?
Nope. Constitutional rights are constitutional rights. If you are too
dangerous to be trusted with those rights, you should still be in
prison. After prison (and maybe probation if released early), your
rights should be automatically restored (including voting rights). I
can see a strong argument for loss or 2nd amendment rights after
multiple armed offenses or if you actually shot at someone...
Note: I don't mean to suggest by replying to your post that I speak
for "conservatives". This is just my opinion.
# I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. =A0I'd be happy to
# deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life,
# regardless when he committed his offense. =A0How about you?
Nope. Constitutional rights are constitutional rights. If you are too
dangerous to be trusted with those rights, you should still be in
prison. After prison (and maybe probation if released early), your
rights should be automatically restored (including voting rights). I
can see a strong argument for loss or 2nd amendment rights after
multiple armed offenses or if you actually shot at someone...
Note: I don't mean to suggest by replying to your post that I speak
for "conservatives". This is just my opinion.
Joe Pfeiffer
Feb 8, 2012, 5:50:47 AM2/8/12
to
Larry Fishel <ldfi...@yahoo.com> writes:
# On Feb 6, 8:07=A0pm, nordrs...@yahoo.com wrote:
# # I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. =A0I'd be happy to
# # deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life,
# # regardless when he committed his offense. =A0How about you?
#
# Nope. Constitutional rights are constitutional rights. If you are too
# dangerous to be trusted with those rights, you should still be in
# prison. After prison (and maybe probation if released early), your
# rights should be automatically restored (including voting rights). I
# can see a strong argument for loss or 2nd amendment rights after
# multiple armed offenses or if you actually shot at someone...
#
# Note: I don't mean to suggest by replying to your post that I speak
# for "conservatives". This is just my opinion.
I like the idea of a graduated approach -- somebody who has demonstrated
they aren't capable of being responsible about X are denied X.
Of course, in the real world, where violating the completely bizarre Gun
Free School Zones Act means you can't own a gun for the rest of your
life, my general opinion above falls apart.
# On Feb 6, 8:07=A0pm, nordrs...@yahoo.com wrote:
# # I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. =A0I'd be happy to
# # deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life,
# # regardless when he committed his offense. =A0How about you?
#
# Nope. Constitutional rights are constitutional rights. If you are too
# dangerous to be trusted with those rights, you should still be in
# prison. After prison (and maybe probation if released early), your
# rights should be automatically restored (including voting rights). I
# can see a strong argument for loss or 2nd amendment rights after
# multiple armed offenses or if you actually shot at someone...
#
# Note: I don't mean to suggest by replying to your post that I speak
# for "conservatives". This is just my opinion.
I like the idea of a graduated approach -- somebody who has demonstrated
they aren't capable of being responsible about X are denied X.
Of course, in the real world, where violating the completely bizarre Gun
Free School Zones Act means you can't own a gun for the rest of your
life, my general opinion above falls apart.
Murff
Feb 8, 2012, 8:27:33 AM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:50:47 +0000, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
# I like the idea of a graduated approach -- somebody who has demonstrated
# they aren't capable of being responsible about X are denied X.
Although anathema to Americans, this is what the UK system tries to
achieve when it is administered properly. You demonstrate "good reason"
which includes knowing (or at least learning) about what you're doing,
and you can get the associated hardware.
It is at least partly functionally-driven: for example pest control, deer
management and so on. Within each category there is a reasonably wide
range of calibres that are "sensible" for that purpose: .22LR not being
appropriate for wild boar, and .30-06 not being a particularly good
choice for rabbits.
Self defence is explicitly not regarded as a "good reason" (though this
at least used to be different for certain individuals in Northern
Ireland, when the terrorist problem was in full swing - I don't know if
that is still the case). But unless you're in one of the inner-city areas
with gang- and drug- related trouble there is very little armed crime.
Where you're physically threatened and retreat is not an option, it is
generally legal to use whatever means you have to hand to resist an
assailant to the point of incapacitation or death if necessary.
It is imperfect in many ways: there is the blanket and rather silly ban
on handguns as a result of police maladministration of the system leading
to the Dunblane school murders in 1996. It doesn't extend to air weapons
below 12ft-lb muzzle energy, which is inconsistent. Shotguns are treated
differently again, unless they're magazine-fed with a more-than-2-round-
capacity magazine.
The imperfections arise from much of the law being framed in response to
specific criminal cases, the result of a struggle between legitimate gun
owners/users and restrictionists. There is no thought-through design in
any of it and, because of the presence and power of the pro-restriction
lobby there is no trust of the legislature to fix the laws properly.
I suppose in my ideal system, you'd be able to have and carry anything
you liked provided you were qualified on its use in terms of safety and
not breaching the law. Potting rabbits with an air rifle at short range,
or target shooting would be relatively easier qualifications than game
shooting with a shotgun, longer-range rabbit control with .22LR, deer or
fox management, or personal carriage of a handgun. And you'd be able to
deny qualification to serial offenders, nutters and the like.
Murff...
# I like the idea of a graduated approach -- somebody who has demonstrated
# they aren't capable of being responsible about X are denied X.
Although anathema to Americans, this is what the UK system tries to
achieve when it is administered properly. You demonstrate "good reason"
which includes knowing (or at least learning) about what you're doing,
and you can get the associated hardware.
It is at least partly functionally-driven: for example pest control, deer
management and so on. Within each category there is a reasonably wide
range of calibres that are "sensible" for that purpose: .22LR not being
appropriate for wild boar, and .30-06 not being a particularly good
choice for rabbits.
Self defence is explicitly not regarded as a "good reason" (though this
at least used to be different for certain individuals in Northern
Ireland, when the terrorist problem was in full swing - I don't know if
that is still the case). But unless you're in one of the inner-city areas
with gang- and drug- related trouble there is very little armed crime.
Where you're physically threatened and retreat is not an option, it is
generally legal to use whatever means you have to hand to resist an
assailant to the point of incapacitation or death if necessary.
It is imperfect in many ways: there is the blanket and rather silly ban
on handguns as a result of police maladministration of the system leading
to the Dunblane school murders in 1996. It doesn't extend to air weapons
below 12ft-lb muzzle energy, which is inconsistent. Shotguns are treated
differently again, unless they're magazine-fed with a more-than-2-round-
capacity magazine.
The imperfections arise from much of the law being framed in response to
specific criminal cases, the result of a struggle between legitimate gun
owners/users and restrictionists. There is no thought-through design in
any of it and, because of the presence and power of the pro-restriction
lobby there is no trust of the legislature to fix the laws properly.
I suppose in my ideal system, you'd be able to have and carry anything
you liked provided you were qualified on its use in terms of safety and
not breaching the law. Potting rabbits with an air rifle at short range,
or target shooting would be relatively easier qualifications than game
shooting with a shotgun, longer-range rabbit control with .22LR, deer or
fox management, or personal carriage of a handgun. And you'd be able to
deny qualification to serial offenders, nutters and the like.
Murff...
Argent
Feb 8, 2012, 5:20:17 PM2/8/12
to
I think most gun people in the US would find that approach 180 degrees
from what they prefer. We would like to have all our rights until it
was proven we committed a violent crime which would result in the loss
of that particular right until we had paid our debt to society (AKA go
to jail, make restitution, etc.), at which time we would regain those
rights (the way it used to be in this country). Then if you were a
repeat offender with a gun, you would not only go to prison, you would
lose rights permanently (this last part is my opinion/idea).
from what they prefer. We would like to have all our rights until it
was proven we committed a violent crime which would result in the loss
of that particular right until we had paid our debt to society (AKA go
to jail, make restitution, etc.), at which time we would regain those
rights (the way it used to be in this country). Then if you were a
repeat offender with a gun, you would not only go to prison, you would
lose rights permanently (this last part is my opinion/idea).
Gerald "Brick" Brickwood
Feb 8, 2012, 5:20:18 PM2/8/12
to
Quoted from the article:
"Charges of being a felon with a gun, furnishing a gun to a felon and
pointing a gun at someone were all dismissed, records show."
Please take special note of the words "all dismissed" that means no
conviction therefore not an ex-felon.
David Griffith
Feb 8, 2012, 5:20:19 PM2/8/12
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
# I suppose in my ideal system, you'd be able to have and carry anything
# you liked provided you were qualified on its use in terms of safety and
# not breaching the law. Potting rabbits with an air rifle at short range,
# or target shooting would be relatively easier qualifications than game
# shooting with a shotgun, longer-range rabbit control with .22LR, deer or
# fox management, or personal carriage of a handgun. And you'd be able to
# deny qualification to serial offenders, nutters and the like.
The main problem with your approach is the question of "who watches the
watchers?". It has been increasingly unfeasable to do that in the US
because there is a history of similar laws being abused to arbitrarily
harass people, deny them firearms, and to rewards cronies. Finally,
does a poor person have less of a justification to protect himself than
someone rich and well-connected?
--
David Griffith
davidmy...@acm.org <--- Put my last name where it belongs
# I suppose in my ideal system, you'd be able to have and carry anything
# you liked provided you were qualified on its use in terms of safety and
# not breaching the law. Potting rabbits with an air rifle at short range,
# or target shooting would be relatively easier qualifications than game
# shooting with a shotgun, longer-range rabbit control with .22LR, deer or
# fox management, or personal carriage of a handgun. And you'd be able to
# deny qualification to serial offenders, nutters and the like.
The main problem with your approach is the question of "who watches the
watchers?". It has been increasingly unfeasable to do that in the US
because there is a history of similar laws being abused to arbitrarily
harass people, deny them firearms, and to rewards cronies. Finally,
does a poor person have less of a justification to protect himself than
someone rich and well-connected?
--
David Griffith
davidmy...@acm.org <--- Put my last name where it belongs
Murff
Feb 8, 2012, 9:26:18 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:20:19 +0000, David Griffith wrote:
- Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
- # I suppose in my ideal system, ...
- The main problem with your approach is the question of "who watches the
- watchers?".
The answer in the British system would be that it is the responsibility
of the local Chief Constable, with appeal through the courts as an option
(and, in principle, the Home Secretary). In practice this can work very
well. A largely rural force such as that of North Yorkshire (where I
live) has an approach to licensing that approaches what I described. As a
qualified deer manager (albeit an amateur one) I had no trouble obtaining
a .30-06 in addition to the .243 I already had.
Shooting organisations provide legal services which assist shooters who
find themselves on the wrong end of legally dodgy police action. I've
thankfully never needed that, but I know personally some who have, and
who have had favourable outcomes from it.
But your question is a good one...
- It has been increasingly unfeasable to do that in the US
- because there is a history of similar laws being abused to arbitrarily
- harass people, deny them firearms, and to rewards cronies.
... because the most significant day-to-day problem that results from
licensing being administered regionally is that it is very inconsistent.
My local force is very good. Others are, also. But there are far too many
who see their role as keeping the numbers of firearm holders down to a
minimum - and resist even correct implementation of what law there is.
- Finally, does a poor person have less of a justification to protect
- himself than someone rich and well-connected?
Justification ? Clearly not. Practical ability to do so within the law
is a different matter. But that isn't confined to firearms and the way
legislation applies to them.
Murff...
- Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
- # I suppose in my ideal system, ...
- The main problem with your approach is the question of "who watches the
- watchers?".
The answer in the British system would be that it is the responsibility
of the local Chief Constable, with appeal through the courts as an option
(and, in principle, the Home Secretary). In practice this can work very
well. A largely rural force such as that of North Yorkshire (where I
live) has an approach to licensing that approaches what I described. As a
qualified deer manager (albeit an amateur one) I had no trouble obtaining
a .30-06 in addition to the .243 I already had.
Shooting organisations provide legal services which assist shooters who
find themselves on the wrong end of legally dodgy police action. I've
thankfully never needed that, but I know personally some who have, and
who have had favourable outcomes from it.
But your question is a good one...
- It has been increasingly unfeasable to do that in the US
- because there is a history of similar laws being abused to arbitrarily
- harass people, deny them firearms, and to rewards cronies.
... because the most significant day-to-day problem that results from
licensing being administered regionally is that it is very inconsistent.
My local force is very good. Others are, also. But there are far too many
who see their role as keeping the numbers of firearm holders down to a
minimum - and resist even correct implementation of what law there is.
- Finally, does a poor person have less of a justification to protect
- himself than someone rich and well-connected?
Justification ? Clearly not. Practical ability to do so within the law
is a different matter. But that isn't confined to firearms and the way
legislation applies to them.
Murff...
Joe Pfeiffer
Feb 8, 2012, 9:26:20 PM2/8/12
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> writes:
# On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:50:47 +0000, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
#
# # I like the idea of a graduated approach -- somebody who has demonstrated
# # they aren't capable of being responsible about X are denied X.
#
# Although anathema to Americans, this is what the UK system tries to
# achieve when it is administered properly. You demonstrate "good reason"
# which includes knowing (or at least learning) about what you're doing,
# and you can get the associated hardware.
Well, not quite -- the requirement to show "good reason" is
substantially more stringent than what I suggested (and is, of course,
the reason it's anathema to many Americans, including me). I meant it
the way I said it: you lose rights on the basis of a demonstrated
inability to be responsible.
# It is at least partly functionally-driven: for example pest control, deer
# management and so on. Within each category there is a reasonably wide
# range of calibres that are "sensible" for that purpose: .22LR not being
# appropriate for wild boar, and .30-06 not being a particularly good
# choice for rabbits.
#
# Self defence is explicitly not regarded as a "good reason" (though this
# at least used to be different for certain individuals in Northern
# Ireland, when the terrorist problem was in full swing - I don't know if
# that is still the case). But unless you're in one of the inner-city areas
# with gang- and drug- related trouble there is very little armed crime.
# Where you're physically threatened and retreat is not an option, it is
# generally legal to use whatever means you have to hand to resist an
# assailant to the point of incapacitation or death if necessary.
#
# It is imperfect in many ways: there is the blanket and rather silly ban
# on handguns as a result of police maladministration of the system leading
# to the Dunblane school murders in 1996. It doesn't extend to air weapons
# below 12ft-lb muzzle energy, which is inconsistent. Shotguns are treated
# differently again, unless they're magazine-fed with a more-than-2-round-
# capacity magazine.
#
# The imperfections arise from much of the law being framed in response to
# specific criminal cases, the result of a struggle between legitimate gun
# owners/users and restrictionists. There is no thought-through design in
# any of it and, because of the presence and power of the pro-restriction
# lobby there is no trust of the legislature to fix the laws properly.
#
# I suppose in my ideal system, you'd be able to have and carry anything
# you liked provided you were qualified on its use in terms of safety and
# not breaching the law. Potting rabbits with an air rifle at short range,
# or target shooting would be relatively easier qualifications than game
# shooting with a shotgun, longer-range rabbit control with .22LR, deer or
# fox management, or personal carriage of a handgun. And you'd be able to
# deny qualification to serial offenders, nutters and the like.
As you describe your ideal system in the final paragraph, I would have
very little objection (except that the number of accidental deaths
through firearms is so low there's no real point to the qualification
requirement).
Thanks for the education on the British system. I've never really had
all that good an understanding of how it works.
# On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 10:50:47 +0000, Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
#
# # they aren't capable of being responsible about X are denied X.
#
# Although anathema to Americans, this is what the UK system tries to
# achieve when it is administered properly. You demonstrate "good reason"
# which includes knowing (or at least learning) about what you're doing,
# and you can get the associated hardware.
Well, not quite -- the requirement to show "good reason" is
substantially more stringent than what I suggested (and is, of course,
the reason it's anathema to many Americans, including me). I meant it
the way I said it: you lose rights on the basis of a demonstrated
inability to be responsible.
# It is at least partly functionally-driven: for example pest control, deer
# management and so on. Within each category there is a reasonably wide
# range of calibres that are "sensible" for that purpose: .22LR not being
# appropriate for wild boar, and .30-06 not being a particularly good
# choice for rabbits.
#
# Self defence is explicitly not regarded as a "good reason" (though this
# at least used to be different for certain individuals in Northern
# Ireland, when the terrorist problem was in full swing - I don't know if
# that is still the case). But unless you're in one of the inner-city areas
# with gang- and drug- related trouble there is very little armed crime.
# Where you're physically threatened and retreat is not an option, it is
# generally legal to use whatever means you have to hand to resist an
# assailant to the point of incapacitation or death if necessary.
#
# It is imperfect in many ways: there is the blanket and rather silly ban
# on handguns as a result of police maladministration of the system leading
# to the Dunblane school murders in 1996. It doesn't extend to air weapons
# below 12ft-lb muzzle energy, which is inconsistent. Shotguns are treated
# differently again, unless they're magazine-fed with a more-than-2-round-
# capacity magazine.
#
# The imperfections arise from much of the law being framed in response to
# specific criminal cases, the result of a struggle between legitimate gun
# owners/users and restrictionists. There is no thought-through design in
# any of it and, because of the presence and power of the pro-restriction
# lobby there is no trust of the legislature to fix the laws properly.
#
# I suppose in my ideal system, you'd be able to have and carry anything
# you liked provided you were qualified on its use in terms of safety and
# not breaching the law. Potting rabbits with an air rifle at short range,
# or target shooting would be relatively easier qualifications than game
# shooting with a shotgun, longer-range rabbit control with .22LR, deer or
# fox management, or personal carriage of a handgun. And you'd be able to
# deny qualification to serial offenders, nutters and the like.
As you describe your ideal system in the final paragraph, I would have
very little objection (except that the number of accidental deaths
through firearms is so low there's no real point to the qualification
requirement).
Thanks for the education on the British system. I've never really had
all that good an understanding of how it works.
Galen Hekhuis
Feb 8, 2012, 9:26:22 PM2/8/12
to
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 22:20:17 +0000 (UTC), Argent <sha...@mail.com>
wrote:
#I think most gun people in the US would find that approach 180 degrees
#from what they prefer. We would like to have all our rights until it
#was proven we committed a violent crime which would result in the loss
#of that particular right until we had paid our debt to society (AKA go
#to jail, make restitution, etc.), at which time we would regain those
#rights (the way it used to be in this country). Then if you were a
#repeat offender with a gun, you would not only go to prison, you would
#lose rights permanently (this last part is my opinion/idea).
IMHO, if you have paid your debt to society, you should have your
rights restored. I agree that a repeat violent offender, particularly
with a gun, should lose their rights, but that almost goes without
saying, as I think such a person should be imprisoned permanently.
wrote:
#I think most gun people in the US would find that approach 180 degrees
#from what they prefer. We would like to have all our rights until it
#was proven we committed a violent crime which would result in the loss
#of that particular right until we had paid our debt to society (AKA go
#to jail, make restitution, etc.), at which time we would regain those
#rights (the way it used to be in this country). Then if you were a
#repeat offender with a gun, you would not only go to prison, you would
#lose rights permanently (this last part is my opinion/idea).
IMHO, if you have paid your debt to society, you should have your
rights restored. I agree that a repeat violent offender, particularly
with a gun, should lose their rights, but that almost goes without
saying, as I think such a person should be imprisoned permanently.
SaPeIsMa
Feb 8, 2012, 9:26:23 PM2/8/12
to
"David Griffith" <davidmy...@acm.org> wrote in message
news:jgusf3$4kj$1...@news.albasani.net...
#
# The main problem with your approach is the question of "who watches the
# watchers?". It has been increasingly unfeasable to do that in the US
# because there is a history of similar laws being abused to arbitrarily
# harass people, deny them firearms, and to rewards cronies. Finally,
# does a poor person have less of a justification to protect himself than
# someone rich and well-connected?
#
Case in point a Minneapolis Police Chief who announced soon after his
appointment, that he would NOT be issuing carry permits to citizens NO
MATTER WHAT..
This is one of the more egregious reason that the State law was changed from
"may issue" to "shall issue"..
nord...@yahoo.com
Feb 8, 2012, 9:26:24 PM2/8/12
to
# "Charges of being a felon with a gun, furnishing a gun to a felon and
# pointing a gun at someone were all dismissed, records show."
#
# Please take special note of the words "all dismissed" =A0that means no
# conviction therefore not an ex-felon.
Also from the article:
"Court records show he was adjudicated as a juvenile of armed and
masked robbery and was incarcerated.
But because the offense occurred before April 21, 1994, it did not
prohibit him from getting a concealed carry permit."
This fellow previously engaged in armed robbery, just like fellow he
shot. Only his birth date kept him from earning a permanent record as
a violent felon.
DJ
Feb 9, 2012, 5:50:16 AM2/9/12
to
SaPeIsMa wrote:
# "David Griffith" <davidmy...@acm.org> wrote in message
# news:jgusf3$4kj$1...@news.albasani.net...
# #
# # because there is a history of similar laws being abused to arbitrarily
# # harass people, deny them firearms, and to rewards cronies. Finally,
# # does a poor person have less of a justification to protect himself than
# # someone rich and well-connected?
# #
#
# MATTER WHAT..
# This is one of the more egregious reason that the State law was changed from
# "may issue" to "shall issue"..
The Duluth police chief would only issue permits for security guard to
open carry only while working, and some officers had permits to carry
concealed while out of uniform. Even verified death threats were not
good enough reason.
DJ
# "David Griffith" <davidmy...@acm.org> wrote in message
# news:jgusf3$4kj$1...@news.albasani.net...
# #
# # The main problem with your approach is the question of "who watches the
# # watchers?". It has been increasingly unfeasable to do that in the US
# # because there is a history of similar laws being abused to arbitrarily
# # harass people, deny them firearms, and to rewards cronies. Finally,
# # does a poor person have less of a justification to protect himself than
# # someone rich and well-connected?
# #
#
# Case in point a Minneapolis Police Chief who announced soon after his
# appointment, that he would NOT be issuing carry permits to citizens NO
# MATTER WHAT..
# This is one of the more egregious reason that the State law was changed from
# "may issue" to "shall issue"..
The Duluth police chief would only issue permits for security guard to
open carry only while working, and some officers had permits to carry
concealed while out of uniform. Even verified death threats were not
good enough reason.
DJ
David Griffith
Feb 9, 2012, 5:50:18 AM2/9/12
to
Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
# On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:20:19 +0000, David Griffith wrote:
# - Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
# - # I suppose in my ideal system, ...
#
# - The main problem with your approach is the question of "who watches the
# - watchers?".
# The answer in the British system would be that it is the responsibility
# of the local Chief Constable, with appeal through the courts as an option
# (and, in principle, the Home Secretary). In practice this can work very
# well. A largely rural force such as that of North Yorkshire (where I
# live) has an approach to licensing that approaches what I described. As a
# qualified deer manager (albeit an amateur one) I had no trouble obtaining
# a .30-06 in addition to the .243 I already had.
# Shooting organisations provide legal services which assist shooters who
# find themselves on the wrong end of legally dodgy police action. I've
# thankfully never needed that, but I know personally some who have, and
# who have had favourable outcomes from it.
This is admirable. I would love to see these organizations start
campaigning for expanding the rights of self-defense and bring the
ideals of the Magna Carta back into force. I imagine the NRA and Second
Amendment Foundation would be delighted to sit down with them.
# But your question is a good one...
# - It has been increasingly unfeasable to do that in the US
# - because there is a history of similar laws being abused to arbitrarily
# - harass people, deny them firearms, and to rewards cronies.
# ... because the most significant day-to-day problem that results from
# licensing being administered regionally is that it is very inconsistent.
# My local force is very good. Others are, also. But there are far too many
# who see their role as keeping the numbers of firearm holders down to a
# minimum - and resist even correct implementation of what law there is.
Yes. Over here in the US we're having that problem with Washington DC
and the city of Chicago. They were forced by lawsuits to let people
have guns, but then they threw up all sorts of roadblocks designed to
bleed people of money and resolve. Now lawsuits are again rolling.
# - Finally, does a poor person have less of a justification to protect
# - himself than someone rich and well-connected?
# Justification ? Clearly not. Practical ability to do so within the law
# is a different matter. But that isn't confined to firearms and the way
# legislation applies to them.
That's half the reason it is not legitimate for fees to be laid on the
purchase, ownership, carrying, or use firearms. The other half is that
it's not legitimate to charge fees to people to excercise their natural
rights. The poor are also harmed by governments' "saturday night
special" bans and California's list of "safe" guns (read, makers shaken
down).
# On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 22:20:19 +0000, David Griffith wrote:
# - Murff <mu...@warlock.org> wrote:
# - # I suppose in my ideal system, ...
#
# - The main problem with your approach is the question of "who watches the
# - watchers?".
# The answer in the British system would be that it is the responsibility
# of the local Chief Constable, with appeal through the courts as an option
# (and, in principle, the Home Secretary). In practice this can work very
# well. A largely rural force such as that of North Yorkshire (where I
# live) has an approach to licensing that approaches what I described. As a
# qualified deer manager (albeit an amateur one) I had no trouble obtaining
# a .30-06 in addition to the .243 I already had.
# Shooting organisations provide legal services which assist shooters who
# find themselves on the wrong end of legally dodgy police action. I've
# thankfully never needed that, but I know personally some who have, and
# who have had favourable outcomes from it.
This is admirable. I would love to see these organizations start
campaigning for expanding the rights of self-defense and bring the
ideals of the Magna Carta back into force. I imagine the NRA and Second
Amendment Foundation would be delighted to sit down with them.
# But your question is a good one...
# - It has been increasingly unfeasable to do that in the US
# - because there is a history of similar laws being abused to arbitrarily
# - harass people, deny them firearms, and to rewards cronies.
# ... because the most significant day-to-day problem that results from
# licensing being administered regionally is that it is very inconsistent.
# My local force is very good. Others are, also. But there are far too many
# who see their role as keeping the numbers of firearm holders down to a
# minimum - and resist even correct implementation of what law there is.
Yes. Over here in the US we're having that problem with Washington DC
and the city of Chicago. They were forced by lawsuits to let people
have guns, but then they threw up all sorts of roadblocks designed to
bleed people of money and resolve. Now lawsuits are again rolling.
# - Finally, does a poor person have less of a justification to protect
# - himself than someone rich and well-connected?
# Justification ? Clearly not. Practical ability to do so within the law
# is a different matter. But that isn't confined to firearms and the way
# legislation applies to them.
That's half the reason it is not legitimate for fees to be laid on the
purchase, ownership, carrying, or use firearms. The other half is that
it's not legitimate to charge fees to people to excercise their natural
rights. The poor are also harmed by governments' "saturday night
special" bans and California's list of "safe" guns (read, makers shaken
down).
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley
Feb 9, 2012, 5:44:03 PM2/9/12
to
On Feb 8, 3:50=A0am, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
# I like the idea of a graduated approach -- somebody who has demonstrated
# they aren't capable of being responsible about X are denied X.
All of the rights described in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are
equally valid, so why stop with the just the Second Amendment? For
example, you could have a licensing requirement for access to the
internet under the First Amendment. Anyone who posted irresponsible
statements or messages containing grammatical or spelling errors could
loose their license and have their equipment confiscated.
# I like the idea of a graduated approach -- somebody who has demonstrated
# they aren't capable of being responsible about X are denied X.
All of the rights described in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are
equally valid, so why stop with the just the Second Amendment? For
example, you could have a licensing requirement for access to the
internet under the First Amendment. Anyone who posted irresponsible
statements or messages containing grammatical or spelling errors could
loose their license and have their equipment confiscated.
Murff
Feb 10, 2012, 10:24:28 AM2/10/12
to
On Thu, 09 Feb 2012 22:44:03 +0000, Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley wrote:
# Anyone who posted irresponsible
# statements or messages containing grammatical or spelling errors could
# loose
^^^^^
Sorry, couldn't resist :-)
Murff...
# Anyone who posted irresponsible
# statements or messages containing grammatical or spelling errors could
# loose
^^^^^
Sorry, couldn't resist :-)
Murff...
Joe Pfeiffer
Feb 10, 2012, 10:24:29 AM2/10/12
to
Rubaiyat of Omar Bradley <cowar...@yahoo.com> writes:
# On Feb 8, 3:50=A0am, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
# # I like the idea of a graduated approach -- somebody who has demonstrated
# # they aren't capable of being responsible about X are denied X.
#
# All of the rights described in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are
# equally valid, so why stop with the just the Second Amendment? For
# example, you could have a licensing requirement for access to the
# internet under the First Amendment. Anyone who posted irresponsible
No more so than anyone who missed the target would lose their rights to
own a gun. Somebody who has been convicted of fraud, on the other hand,
might reasonably lose some of their First Amendment rights.
# On Feb 8, 3:50=A0am, Joe Pfeiffer <pfeif...@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote:
# # I like the idea of a graduated approach -- somebody who has demonstrated
# # they aren't capable of being responsible about X are denied X.
#
# All of the rights described in the Constitution and Bill of Rights are
# equally valid, so why stop with the just the Second Amendment? For
# example, you could have a licensing requirement for access to the
# internet under the First Amendment. Anyone who posted irresponsible
# statements or messages containing grammatical or spelling errors could
# loose their license and have their equipment confiscated.
No more so than anyone who missed the target would lose their rights to
own a gun. Somebody who has been convicted of fraud, on the other hand,
might reasonably lose some of their First Amendment rights.
WangoTango
Feb 10, 2012, 10:24:30 AM2/10/12
to
In article <jgptg5$kai$1...@news.albasani.net>, nord...@yahoo.com says...
#
# I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. I'd be happy to
# deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life,
# regardless when he committed his offense. How about you?
Nope, isn't the whole idea of the justice system to "rehabilitate" these
guys? If not, then it should be, if it is, it may well be failing at
its' job, BUT isn't the saying that a person has "Paid their debt to
society"???
#
# I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. I'd be happy to
# deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life,
# regardless when he committed his offense. How about you?
Nope, isn't the whole idea of the justice system to "rehabilitate" these
guys? If not, then it should be, if it is, it may well be failing at
its' job, BUT isn't the saying that a person has "Paid their debt to
society"???
Peter Franks
Feb 10, 2012, 4:11:35 PM2/10/12
to
On 2/10/2012 7:24 AM, WangoTango wrote:
# In article<jgptg5$kai$1...@news.albasani.net>, nord...@yahoo.com says...
# # regardless when he committed his offense. How about you?
#
# Nope, isn't the whole idea of the justice system to "rehabilitate" these
# guys?
No. That is a flawed liberal idea.
Rehabilitation comes from within; however the system may (or may not)
provide opportunities to assist, depending on the society and system.
# If not, then it should be, if it is, it may well be failing at
# its' job, BUT isn't the saying that a person has "Paid their debt to
# society"???
Another bogus lie. Sitting in a cell doesn't pay anything to society,
in fact, it /increases/ societal debt.
An offender has paid their 'debt to society' when they have:
- Acknowledged their offense.
- Made restitution for their offense (includes costs associated with
prosecuting, incarceration, etc.).
- Demonstrably refrained from repeating the offense.
[MODERATOR: I think this thread probably started to stray from the charter
a few posts back. Starting to migrate over to t.p.g. now... ]
# In article<jgptg5$kai$1...@news.albasani.net>, nord...@yahoo.com says...
# #
# # I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. I'd be happy to
# # deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life,
# # I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. I'd be happy to
# # regardless when he committed his offense. How about you?
#
# Nope, isn't the whole idea of the justice system to "rehabilitate" these
# guys?
No. That is a flawed liberal idea.
Rehabilitation comes from within; however the system may (or may not)
provide opportunities to assist, depending on the society and system.
# If not, then it should be, if it is, it may well be failing at
# its' job, BUT isn't the saying that a person has "Paid their debt to
# society"???
Another bogus lie. Sitting in a cell doesn't pay anything to society,
in fact, it /increases/ societal debt.
An offender has paid their 'debt to society' when they have:
- Acknowledged their offense.
- Made restitution for their offense (includes costs associated with
prosecuting, incarceration, etc.).
- Demonstrably refrained from repeating the offense.
[MODERATOR: I think this thread probably started to stray from the charter
a few posts back. Starting to migrate over to t.p.g. now... ]
Murff
Feb 10, 2012, 4:11:36 PM2/10/12
to
On Fri, 10 Feb 2012 15:24:30 +0000, WangoTango wrote:
# In article <jgptg5$kai$1...@news.albasani.net>, nord...@yahoo.com says...
# #
# # I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. I'd be happy to #
# deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life, #
# regardless when he committed his offense. How about you?
#
# Nope, isn't the whole idea of the justice system to "rehabilitate" these
# guys? If not, then it should be, if it is, it may well be failing at
# In article <jgptg5$kai$1...@news.albasani.net>, nord...@yahoo.com says...
# #
# # I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. I'd be happy to #
# deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life, #
# regardless when he committed his offense. How about you?
#
# Nope, isn't the whole idea of the justice system to "rehabilitate" these
# its' job, BUT isn't the saying that a person has "Paid their debt to
# society"???
I suppose that depends on what you expect the person's state to be on
# society"???
release. If you consider that a recidivist will arm themselves in pursuit
of further crimes whether they're formally permitted to do so or not then
it isn't clear what benefit is gained from withholding such permission.
If you consider the ex-prisoner "rehabilitated" and in as much (or maybe
more) need of the ability to defend themselves as someone legally clean
then you need to allow them to arm themselves.
Unfortunately there is a large gap of uncertainty between those two
positions. I suspect you could never be certain that you'd be denying an
actually reformed ex-convict legitimate self-protection, or giving him
the means to offend again.
Murff...
Gunner Asch
Feb 11, 2012, 11:06:42 AM2/11/12
to
On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 01:21:21 +0000 (UTC), Larry Fishel
<ldfi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#On Feb 6, 8:07=A0pm, nordrs...@yahoo.com wrote:
## I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. =A0I'd be happy to
## deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life,
## regardless when he committed his offense. =A0How about you?
#
#Nope. Constitutional rights are constitutional rights. If you are too
#dangerous to be trusted with those rights, you should still be in
#prison. After prison (and maybe probation if released early), your
#rights should be automatically restored (including voting rights). I
#can see a strong argument for loss or 2nd amendment rights after
#multiple armed offenses or if you actually shot at someone...
#
#Note: I don't mean to suggest by replying to your post that I speak
#for "conservatives". This is just my opinion.
This was very very common until the 1930s or later.
When you got out of prison, they handed you your guns as you left the
prison.
Gunner
<ldfi...@yahoo.com> wrote:
#On Feb 6, 8:07=A0pm, nordrs...@yahoo.com wrote:
## I thought conservatives wished they didn't have to. =A0I'd be happy to
## deny a convicted armed robber his 2nd amendment rights for life,
## regardless when he committed his offense. =A0How about you?
#
#Nope. Constitutional rights are constitutional rights. If you are too
#dangerous to be trusted with those rights, you should still be in
#prison. After prison (and maybe probation if released early), your
#rights should be automatically restored (including voting rights). I
#can see a strong argument for loss or 2nd amendment rights after
#multiple armed offenses or if you actually shot at someone...
#
#Note: I don't mean to suggest by replying to your post that I speak
#for "conservatives". This is just my opinion.
This was very very common until the 1930s or later.
When you got out of prison, they handed you your guns as you left the
prison.
Gunner
0 new messages