Gangs run gun pipeline from Delta to Chicago

[La_Serpiente]

Gangs run gun pipeline from Delta to Chicago

Marlon Jude had come down from Chicago for his Aunt Mini's funeral when he met Charles Westbrooks at a family barbecue.

On a Sunday afternoon in 2000, it was a typical Mississippi Delta social event, a gathering over smoking grills and sweet tea in a cousin's back yard. But the chance meeting would spell trouble for both men.

Jude was 28 and digging deeper into a life of crime that already included dealing marijuana on the South Side.

For Westbrooks, a 26-year-old underemployed father in need of money, it was a turning point. Born and raised in an isolated Delta hamlet known only by the country road it sat on--Starkey--Westbrooks came from a family of schoolteachers, his grandmother said. His principal from West Tallahatchie High School remembered him as a good kid who played football and signed up at the National Guard post after his graduation in 1993.

more...

Gangs run gun pipeline from Delta to Chicago

[MrBenchley]

1. Worth noting that a number of Democratic measures

to cut down on this, including Bob Wexler's H.R. 221 and Chuck Schumer's S.B. 1243, are bottled up in committee by the Republican "leadership" at the behest of the corrupt gun industry.

[slackmaster]

16. Let's take a closer look at the two cited bills

Bob Wexler's H.R. 221

One new handgun per month. Does not address the private, secondary market in used firearms. (California's one-handgun-per-month law does that, and we still have plenty of armed crooks here.) Does nothing to reduce the ease with which a person can use multiple false identities to get around the restriction. Does nothing to aid detection or prosecution of interstate gun runners. Does not stop thieves from stealing more than one gun per month.

Chuck Schumer's S.B. 1243

A "penalty enhancement" bill to increase the sentences that aren't being given to the gun runners who aren't being prosecuted. We all know how effective increased sentences are at reducing crime. The federal government really got tough when it quadrupled sentences for marijuana crimes in 1951. (See http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/History/whiteb1.htm and search for "Boggs Act").

[Liberal Classic]

17. Hardcore bootleggers/gangbangers

What do you suppose the effect on hardcore drug smugglers/bootleggers will be if it is a crime to buy more than one pistol per month from a licensed dealer?

I am less opposed to the penalty increases for smuggling firearms, but I think sentencing guidelines are already out of whack. Judged by the length of sentence, in many states selling illegal drugs is a worse crime than murder.

[CO Liberal]

19. And In North Dakota...

...running a stop sign and killing a motorcyclist will only get you 100 days in the country slammer, if you're a Republican congressman.

[Name removed]

21. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

27. Wow, another slur against a Democrat

from a member of the RKBA crowd...right out of the dittohead playbook.


Who is surprised, really?

[Liberal Classic]

35. Just goes to show

There are two systems of justice. One for politicians and the rich and powerful, and another for the rest of us proles.

[MrBenchley]

37. Funny how the RKBA crowd almost never has anything bad

to say about a Republican, isn't it?

[Liberal Classic]

41. Perhaps you did not read my post

Which wouldn't be the first time, but I said 100 days for Janklow is a travesty of justice. I ride on two wheels every day and believe this sentence is an insult to the memory of Randy Scott. I consider T. Kennedy and Janklow to be cut from the same cloth, men of position and power that got away with murder. If a prole such as you or I would have been put into either situation I guarantee we would have been doing real time.

[Name removed]

47. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MrBenchley]

28. Koresh forbid

we do anything which might inconvenience "hardcore drug smugglers/bootleggers"...especially if it might eat into gun industry profits..

[Liberal Classic]

36. Criminals by definition

Do not obey the law and therefore placing an arbitrary limit such as one pistol per month is not going to have a significant impact on the drug smugglers. If you believe law-abiding gun owners should be limited to one purchase per month or whatever that is your perogative. However, do not delude yourself that this is a crime-fighting measure. As I said above, increasing sentences for black market sales is a better choice.

Now I wait for you to tell me:

A. HAHAHAHAHAH
B. What a pantload
C. You're full of shit
D. Suuuuure
E. Cry me a friggin' river

Which answer will the BenchleyBot pick?

[MrBenchley]

39. And so many gun dealers are criminals.....

But go ahead and keep pretending that "one gun a month" wouldn't put a crimp in this traffic....

[Liberal Classic]

42. You're stating opinion, not fact

The percentage of shop owners and FFLs involved in crime is low. Most dealers are not criminals, but there are a few bad apples as there is in the general population. I support being thrown in prison, like everybody else around here.

[MrBenchley]

46. Who the hell are you kidding?

I'll remind you that only 24 of the 120 top gun crime dealers have been inspected, but three quarters of those were in violation of the law.

[Liberal Classic]

49. Most dealers are honest, as well as most owners

Throw those that aren't under the jail. I don't know who the "top gun crime dealers" are but that term sounds suspiciously loaded.

[CO Liberal]

2. To Shut Down Pipelines Like This...

...you need to shut down their supply lines. Where are they getting the guns, and how do we stop it?

[FeebMaster]

3. Well,

They can steal them. They can build them. They can import them. Best of luck trying to stop it.

[CO Liberal]

4. So Do We Throw Up Our Hands and GIVE UP?????

Hell, no!!!!!!!

This is a problem in search of a solution.

[FeebMaster]

5. If you say so.

I always think of prohibitionists as people with a solution in search of a problem.

[beevul]

6. I believe...

alot of pro-gunners would be on your side, CO, if you would reguard solutions that only effect the law abiding as out of the question.

[iverglas]

7. this continues to be absolutely beyond me

<a lot> of pro-gunners would be on your side, CO, if you would reguard solutions that only <a>ffect the law abiding as out of the question.

I am a law-abiding motor vehicle owner. I don't speed (trust me), I don't run over people with my car, I don't leave my car idling in high car-theft areas, I don't drive unbelted passengers around, I don't use my car as the getaway vehicle for bank robbers.

Nonetheless, I must have a licence to drive it, I must register my ownership of it, I must display registration plates on it when it is off my property, I must pay taxes when I purchase it and annual fees for registering my ownership of it, I may not park it wherever I please, I must obey speed limits and traffic lights and lines on the road when I drive it ... and if I fail to do any of the things I am required to do I will no longer be "law-abiding" -- right?

Ditto for the gazillions of other things that I might have a whim to do, and that I will be required to do in accordance with the validly enacted regulations governing the doing of it -- go for a stroll, sell hotdogs on the streetcorner, practise medicine, you name it.

All are things that I have a right to do and that I do not do in the course of, or for the purpose of, the commission of any crime -- but that my doing of is regulated and restricted, and is subject to rules that I can be punished for breaking.

ANY LAW that makes the doing of something a crime affects the "law-abiding", for bleeding pete's sake. If what they were previously doing was not a crime, and now it is a crime, and they do it anyway, THEY AREN'T LAW-ABIDING ANY MORE.

This seems like a real simple concept.

At one time, it was perfectly legal to drive without seatbelts. People who drove without seat-belts were presumably law-abiding. Now, people who drive without seat-belts are not law-abiding.

Society decided that it had justification for prohibiting driving without seat-belts. It made a law requiring seat-belts when driving. If you break that law, you aren't law-abiding.

If society decided that it had justification for requring that firearms owners register their firearms, just for a hypothetical instance, and firearms owners who had not previously registered their firearms - and had been law-abiding in so doing - did not register their weapons, they would no more be law-abiding.

How exactly does everyone *think* this "laws" business works?

How exactly would a law that required the doing of something that had not previously been required, or prohibited the doing of something that had not previously been prohibited, ever be enforced if it were not allowed to "affect the (previously) law-abiding"?????

There really have been laws made since Moses (the real one), and every single law that ever prohibited or required the doing of anything made law-breakers out of anyone who did or did not do what was then prohibited or required, even though they were previously law-abiders when it was not prohibited or required.

I can't get over this silliness, I really can't.

And, like, what ... a law requiring the registration of firearms isn't going to "affect" the non-"law-abiding"? Armed bank robbers are going to be, what, exempt from having to register their firearms, and from prosecution for failing to register their firearms if they get caught failing to do that? My head hurts.

So I shall go and eat grilled cheese sandwiches and bean and cabbage soup, and watch the slightly improved Enterprise, instead.

.

[beevul]

8. If you could...

just tailor your response so that it fits into the context of the sublect of this thread, and the discussion therein, that would be great.


The point I am making, is that there would be a greater degree of support for some of these control initiatives, if they directly targeted CURRENT criminals, and left the CURRENTLY law abiding alone.

Deal with the criminal. Do things in such a way that they only effect the criminal. Leave the law abiding alone. You do a good job of tieing the law abiding and the criminal together, but together they are not. Nor should they be treated as such.

In any case, I believe you know exactly what I mean, even if you don't acknowledge it.

If theres a probelm with crime, take it up with the criminals. Leave the folks who currently obey the law alone. They are not a part of the problem, unless that is, if you believe all guns are the problem, in which case theres no point in even haveing a discussion.

[CO Liberal]

11. Most "Dealing With The Criminal"...

...takes place after a crime has occurred. We need to find ways to prevent crimes while respecting the rights of those who don't commit crimes.

But we'll never find a solution if restrictions are put on where we can look for it.

[jimsteuben]

12. preventing crime

"Most dealing with the criminal takes place after a crime has occurred"

Which is why I'd prefer to have a gun in the hand than a cop on the phone.

[CO Liberal]

15. So You Can Play Judge,Jury, and Executioner??

I'm very concerned about people taking the law into their own hands.

[jimsteuben]

18. the ethics of using force

I believe that I have the duty to defend myself and my loved ones. That duty includes the use of force if needed to avoid death or grievous bodily injury. (I'm not talking about disputes over parking palces or loud music from my neighbors.)

Do you see that as "people taking the law into their own hands"?




----------
"Forty-five home invasions occurred in Chattanooga, Tennessee between October, 2000 and January, 2001. But on the night of January 12, the home invasions came to an abrupt end. Two masked gunmen burst through the door of Tiffany Bibbs's home. When the mother, who was holding her baby, attempted to dial 911, one of the robbers knocked the phone out of her hands. Then the assailants forced the four occupants of the house to give up their money and jewelry. As they were leaving, one of the intruders snatched Bibbs's baby from her arms and ran outside.

"Gerald Lamar Beverly, a visitor in the home, grabbed a handgun and followed the robbers. The assailant placed the baby on the porch and began shooting at Beverly. The visitor returned fire. When police arrived, Beverly and an armed neighbor were standing over the body of Mica Kaba Townsend. Beverly was not charged. There have been no more home invasions reported in Chattanooga since January 12...."

From Robert Waters, _The Best Defense: True Stories of Intended Victims Who Defended Themselves with a Firearm_(Cumberland House: 1998).

[MrBenchley]

20. Another fine liberal source....NOT

http://www.conservativebookstore.com/books/guns-save-lives.shtml

"
Also by Robert Waters:
"The Positive Side of Guns" Conservative News Service, 11/23/98
Robert Waters Editorial Archives Sierra Times"

http://www.ocala4sale.com/bestdefense/

[Superfly]

22. Defense of self, family, and property is an issue that

is political party immaterial.

[MrBenchley]

24. Which is why this right wing scumbag

is the source......right.

[Superfly]

25. Still, I maintain that defense of self, family, and property

is a responsibility that is party immaterial.

What do you have to say to that?

[MrBenchley]

26. I say it's telling that all the rootin' tootin' gun totin' liberals

seem to be constantly dredging up turds like this from far right wing cesspools and trying to pass them off as fact.

[Superfly]

29. And, as I thought...your answer was expected

and is indicative of the constant huffing and puffing of the anti-RKBAer's morally bankrupt positions.

[MrBenchley]

32. It's the RKBA crowd using right wing loonies as a source

and posting out and out deceptions and lies....and pimping for a corrupt industry....

And it's the "gun rights" argument that has nothing but racists, imbeciles and crooks trumpeting it in public.

[Superfly]

34. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

The only thing awe inspiring of the anti-RKBAer position is the tremendous amount of shit they can pull out of nowhere.

[MrBenchley]

38. Gee, it's the RKBA crowd peddling right wing shit again

[Superfly]

40. And your only response to me is...

"I know you are, but what am I?"

Hahahahahahahaha

[MrBenchley]

45. Right wing shit from the RKBA crowd...

and further up the thread yet another slur on a Democrat...

[NorthernSpy]

48. "racists, imbeciles, and crooks"

And it's the "gun rights" argument that has nothing but racists, imbeciles and crooks trumpeting it in public.

Oh, brother. Do you really think this, or are you just saying it for effect?

Racist, imbecile, or crook...

Which am I, if I may ask?


Mary

[MrBenchley]

50. Find us a public figure spreading this crap

anmd you'll find they're all specimens such as Trent Lott (racist), Jeb Bush (imbecile) or Dick Cheney (crook).

If you don't like your playmates, don't climb in the sandbox.

[alwynsw]

105. So

Does that mean that Romulus' testimony before the MD legislature earlier this week - a very public forum - is either one or a combination of racists, imbeciles and crooks?

[slackmaster]

23. Another Genetic Fallacy

Attack the source instead of the ideas presented.

:eyes:

[CO Liberal]

30. If The Source Is Crackpot, The Ideas Are Suspect

IMHO.

[MrBenchley]

33. Telling that the RKBA crowd

relies time and time again on right wing horseshit.....

We'll have Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter from them any day now.

[slackmaster]

43. And a poisoned well

One fallacy on top of another.

:eyes:

[alwynsw]

53. Jim Baker acknowledged the existence of God.

Bin Laden acknowledged the existence of Allah.

Are the concepts of either of those suspect because those fellows acknowledged them?

[iverglas]

79. you gotta be kidding

Jim Baker acknowledged the existence of God."
Bin Laden acknowledged the existence of Allah.
Are the concepts of either of those suspect because those fellows acknowledged them?

Duh ... yeah. The fact that insane megalomaniacs "acknowledged" something I was already just a tad suspicious about might be my first clue that there was a little problem with whatever it was.

People who "acknowledge" insane nonsense ... well, no, they don't actually lend credence to the insane nonsense.

.

[alwynsw]

106. Once again, you're misdirecting the point of my comment

It's called driving home a point; that point being that even a corrupt messenger can bear a true message from time to time.

[MrSandman]

107. But pithy

[jimsteuben]

64. can I get an answer to my question?

Jim wrote:
"I believe that I have the duty to defend myself and my loved ones. That duty includes the use of force - up and and including lethal force - if needed to avoid death or grievous bodily injury. (I'm not talking about disputes over parking places or loud music from my neighbors.)

"Do you see that as 'people taking the law into their own hands'?"


Take your time, use as much space as you want, but show your work.

[iverglas]

81. well hey

can I get an answer to my question?

What would make you special?!

I've been trying to get answers to my questions for weeks and months and a coupla hundred posts at least. You think that after a dozen posts, *you* should get what I've never got?!

Ah, the fresh-faced optimism of the newbie, eh?

Don't you lose that naive glow right away now, y'hear? Enough cynics around here already. Well, really only a couple, I'd say, very few here having any reason to feel genuine despair about anything like the basic decency of the human race ... but that's still enough.

.

[NorthernSpy]

91. you did too get answers!

I've been trying to get answers to my questions for weeks and months and a coupla hundred posts at least. You think that after a dozen posts, *you* should get what I've never got?!

(emphasis indignantly added)


Did too! You asked a bunch of questions in the "Negroes with Guns" thread, and said that you were "dying" to read the replies. And I did answer your questions. I mean, that counts, right?


Mary

[iverglas]

93. welllll

You have to agree that I asked the questions *before* you existed, and that not a single person who was here when they were asked, and of whom they were actually asked, or when the several trillion questions I had asked in the past were asked, has answered them yet.

I'm not sure whether that sentence is parsable. I'm about to leave for some Friday evening drinking, having received enough work this week, for the next month, to make up for all the work I didn't get in the last 6, and of course not having done any of it yet ...

Well, though, as some Cdn comedian I had never heard of mentioned on Conan (in Toronto) the other night, it's almost time to gear up for the exciting moment when we can say "look! it's quarter after six, and it isn't even dark yet!" Unfortunately, it's not quite quarter after six yet, and it's ... well, not quite completely dark yet either. I'm in a better mood when it isn't dark. But at least, now, it's not really really dark and also revenue-less. So being in a better mood, maybe I'll get back to those answers of yours later; I was pretty irritable at that moment and decided to spare us both some bother.


.

[pnb]

44. Nice switch

Unfortunately, it is not taking the law into your own hands to protect yourself, your family or your property.

[iverglas]

51. if you could

try responding to what I said, just for once, I would be ... well, perhaps amazed would be the best description, today.

The point I am making, is that there would be a greater degree of support for some of these control initiatives, if they directly targeted CURRENT criminals, and left the CURRENTLY law abiding alone.

The point I was OBVIOUSLY making is that you are demanding that firearms owners be treated differently from people who engage in several billion other activities.

LAW-ABIDING car owners must be licensed, LAW-ABIDING insurance brokers must be licensed, LAW-ABIDING restaurants must obey health and safety codes.

The point I was obviously making is that whatever point you are trying to make, it makes NO SENSE.

Deal with the criminal. Do things in such a way that they only effect the criminal. Leave the law abiding alone. You do a good job of tieing the law abiding and the criminal together, but together they are not. Nor should they be treated as such.

Then why the bloody hell do I, who have never driven drunk, have to have a driver's licence and a licence plate on my car??

Surely requiring me to have a driver's licence and a licence plate on my car is TREATING ME AS IF I WERE A DRUNK DRIVER or some other variety of non-law-abiding driver.

How the bloody hell does one do ANYTHING in such a way that it only affects criminals??

Make laws that only criminals may not shoplift? WHAT SENSE does this make???

People are criminals if they break the law. The law has to be there first. I am completely failing to take your point here.

What, "law-abiding gun owners" should not be required to keep their firearms securely locked up when they are not in use? Why the hell not? Does the fact that they are "law-abiding gun owners" mean that their children will never decide to play with their firearms, and no one will ever break into their home and steal them?

Leave the folks who currently obey the law alone.

I can imagine this being said by dumpers of toxic waste in rivers a few decades ago. There was no law against dumping toxic waste in rivers. They were law-abiding industrialists. They should have been left the hell alone!!

WHAT are you on about??

They are not a part of the problem, unless that is, if you believe all guns are the problem, in which case theres no point in even haveing a discussion.

They are not part of the problem UNLESS AND UNTIL their firearms are used -- by them, their children, someone they transferred the firearm to or someone who stole the firearm from them -- to cause harm.

If the harm is caused by someone who stole their firearm from them, and they failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the theft, then they ARE part of the problem.

And the problem -- the death or injury of an innocent person, or the commission of a crime facilitated by the firearm -- is one that society has a very definite interest in preventing, AND in requiring people who are part of the problem to take steps to prevent.

I'm firing in the dark, here, still. I still don't have a clue what bug is up your nose, what it is that "law-abiding gun owners" are being "affected" by that so annoys you, and that you presumably think is unjustified.

All guns are POTENTIALLY part of a problem, kinda like all cars are potentially part of a problem and all dogs are potentially part of a problem and all staircases are potentially part of a problem.

I'm required to have a handrail on my porch steps no matter how bloody "law-abiding" I am, because a flight of outdoor steps without a handrail presents a potential danger to people using it. I am required to lock up any firearms I own, because they present a potential danger to anyone a thief used them against.

My incentive for complying with the porch-handrail law is that city officials can see at a glance whether my porch has a handrail or not, and ticket me if it doesn't. What incentive do I have for complying with the firearms-lockup law if no one knows I have firearms? What use is a law that is virtually incapable of enforcement and for which there is no compliance incentive?? How does such a law contribute to solving the problem of innocent people being harmed by firearms or by acts facilitated by firearms???

Again, I'm just having to assume that firearms registration laws are one of those things that affect "law-abiding gun owners" that you don't like, because I still don't know what you're actually talking about. It would seem a simple matter for you to say what you're talking about.

But this chicken-and-egg nonsense about not making laws that affect law-abiding people ... it needs to be given a decent burial, if you ask me.

.

[beevul]

67. Mcfeebs Law...Ruling Please.

I really expected better.

"Then why the bloody hell do I, who have never driven drunk, have to have a driver's licence and a licence plate on my car??"

You don't. Nor is mention of automobiles or the driving of them made in the constitution in this country. Sometimes, I think you forget which country is usually in question where gun control is concerned in this forum.

"I can imagine this being said by dumpers of toxic waste in rivers a few decades ago. There was no law against dumping toxic waste in rivers. They were law-abiding industrialists. They should have been left the hell alone!!"

Can I get a ruling? I'd would like to invoke Mcfeebs Law on this. The toxic waste/industrial card is fairly parallel to the WMD card.

"And the problem -- the death or injury of an innocent person, or the commission of a crime facilitated by the firearm -- is one that society has a very definite interest in preventing, AND in requiring people who are part of the problem to take steps to prevent."

First, much of that is YOUR opinion, and your entitled to it. If society believed it had an interest in making slaves of black people that would not make it right either. I tend to lean toward protections constitutionally affirmed, and against erosion of those protections for the "good" of everyone. Acording to a recent poll here in the dungeon, a good portion believe that it is not the place of government to be in the gun control business. Granted, its just a DU poll, but it reinforces the point that not everyone believes as you do. I understand that doesn't fit the socialist mold, being more individualistic and all. I guess I am just too individualistic to agree with you. I guess that sort of fits since individual libertys are important in America.


"Again, I'm just having to assume that firearms registration laws are one of those things that affect "law-abiding gun owners" that you don't like, because I still don't know what you're actually talking about. It would seem a simple matter for you to say what you're talking about."

Yep. You go ahead and assume all you like. I see gun control as an attempt at incremental creep of disarmament under the guise of fixing a problem which has been intentionally misdiagnosed to further an agenda.

Until the other side of the aisle starts addressing the ROOT causes, and targets the ROOT causes with thier legislation, I doubt they will get much support for thier attacks on the tool. Violence was here before the gun, is here with the gun, and could be here long after the gun-if everyone keeps concentrating ON the gun.

[FeebMaster]

68. Tough call.

I've never seen anyone bring up dumping toxic waste into a river during a gun control argument before. I would assume that the property owners along the river could sue for damages, assuming, of course, that whoever did the dumping wasn't being protected by the government through some limited liability type dealie or whatever.

I'm going to have to say that McFeeb's Law doesn't apply in this case. The Law is basically for use when people are crying about things like "Well I guess you think everyone should be able to own nuclear weapons" or "So I guess nuclear weapons are covered by your precious second amendment too."

If dumping toxic waste into public waterways becomes a popular gun control argument then I suppose we'll have to come up with a new law. beevul's bylaw maybe? Or maybe the iverglas gambit.

[iverglas]

70. hey now

Toxic waste is just an inanimate object. Let's not be maligning it now, eh?

.

[FeebMaster]

75. Who is maligning anything?

You see, I can distinguish between the mere ownership of an inanimate object and the misuse of an inanimate object. Try it sometime.

[iverglas]

78. but what I still want to know

You see, I can distinguish between the mere ownership of an inanimate object and the misuse of an inanimate object.


... is how you manage to distinguish between the person who wishes to own said inanimate object and who will do harm with it and the person who wishes to own said inanimate object and will not do harm with it ... at least not intentionally ...

I've wondered already -- is it an in utero DNA test?

How else could we distinguish these law-abiding gun owners from gun owners who just haven't got around to being law-breaking yet? Isn't there always that first time?

So many questions, so few answers.

Of course, me, I can distinguish between a minor inconvenience in the interests of the lives and safety and health of a lot of other people and some big walloping violation of my cherished rights. But then, I can distinguish between my legitimate deserving-of-protection interests and my entirely selfish and self-centred desires, too.

.

[FeebMaster]

82. It's simple.

"... is how you manage to distinguish between the person who wishes to own said inanimate object and who will do harm with it and the person who wishes to own said inanimate object and will not do harm with it ... at least not intentionally ..."

You don't.

"I've wondered already -- is it an in utero DNA test?

How else could we distinguish these law-abiding gun owners from gun owners who just haven't got around to being law-breaking yet? Isn't there always that first time?"

There sure is. Maybe you can take your crystal ball and lock up these future offenders before they commit their crimes. The rest of us will just have to be content to lock them up after they commit their crimes.

"Of course, me, I can distinguish between a minor inconvenience in the interests of the lives and safety and health of a lot of other people and some big walloping violation of my cherished rights. But then, I can distinguish between my legitimate deserving-of-protection interests and my entirely selfish and self-centred desires, too."

I'm sure you can. In fact, you're such a wonderful and wise person, iverglas, that I think you should decide for all of us what rights should be protected and which rights are really only selfish and self-centered desires. If only you were in charge of these things, no doubt the world would be a wonderful place.

[iverglas]

85. I just dunno

Maybe you can take your crystal ball and lock up these future offenders before they commit their crimes.

Why would you say that? You do know perfectly well that I have no desire, have offered no proposal and have attempted to justify no proposal to lock anyone up who has not been convicted of a serious criminal offence -- and in fact you know perfectly well that no one at all has done any such thing.

So what in the name of all that has unholy has this little innuendo got to do with anything that is being talked about?

I genuinely, really really do want to know what apparently compels people to say such bizarre things. Really really.

Let me play, okay? --

The rest of us will just have to be content to lock them up after they commit their crimes.

Yup ... content with all the dead and injured kids and spouses and strangers who were the victims of those crimes and whom we did nothing to protect from them. Have I got that right?

I mean, dog forbid that we should recognize that there are just countless things that we could do, somewhere in between locking up the entire population and taking no interest whatsoever in who is in possession of firearms and what they do with them.

I just don't feel the call to continually misrepresent your and your chums' position(s) on any of those things (apart from how hard it would be to misrepresent something one has never been told). Maybe I'm missing some gene or other myself.

If only you were in charge of these things, no doubt the world would be a wonderful place.

You got it.

In the meantime, I have no difficulty at all in demonstrating that the way I'd like to see things is entirely consistent with the exercise of rights in a free and democratic society in the manner protected by things like constitutions guaranteeing individual rights and freedoms.

Some day, maybe you or someone you know will try to do the same thing for the way you see things.

A challenge to the laws in your jurisdiction as being contrary to that "right ... shall not be infringed" thingy in your second constitutional amendment might be a good start, eh?

I mean ...

... how you manage to distinguish between the person who wishes to own said inanimate object and who will do harm with it and the person who wishes to own said inanimate object and will not do harm with it ... at least not intentionally ...

You don't.

... that *does* mean that everybody who wants a gun, or lots of guns, any kind of gun, and can afford to buy it, gets to buy it -- and sell it on to anybody s/he likes, and deal with it in whatever other ways s/he likes (short of firing it inappropriately, I suppose, the right to fire a firearm apparently not actually being guaranteed).

Right?

.

[FeebMaster]

90. Like I said, it's simple.

"Why would you say that? You do know perfectly well that I have no desire, have offered no proposal and have attempted to justify no proposal to lock anyone up who has not been convicted of a serious criminal offence -- and in fact you know perfectly well that no one at all has done any such thing.

So what in the name of all that has unholy has this little innuendo got to do with anything that is being talked about?

I genuinely, really really do want to know what apparently compels people to say such bizarre things. Really really."


Well you were going on about in utero DNA testing and whatnot see:


"... is how you manage to distinguish between the person who wishes to own said inanimate object and who will do harm with it and the person who wishes to own said inanimate object and will not do harm with it ... at least not intentionally ...

I've wondered already -- is it an in utero DNA test?

How else could we distinguish these law-abiding gun owners from gun owners who just haven't got around to being law-breaking yet? Isn't there always that first time?"

Unfortunately, my rapier wit is no match for yours and so the mention of a crystal ball to determine who will misuse things in the future was apparently in vain.


"Yup ... content with all the dead and injured kids and spouses and strangers who were the victims of those crimes and whom we did nothing to protect from them. Have I got that right?"

Basically. Although I would argue that in some cases, not only did you do nothing to protect them, but you prevented them from protecting themselves. Speaking of all the murders here in the good old US of A, how many of them, do you think, are a direct result of the War on Drugs?


"I mean, dog forbid that we should recognize that there are just countless things that we could do, somewhere in between locking up the entire population and taking no interest whatsoever in who is in possession of firearms and what they do with them."

I'm not sure how a dog could forbid anything. But there are indeed a number of things we could do. I would start by ending the war on drugs for one. Nationwide Vermont style carry might be nice. I'm sure there are a few other things that could be done. But those two would be a good start.


"I just don't feel the call to continually misrepresent your and your chums' position(s) on any of those things (apart from how hard it would be to misrepresent something one has never been told). Maybe I'm missing some gene or other myself."

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I think that I've made my position on gun control and a number of other things quite clear.


"In the meantime, I have no difficulty at all in demonstrating that the way I'd like to see things is entirely consistent with the exercise of rights in a free and democratic society in the manner protected by things like constitutions guaranteeing individual rights and freedoms.

Some day, maybe you or someone you know will try to do the same thing for the way you see things."

And here I thought the way that I'd like to see things was entirely consistent with the exercise of rights in a free society and whatnot. But what do I know?


"A challenge to the laws in your jurisdiction as being contrary to that "right ... shall not be infringed" thingy in your second constitutional amendment might be a good start, eh?"

Yes, I'll get right on that overturning seventy years of laws and court opinions. Can I have some dinner first?



"... that *does* mean that everybody who wants a gun, or lots of guns, any kind of gun, and can afford to buy it, gets to buy it -- and sell it on to anybody s/he likes, and deal with it in whatever other ways s/he likes (short of firing it inappropriately, I suppose, the right to fire a firearm apparently not actually being guaranteed).

Right?"

You got it. Although you could have deleted that last sentence about there not being a right to fire a firearm. I would think that if a person had a right to own something, the right to use it would be implied. After all, you said it yourself "short of firing it inappropriately." See, we already have all sorts of laws covering murder, and shooting at cars that cut you off, and randomly firing at people's houses.

[iverglas]

94. hey alwysnw

Your buddy here seems to need a lesson in sarcasm like the one you were offering me over here

You see, he said:

The rest of us will just have to be content to lock them up after they commit their crimes.

and then I said:

Yup ... content with all the dead and injured kids and spouses and strangers who were the victims of those crimes and whom we did nothing to protect from them. Have I got that right?

and then he said:

Basically. Although I would argue that in some cases, not only did you do nothing to protect them, but you prevented them from protecting themselves.

So when you found yourself having to explain sarcasm to me, you see, it was because I had just figured that nobody would have been using it, given what I'd observed to be such a widespread inability to get it (this being my most recent experience with the phenomenon).

Help him out, 'k?

Maybe explaining how taking something out of context kinda strips it of its meaning, leaving it open to misrepresentation, would help.

.

[FeebMaster]

95. Well there you

were being all sarcastic and you stumbled onto my point of view. I was just confirming that I do indeed agree with your sarcastic statement. Unless I've totally missed the point and you thought I was the one being sarcastic. Or was I being sarcastic and I thought you were being sarcastic. Or were you not being sarcastic and I thought that you were being sarcastic. Anyway, I've lost track of what was going on. In any case, there are always going to be some murders and assaults and such, and while that's unfortunate, I don't see any particular reason to disarm people and prevent them an effective means of defending themselves.


"and then he said:

Basically. Although I would argue that in some cases, not only did you do nothing to protect them, but you prevented them from protecting themselves."


Of course, then I followed that up with:

"Speaking of all the murders here in the good old US of A, how many of them, do you think, are a direct result of the War on Drugs?"

and a bit later with:


"I would start by ending the war on drugs for one. Nationwide Vermont style carry might be nice. I'm sure there are a few other things that could be done. But those two would be a good start."

[alwynsw]

97. Alrighty then!

I was afraid that perhaps American English and the Queen's English differed so much that I misunderstood the meaning of sarcasm.

Let me just get out my trusty OED (CD-ROM version, copyright 2002, Oxford University Press), the authoratative dictionary for the English-speaking world, and see what it says.

Ah! Here it is!

sarcasm: derived from the Latin sarcasmus or late Latin sarcasm-us, to tear flesh, gnash the teeth, speak bitterly

A sharp, bitter, or cutting expression or remark; a bitter jibe or taunt. Now usually in generalized sense: Sarcastic language; sarcastic meaning or purpose.

Without boring the crowd with the rest of the entry, which consists of examples of use spanning six centuries, I must enter my favorite (or favourite, if you prefer), attributed to George Eliot in 1866: Blows are sarcasms turned stupid.

I might add that you tend to use it quite well. Do our neighbors (or neighbours, if you prefer) to the north take advantage of their delightful weather to keep such things frozen, ready for instant use as one would oatmeal in a microwave?

[FeebMaster]

98. You didn't hear?

They changed the definition of sarcasm in 2003. I don't have an OED though, so I'm not quite clear on the new definition.

[alwynsw]

99. I do the best I can with what I have

What else can I say?

[MrSandman]

100. Brevity is the soul of wit

[alwynsw]

101. I'm busted

Didn't I use that phrase earlier in the day? If not, I meant to.

[MrSandman]

102. Maybe, I wasn't here for the fun...

[alwynsw]

104. Sounds almost creepy.

Deja vu' all over again?

[iverglas]

69. you expected better?

Fortunately, I really didn't. That way I'm seldom disappointed.

Sometimes, I think you forget which country is usually in question where gun control is concerned in this forum.

Can you quote something on this for me?

Strange how articles about drug policy in Canada show up here ... not posted by me, btw. Of course, the odd other article about justice or public safety issues elsewhere in the world not involving firearms also shows up here too ... usually to deafening silence. (I always want to apologize to the posters of such articles for my own silence -- I find the articles interesting and appreciate them being posted, I just don't have any desire to discuss the issues they raise in this company.)

Nor is mention of automobiles or the driving of them made in the constitution in this country.

Ah, the appeal to authority. Yup, it works in the courts (you know -- the place I'm so often told I'm *not* in when I'm posting here). It is not an answer to a discussion of policy (as distinct from law, you see).

To use your own little example (and ta for making it so easy):

If society believed it had an interest in making slaves of black people that would not make it right either.

And yet -- slavery was once legal, and constitutional, in the US! And the constitution had to be amended to give women the vote. You see? Policy vs. law. If policy proposals that conflicted with the law (or even constitution) were evicted from the discourse, wherever would y'all be now?

You do see how easy it would be for me to say the same thing about a constitutional provision that prohibited the state from regulating activities involving firearms, eh? I mean, if such a provision existed.

And the problem -- the death or injury of an innocent person, or the commission of a crime facilitated by the firearm -- is one that society has a very definite interest in preventing, AND in requiring people who are part of the problem to take steps to prevent."

First, much of that is YOUR opinion, and your entitled to it.

Ah yes, my entitled to it. Wot a useful and clever thing to say. Everything is just everyone's opinion, and everyone's entitled to it. (Note how "everyone's" works both as a contraction of "everyone is" and as the possessive of "everyone", the former being of course the intended usage.)

Some opinions, of course, have just a wee bit more stuffing than others.

But really -- are you suggesting that society does *not* have an interest in preventing "the death or injury of an innocent person, or the commission of a crime facilitated by the firearm"?? You do know how foolish that would sound if you did say it, right? You'd pretty much be arguing for the abolition of the criminal law, you see.

When I express my "opinion" in matters like these, I am drawing on a rather large body of knowledge and some rather extensive analysis. I'm really not just talking out my hat. And society -- yours and mine and any other you can think of -- really does have an interest in preventing the death or injury of an innocent person, or the commission of a crime facilitated by the firearm. I mean, that much seems self-evident to me, quite apart from anything I might know or understand that is relevant to it.

Are you suggesting that society's interest in this is not sufficiently compelling to justify regulating activities relating to firearms? You and who else? Not your Supreme Court, I don't think.

Perhaps you're suggesting that society's interest is not sufficiently compelling to justify "requiring people who are part of the problem to take steps to prevent" it. Then I'd have to assume that you are also opposed to penalizing people who, oh, sell alcohol to minors, or leave pesticide in open barrels in their driveways. After all, *they* aren't making minors drink, and *they* aren't making anybody's kids stick their arms in the barrels. *They* aren't part of the problem of alcoholic teenagers and poisoned kids, no sirree bob. And alcohol and pesticide are, after all, not problems; they're just inanimate objects. If somebody wants to use them to harm themselves or someone else, what concern is it of the person to whom they belong? What responsibility can s/he possibly have to prevent anyone having access to them and using them to harm themselves or others? What justification could society possibly have for regulating what people do with the alcohol or pesticide that belong to them to prevent them from getting into the hands of someone who will use them to harm themselves or others??

Again, I'm just having to assume that firearms registration laws are one of those things that affect "law-abiding gun owners" that you don't like, because I still don't know what you're actually talking about. It would seem a simple matter for you to say what you're talking about.

Yep. You go ahead and assume all you like.

Well, given that I've asked several times exactly what your problem is, and you haven't seen fit to tell me, what would you suggest that I do?

You don't think that firearms control measures that "effect" law-abiding gun owners should be adopted. I ask what measures you might be talking about. I name a few possibilities, I address them, and you neither tell me what measures you are talking about nor address what I said about the ones I raise.

You just say more stuff like:

I see gun control as an attempt at incremental creep of disarmament under the guise of fixing a problem which has been intentionally misdiagnosed to further an agenda.

... and I just keep hearing "yada yada yada".

If you have paid a jot or tittle of attention over a period of several months, you know exactly what I mean by "gun control" as it relates to my situation, and as I think would mainly work as well in your situation, apart from the probably reasonable assumption that even if the measures in question were determined to be entirely constitutional, a lot of people, perhaps yourself included, could be expected to wilfully disobey them.

But you, you just keep saying "gun control", "gun control", "gun control", like some kind of demonic incantation, without stating, even when asked as I have asked you, what you might be talking about.

So you can probably guess what I'm seeing.

Not a sincere desire to find solutions to problems, as opposed to the single-minded pursuit of one's own interests regardless of whose expense it might be at; not an honest and straightforward and transparent presentation of one's own position and the reasons for it, and acknowledgement of the nature of and reasons for the opposing position; not the goodwill to acknowledge that disagreement is possible and to continue trying to find solutions rather than demonize the adversary.

Yup, what I see in the "gun control" "gun control" "gun control" mantra is pure demagoguery, pure appeal to emotion and prejudice. Not a shred of democratic discourse.

I see gun control as an attempt at incremental creep of disarmament under the guise of fixing a problem which has been intentionally misdiagnosed to further an agenda.

Restated -- without any change to the meaning -- you state that you see advocates of the measures that I approve (i.e. "me") as dishonest: as having "intentionally misdiagnosed" some problem; as having "an agenda" that is something other than what I say it is; as being engaged in some campaign against you in furtherance of some undisclosed interest (which is too obscure for me to even guess at) that I am concealing.

Put even more plainly, you are calling me a liar.

What your reason for saying this is, I don't know. I don't know why you would think I have "intentionally misdiagnosed" some problem, or what "agenda" you might think I have, or what campaign I might be wanting to wage against you. I don't even know whether you actually think any of that, because I can't imagine why someone would think anything that s/he has no reason to think. I can sometimes think of reasons why people would say they think things that they do not think at all, of course.

Any time you want to answer the question, and say what this "gun control" that you (say you) perceive as so demonic is, you just feel free now.

Until the other side of the aisle starts addressing the ROOT causes, and targets the ROOT causes with thier legislation, I doubt they will get much support for thier attacks on the tool.

You of course necessarily imply that this "other side" has *not* done and is not doing what, in your opinion of course, needs to be done. Since it's me you are talking to here, I once again regard this as being about me. So if you'd care to actually say something -- to say what these "root causes" are and what I haven't done to address them -- I'm sure I can explain where you've gone wrong on that bit. I can probably also speak for a few others.

But please, spare me the "war on drugs" diatribe. Again, if you'd paid any attention, you'd know that I do not support most criminal law and law enforcement measures regarding drugs that are now in place (at least in the US; this is yet another instance of US policies adversely affecting Canada, since it is your war on drugs, not ours, that is a major cause of the battles on our streets). And I'd just have to ask you whether you plan to address the "root causes" of drug abuse and addiction, since abuse and addiction really aren't going to go away if the war on drugs ends, and surely you'd agree that these are problems that need addressing too.

Well, maybe not. I mean, if they didn't affect you directly, and the indirect effects you suffer were eliminated -- all that crime and violence arising from the criminal prohibitions and enforcement activities -- why would you?

I understand that <"it is not the place of government to be in the gun control business"> doesn't fit the socialist mold, being more individualistic and all. I guess I am just too individualistic to agree with you. I guess that sort of fits since individual libertys are important in America.

My, my. Do red-baiting and ignorant ethnocentricism/cultural imperialism just never go out of style?

What was it someone was just saying ... McCarthyism? ... funny how we never had that up here. Guess "individual libertys" just weren't important enough to us.

.

[beevul]

76. I could have said I expected more...

but I always expect long posts from you.


"Ah, the appeal to authority. Yup, it works in the courts (you know -- the place I'm so often told I'm *not* in when I'm posting here). It is not an answer to a discussion of policy (as distinct from law, you see)."

Certainly , it is not an answer. It is however a good way of calling your orange the orange it is(car/liscense/driving) when compared to my apple(gun control/2A).

"You do see how easy it would be for me to say the same thing about a constitutional provision that prohibited the state from regulating activities involving firearms, eh? I mean, if such a provision existed."

Except, and it has been, and will be debated, that such a provision DOES exist, depending on what you mean by "activities".

"But really -- are you suggesting that society does *not* have an interest in preventing "the death or injury of an innocent person, or the commission of a crime facilitated by the firearm"?? You do know how foolish that would sound if you did say it, right? You'd pretty much be arguing for the abolition of the criminal law, you see."

I guess I should have been clearer. Fair enough. What lengths a society will go in manifesting that interest is at the heart of the matter. Your view of what lengths are acceptable and mine, appear to be two very differing views.

"So you can probably guess what I'm seeing."

"Not a sincere desire to find solutions to problems, as opposed to the single-minded pursuit of one's own interests regardless of whose expense it might be at; not an honest and straightforward and transparent presentation of one's own position and the reasons for it, and acknowledgement of the nature of and reasons for the opposing position; not the goodwill to acknowledge that disagreement is possible and to continue trying to find solutions rather than demonize the adversary."

"The singleminded pursuit of ones interest reguardless of whos expense it might be at..." you say. Oh, you mean like arguing against the AW ban for instance? Except I don't own one or have any intention of owning one. Why might I argue against it then, if in fact i'm not in "single-minded pursuit of one's own interests regardless of whose expense it might be at"? You really chose the wrong nit to pick with this point. See, as I have stated before in J/PS, I own 1 handgun, and 2 small caliber rifles. I have no intention of owning anything more firearm related. I guess that throws your "single-minded pursuit of one's own interests regardless of whose expense it might be at" argument out the window. That, or I am just not seeing which of my "self interests" that I am in single minded pursuit of. I guess it just isn't possible that I might be opposed to gun control beyond a small degree because I believe anything more to be a flawed concept... Or that I am opposed in principle as well. Also, nevermind that it is part of an agenda that I oppose. Then theres the distinction that its the interest of millions, maybe a hundred million plus, rather than self interest. But hey, thats just semantic games. How many people does it take before it graduates from "singleminded pursuit of ones interest" to the single issue interest of many, important to those many?

"not the goodwill to acknowledge that disagreement is possible and to continue trying to find solutions rather than demonize the adversary."


Thats rich. Funny that this be brought up and the finger gets pointed at me. I can think of another poster who this really would fit, but hey, thats ok. Call the coals black whilst ignoring the kettle. If you are really clueless, but I don't believe you are, about who I am referring to, just memorize the phrase "demonize the adversary" and see whos adept at repeatedly attempting it on a regular basis in J/PS. I'll even give you a hint. Only one word though. Pantload.

"Restated -- without any change to the meaning -- you state that you see advocates of the measures that I approve (i.e. "me") as dishonest: as having "intentionally misdiagnosed" some problem; as having "an agenda" that is something other than what I say it is; as being engaged in some campaign against you in furtherance of some undisclosed interest (which is too obscure for me to even guess at) that I am concealing."

"Put even more plainly, you are calling me a liar."

"What your reason for saying this is, I don't know. I don't know why you would think I have "intentionally misdiagnosed" some problem, or what "agenda" you might think I have, or what campaign I might be wanting to wage against you. I don't even know whether you actually think any of that, because I can't imagine why someone would think anything that s/he has no reason to think. I can sometimes think of reasons why people would say they think things that they do not think at all, of course."

As was once said in a movie ..."no call noone nothing"(you are calling me a liar)

There are those who support gun control as a stepping stone to eventual elimination of privately owned arms. Period. Some of them admit it right up front, and some don't. I never said that was YOUR agenda. However, that IS the agenda of many "gun control" groups whos ideas you seem to agree with some of.

"you state that you see advocates of the measures that I approve (i.e. "me") as dishonest"

Where exactly did I state that? Quote please? I really do think thats something of your concoction. I'll give you this. You make a good attempt at connecting the dots to come up with it. See, now if you add the word "some" between "see" and "advocates", so it reads "some advocates" in the above statement, that would be an accurate assessment of what I see (without the "i.e. "me"" part). I never said YOU were dishonest in any way shape size or form. In fact, its your reason for approval or not, that determines in my eyes whether your dishonest or not. If you approve of gun control because you want to use it as a stepping stone to eventual elimination, and don't flat out state it, that would make you dishonest. If you approve of it because you think it is a balance between the rights of the individual and the interest of society, I might agree or disagree depending on where you draw the line, and how much it infringes on a constitutionally affirmed right. In any case, I never called you dishonest.

"If you have paid a jot or tittle of attention over a period of several months, you know exactly what I mean by "gun control" as it relates to my situation, and as I think would mainly work as well in your situation, apart from the probably reasonable assumption that even if the measures in question were determined to be entirely constitutional, a lot of people, perhaps yourself included, could be expected to wilfully disobey them."

And if you have paid "jot or tittle of attention over a period of several months" you would know that gun control as it relates to your situation is not what I am referring to when I talk about gun control in the US (which seems to be the subject of gun control in J/PS most of the time, and highly relivant to me because I live in the US, and WAS what I was referring to here.)That, and this thread is about gun running in America, and turned into a discussion on how to stop it, at least in part.

"Do red-baiting and ignorant ethnocentricism/cultural imperialism just never go out of style?"

Ahh, condescending remarks, and implications based on misunderstanding of my remarks about my beliefs of individual liberty and what I percieve to be yours. How refreshing. Well, ok, they're not, really. The discussion at hand is about what I believe is an individual liberty, potential infringement of said liberty, and support or lack thereof for crime control based on its focus on the tools of crime instead of crime itself or not, and infringement on previously mentioned liberty-or not. Red-baiting my ass.

Ignorant ethnocentricism = ignorantly thinking one's own group's ways are superior to others. Or, making false assumptions about others' ways based on our own limited experience. Is that correct?

One word. USamerican.

Cultural imperialism. Cultural imperialism is a relatively precise way of addressing a process commonly referred to as "Americanization" or "Westernization" is it not?

Well, I am sure not trying to "Americanize" or "Westernize" you or your country, nor do I advocate such.

Lets just take a look.

"I understand that <"it is not the place of government to be in the gun control business"> doesn't fit the socialist mold, being more individualistic and all. I guess I am just too individualistic to agree with you. I guess that sort of fits since individual libertys are important in America."

That is not exactly what I said. See, this part "it is not the place of government to be in the gun control business" was just a comment on a poll result.


"I understand that doesn't fit the socialist mold, being more individualistic and all. I guess I am just too individualistic to agree with you. I guess that sort of fits since individual libertys are important in America."


See the above pasted quote?

What I was referring to were MY views on where a hypothertical line in the sand should be drawn reguarding an individual liberty, that don't very well fit the socialist mold. Then I say I am too much of an individual to agree with YOUR views on where a hypothertical line in the sand should be drawn reguarding an individual liberty(which I often interpret as socialist views-so sue me). Then I point out that I guess its alright because my views sort of follow the concept of liberty in America. Would you feel better if I had put a :shrug: after it, or added that its also ok, because your views seem to follow many of those in Canada?

[alwynsw]

103. WOW!

Aren't your fingers tired? How are you ever going to squeeze a trigger without R&R?

I am suitably impressed.

[beevul]

108. Hahaha

Just imagine what I could do if I could actually type.:evilgrin:

[alwynsw]

109. How DO you do it?

What with the straitjacket and all? Pencil in your teeth, perhaps?

[jimsteuben]

9. registration and criminals

"Armed bank robbers are going to be, what, exempt from having to register their firearms, and from prosecution for failing to register their firearms if they get caught failing to do that? My head hurts."

Then you better grab some aspirin, my friend, 'cause what I am about to tell you will make it hurt even more.

Felons are legally exempt from gun registration under US law. The Supreme Court decided in Haynes v. U.S. (1968) that a since possession of a firearm by a felon is itself a crime, the law cannot require the felon to register his weapon, otherwise it violate the Fifth Amendment right agaisnt self incrimination.

The Supremes: "We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851."

Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it.

http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/cramer.haynes.html

Even if it we abolished the Fifth Amendment, we would still have a problem of enforcement. There are some 250 million firearms out there, according to the ATF. Suppose we require registration. Will the criminals register their weapons? Nope. The only people who comply with gun registration laws are the people not inclined towards violence anyway.

[iverglas]

52. nooo ...

Felons are legally exempt from gun registration under US law. The Supreme Court decided in Haynes v. U.S. (1968) that a since possession of a firearm by a felon is itself a crime, the law cannot require the felon to register his weapon, otherwise it violate the Fifth Amendment right agaisnt self incrimination.

My head's just fine, thanks.

That's because none of that has anything to do with me, living as I do where it doesn't apply. I don't have to figure out any of that tortured reasoning. I'll just let you guys play with it.


Under this ruling, a person illegally possessing a firearm, under either federal or state law, could not be punished for failing to register it.

I'm afraid that anybody who tried that hooey in Canada would be laughed out of court and all the way to a penitentiary cell, or at least a prison cell. (We don't imprison people for a lot of other things much, but we take firearms offences rather seriously.)

The privilege against self-crimination applies to testimony regarding an offence in a trial for that offence. In both Canada and the US, an accused may stand mute at his/her trial and is not subject to questioning. Down there, you also get to use the fifth amendment to refuse to give testimony in any proceeding about anything -- up here, we get to use the Canada Evidence Act to protect us from having our testimony in one proceeding used against us in another, but not to refuse to testify.

But to say that requiring compliance with a law by a person already breaking a law violates the privilege? Hooting and jeering, that's what I hear here.

I'm trying to think of some analogous ridiculous situation. Requiring me to stop at a red light when I am driving without a licence ... thus enabling the cop in the next lane to get a look at me and pull me over when s/he recognizes me as a disqualified driver ... nope, can't make me do that. I'd be incriminating myself if I stopped at that red light, gotta let me drive on through.

There are some 250 million firearms out there, according to the ATF. Suppose we require registration. Will the criminals register their weapons? Nope. The only people who comply with gun registration laws are the people not inclined towards violence anyway.

Gosh, I was just admonished not to equate gun owners with criminals. I'm sure you didn't mean to equate "non-criminal" gun owners with "people not inclined toward violence". I just don't know how you'd explain all the "non-criminal" gun owners who, oh, shoot their wives, if you were doing that.

Of course that's a bit of a straw fella anyhow. Violence committed by firearms owners themselves is only PART of the problem that wants solving. Accidental deaths of children who get hold of their firearms, intentional deaths of people shot by children who get hold of their firarms, deaths and injuries of people shot by people who stole their firearms or to whom they voluntarily tranferred their firearms, other crimes committed against people that were facilitated by the firearms stolen by or received from other people ... those are ALL part of the problem. And those parts of the problem very often involve one of those "non-criminal" gun owners, if I'm not mistaken.

I don't tend to fall for sly redefinitions of problems that want solving, you see.

.

[alwynsw]

54. I have a question

That's because none of that has anything to do with me, living as I do where it doesn't apply.

IF that's the case, why are you arguing the topic at all?

[iverglas]

56. because

That's because none of that has anything to do with me, living as I do where it doesn't apply.

IF that's the case, why are you arguing the topic at all?


I'm just a thick-headed, dim-witted Canadian.

I thought you knew that.


What "topic" are you referring to this time? I have such a hard time keeping track.

'Cause, you see, I wasn't "arguing the topic" of whether felons could be made to register their guns -- which was what the thing that I said that you responded to was about. Why would you ask me why I am arguing "the topic" of felons registering firearms, when I wasn't??

Wasn't it rather obvious that what I was referring to as not applying to me was this silliness about felons not having to register firearms?

Are you talking about some other "topic" and asking why I'm arguing about it?

If so, what is this strange elision between "felons not having to register firearms" and "the topic", whatever that might be, that you seem to want to be effecting?

(typo fixed)

[Columbia]

58. Ah! So you're Canadien!

Tell us then, how is the whole registration thing going up there?

[iverglas]

60. very well, thank you

If you do your own work and search this forum, or someplace else, you'll find reports of the excellent compliance rate that has been achieved. Things should just sail along pretty tickety-boo now.

We don't seem to have had any mass murders (no, serial murders are not the same thing) in a while here. Kinda like the UK, in that respect ...

.

[Columbia]

61. You know about that?

I thought you weren't allowed to know anything about the whole serial murder investigation thing? How did you manage to get around that?

[iverglas]

71. what on earth are you talking about?

Ask google for vancouver "downtown east side" pickton, off the top of my head, and you'll find as much as you need to keep you busy learning about the serial murders I had in mind. Were you thinking of something else?

Perhaps the Bernardo/Homolka trial. A bit of Canadian trivia from some years ago that has likely stuck in the USAmerican consciousness. (The events occurred in 1991; the trial ended in 1995. Both Homicide and Law and Order fictionalized it, in addition to the huge publicity it received in the US both because of prurient interest in the details and because of the publication ban imposed for a period of time before the trial.)

What we "weren't allowed to know" was the evidence presented at the preliminary inquiry -- the press was present at the hearing, but there was a publication ban imposed until the trial.

Now here's something you need to know that I'm sure you don't.

We don't have grand juries in Canada.

The equivalent of a felony here is an indictable offence. In such a case, the charge is laid by the Crown attorney (equivalent of a district attorney). Then, instead of proceeding to a secret hearing in which the evidence that the prosecution selects is presented to a small group of individuals sworn to secrecy (US states' grand jury), with no press or members of the public admitted, and sometimes, I understand, without the knowledge of the potential accused, a "preliminary inquiry" is held, in Canada. (The accused can waive that hearing, if s/he chooses.)

At the preliminary inquiry, the prosecution presents the essence of its case to the judge, and the accused has the opportunity to cross-examine and call evidence, and make submissions to the judge. The judge then determines whether there is sufficient evidence to proceed to trial.

That hearing is normally public. It is not hugely unusual for the judge to impose a publication ban until trial once it is concluded, if the accused is committed to trial.

Now, why might that be?

Well, it's because we place a fairly high value on the accused's right to a fair trial:
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/charter/charter.text.html

PROCEEDINGS IN CRIMINAL AND PENAL MATTERS.

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(a) to be informed without unreasonable delay of the specific offence;
(b) to be tried within a reasonable time;
(c) not to be compelled to be a witness in proceedings against that person in respect of the offence;
(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal;
(e) not to be denied reasonable bail without just cause;
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;
(g) not to be found guilty on account of any act or omission unless, at the time of the act or omission, it constituted an offence under Canadian or international law or was criminal according to the general principles of law recognized by the community of nations;
(h) if finally acquitted of the offence, not to be tried for it again and, if finally found guilty and punished for the offence, not to be tried or punished for it again; and
(i) if found guilty of the offence and if the punishment for the offence has been varied between the time of commission and the time of sentencing, to the benefit of the lesser punishment.

(That's section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982.)

We consider it important that, where an accused is entitled to be tried by a jury, there be a pool of qualified, unbiased jurors in the jurisdiction from which to select the jury. And we suspect that if the proceedings at the preliminary inquiry were reported -- keeping in mind that the purpose of the hearing is to test the prosecution's case and the accused is under no obligation to present a defence at the preliminary and seldom does so, in order to make the most effective defence at trial, and so only one side of the story is usually heard there -- that pool might be just a bit polluted. And the accused would be left with only biased or very dim jurors, the ones who don't even watch the 6:00 news, for his/her trial. And that wouldn't really be a fair trial.

(Btw, there as also been one instance that I recollect of an injunction being issued to prevent the broadcast of a docudrama by the CBC, when the case it was about, widespread physical and sexual abuse in residential schools by members of a lay religious order, was still before the courts. That was done in order to avoid prejudicing the accused persons' right to a fair trial. A debatable decision, certainly, and one that was indeed debated at length in the courts; but not an arbitrary one.)

I prefer our preliminary inquiry system to the grand jury system of the US. I regard it as more transparent, more rigorous, more protective of those individual liberty things. Less Star Chamber-like than in camera, secret grand juries operating away from the public eye, without press access and without potentially accused persons necessarily being informed of them.

But that is a matter of personal/societal preference, of course, unless there are compelling arguments that either preference is intolerably inconsistent with individual rights.

So if that was what you had in mind, maybe you can cast your mind back and try to think of a time when the proceedings and evidence at a grand jury hearing were published before the trial they led to began, in the US. Or when the press or public were present at a grand jury's deliberations.

And consider the situation that I gather has been developing in California, where publicity campaigns are under way against Scott Peterson -- and a questionable docudrama has also been produced -- and some question seems to be developing as to whether he can receive a fair trial.

Guess I'll see what those other questions were now. Hope I've been of assistance.

.

[Columbia]

77. Ah yes

I remember that trial in the early 90's. I spent some time in Toronto and I remember people telling me they routinely went across the border to pick up newspapers to read about the going ons in their own country.

By the way, since you do know about the serial murder investigation, doesn't that negate the whole point and spirit of the ban? It doesn't seem that even you think "the accused's right to a fair trial" is worth the government imposed censorship. Am I right or am I wrong about this?

But hey, what do I know, I"m just a silly American. :bounce:

[iverglas]

83. if you say so

By the way, since you do know about the serial murder investigation, doesn't that negate the whole point and spirit of the ban?

Did you actually read beyond the first paragraph of what I wrote?

I'm not aware of any ban on the publication of information relating to the Downtown East Side murders. So what spirit, of what ban, might my knowing about the investigation violate?

I very carefully and very clearly informed you that publications bans are sometimes imposed in respect of evidence introduced at preliminary hearings.

I very carefully explained to you that a preliminary hearing in the case of an indictable offence is the counterpart of a grand jury proceeding in the case of a felony, and that the press and the public are virtually always admitted to those hearings, and the accused always has the opportunity to cross-examine, call evidence and make submissions.

I stated my understanding that the evidence produced to grand juries is never made public before trial -- on which I could be mistaken, or overstating the case, or whatever. But in any event, again as I understand it, the press and the public are never present at grand jury proceedings, and the very existence of the grand jury may be concealed from the potential accused.

It doesn't seem that even you think "the accused's right to a fair trial" is worth the government imposed censorship.

I think that a prohibition on publication of the evidence introduced at a preliminary hearing may be justified, i.e. an entirely constitutional limitation on freedom of speech and the press, in the interests of protecting the accused's right to a fair trial.

I explained that this is largely because the only side of the story told at a preliminary hearing is the prosecution side, since the accused of course has the right both to remain silent and to make full answer and defence at trial, and presentation of defence evidence might impede the accused's ability to do those. Accordingly, the result of allowing publication of preliminary inquiry evidence would essentially be to allow the prosecution to make its case in the press when the accused might well prefer to reserve his/her defence until trial rather than dislose it all to the prosecution through the media.

And the result of *that* would be a jury pool that had heard the version of the facts, and the arguments, that tend to support a finding of guilty, and none of the facts or arguments that tend to support a finding of not guilty. And *that* would be a poisoned jury pool, and a violation of the accused's right to a trial by an impartial tribunal.

It's not unusual or extraordinary to take the position that an accused's right to a fair trial is of tremendous importance in a free and democratic society, and that the balance comes down in favour of that right as against the public's desire to know stuff for no particular reason and the press's desire to make money by telling the public stuff.

The actual proceedings - the hearing at which it is determined whether there is sufficient evidence to commit for trial, and the trial itself - are completely public except in rare situations. There is "public" knowledge of what goes on. They are not secret proceedings.

Why would you, if you do, find it odd or improper for publication bans to be issued in some cases before trial in Canada, when grand jury proceedings in the US are always secret (if I understand it correctly)? Are you also in favour of opening all grand jury proceedings to the press and public and allowing them to be published?

Maybe you aren't understanding that the publication ban, if there is one, terminates when the trial starts. So if you're asking why I would know about the 1991 serial murders, that would be because the trial ended in 1995, right?

If you're asking about the Downtown East Side murders -- you know, it may be ... lemme go look ... okay, Robert Pickton's preliminary inquiry was open to the public and press but subject to the usual publication ban:

http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/06/pickton_021206

PORT COQUITLAM, B.C. - The preliminary hearing for
accused serial killer Robert Pickton will be open to the
public, a B.C. provincial court judge ruled Friday.

INDEPTH: B.C. Missing Women

In a highly unusual move, defence lawyers had asked
that the evidence be heard behind closed doors to help
their client get a fair trial.

But Judge David Stone rejected the request, saying
Pickton's interests are already well protected by the
courts. He's confident that the Crown and defence will
be able to find 12 impartial jurors down the road.

"I'm not prepared to accept that the justice system is
so fragile that appropriate measures can't be taken to
protect a fair trial," Stone said.

Normally, journalists are able to attend preliminary
hearings but are not allowed to report any details until
they're presented at a trial. ...

I can't actually say whether I've heard anything that came out of that hearing -- the on-going police investigation, and the continuing discovery/identification of more remains on the accused's farm, are more the focus of media reports.

Here ya go: http://www.cbc.ca/news/indepth/background/publication_bans.html

Under the law, judges must grant a publication ban on
evidence presented at bail hearings and preliminary
inquiries if the accused asks for one. During the trial,
anything that is said or presented in court while the
jury is away cannot be reported. Only after the trial can
the press reveal "what the jury didn't see."

In the Paul Bernardo trial, the judge imposed a
partial publication ban and prohibited journalists
and the public from viewing videotapes
presented in court. These bans are often imposed in
the name of public decency and out of
respect for the families of the victims. ... (lots more)

The videotapes in the Bernardo/Homolka case were of days of the rape and torture and murder of their victims, 14- and 15-year-old girls, whose parents fought to have the tapes concealed from the public and later destroyed. I don't know of anybody much who would have disagreed.

I'm an ex-lawyer. I do think that the right to a fair trial is a pretty important one, and I do think that where the public has no need to know and there are serious reasons to fear that a fair trial could be jeopardized, that right outweighs the public's right to know. The decision is pretty much at the option of the accused, and since it is his/her right to a fair trial in issue, that seems reasonable.

What I *do* want to know about, these days, is the big-time police investigation into the doings of some federal Liberal Party backroom honchos in British Columbia -- several raids on provincial Cabinet ministers' offices where the boys worked, right in the legislative buildings, and on things like a lobbying firm in the private sector. And then the news of a raid on a marijuana grow house in BC, owned by one of the boys in question. The theories are:

(a) some big time federal Liberal Party movers and shakers in BC were heavy into organized crime involving the trading of BC bud for coke in the US, to be sold on the streets in Canada;

(b) the success of the BC end of the party leadership campaign of new Prime Minister Martin (and a couple of other coups in the party out there) was secured by buying 4,000 party memberships for people basically hired to vote for Martin, paid for out of drug money;

(c) the investigation is really into corruption in the privatization of BC Rail by the BC Liberal Party.

They're all simply delicious, and we simply do not know what it's about. The media tried to compel disclosure of the information, but because disclosure could jeopardize what is still an on-going major police operation (whatever they were investigating in the Liberal Party nests and dens and hidey-holes came to light in the course of a big drug/organized crime operation), the courts have refused it.

Between all that, and this week's Auditor General report into quite dreadful crime and corruption in the distribution of federal slush funds in Quebec a couple of years ago, and the new Prime Minister's own problems with forging tax loopholes and legalizing offshore tax havens for his international shipping company while he was Finance Minister, and his current stumble-bumming about just about everything, his new Teflon suit might just develop some holes and we might not have another 4 or 5 years of Liberal Party imperium after the election he's wishing he didn't have to call sometime soon. Ah, if only.


Now, some people would find all that interesting. I won't guess about anybody in particular.

.

[Columbia]

84. Wowsers

How many keyboards do you go through in a week?

[iverglas]

86. like I said

Some would find it interesting to be offered up, in one concise package, a whole bunch of information about the law and politics of their nearest neighbour, which they know virtually nothing about and are offered access to virtually no information about in their daily lives.

Given that you couldn't possibly even have read the post in question before "responding" to it, you apparently aren't one of those some.

And the extent to which I care about that fact is ...












.

[Columbia]

87. Concise?

That's not exactly the word I would've used, but ok.

"Given that you couldn't possibly even have read the post in question before "responding" to it, you apparently aren't one of those some."

Actually, I did read your treatise, but you are correct in that I am not one who is readily interested in Canadian affairs. Sorry to say, it just isn't that relevant or important to me.

[Columbia]

63. Couple more questions

How much has the system cost so far?

How many criminals have registered their firearms and subsequently prosecuted for illegal firearms possession?

[iverglas]

72. funny questions

The funniest first:

How many criminals have registered their firearms and subsequently prosecuted for illegal firearms possession?

Who expected criminals to register their firearms??

You sure do sound like a naive bunch down there.

Certainly no one here expected criminals to register their firearms. And no one is surprised that they didn't. The Firearms Registry is not intended to be a record of illegally-held firearms.

I assume that by "criminals" we mean "people who do not have licences to own firearms"? I mean, there are certainly people with criminal convictions who own firearms and who have registered them, I would think. Something in the neighbourhood of 17% of Canadian households own firearms, and a criminal conviction is not a bar to obtaining a firearms licence (except where it is a condition of probation or parole that an offender not possess firearms, or an offender is placed under a firearms prohibition order).

Or do we mean "people who are engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, whether or not they have been convicted of criminal offences"? It's so hard for me to tell what you guys mean from one minute to the next. In that case, anyhow, I would doubt that the persons in question had applied for firearms licences, so I'd be surprised to see them trying to register their firearms.

Why would anyone enact legislation in the hope that criminals, whoever that is, would register their firearms? Do we expect criminals to comply with any law? Does the fact that we do not expect alcoholics not to drive drunk mean that we should not legislate against drunk driving, and not require non-alcoholics not to drive drunk?

The Firearms Registry was designed to make it possible to remove firearms from the hands of "law-abiding gun owners" who cease to be law-abiding, as well as to make it possible to trace firearms that come into other hands than theirs and determine how and why that was, and assess their liability for it. Criminals don't start out life being criminal, y'know; sometimes the law-abiding just up and threaten to kill their spouses or bosses, and then lo! they're criminals with registered firearms that can be removed from their possession instead of secret firearms that they can shoot someone with. What a stroke of luck for the spouses and bosses, and the general public, eh? Sometimes the "law-abiding" are just a wee bit, um, negligent about what happens to their firearms, and knowing that the firearms could be traced to them might make them think twice before leaving them lying around or selling them on. Again, a possible windfall for their kids, or the total stranger who might find him/herself at the wrong end of the, uh, misplaced weapon.

Jeering at a firearms registration system because bank robbers don't register their firearms is pretty much like jeering at speed limits because bank robbers speed.

How much has the system cost so far?

I could look it up if I were that interested. So could you, I'm sure.

Isn't this one of those "it isn't your country so what do you care?" kind of things? We pay the taxes, we get to spend 'em. While you're looking up the costs, you might look up the levels of public support -- including the over-50% support level in good old Texas-north Alberta, and ranging up to the 97% support level in until recently gang violence-plagued Montreal.

Of course, what the system has cost "so far" is just one bit of data that you might want to consider in whatever process you need it for. Start-up costs, you know. They tend to be balloonish in just about any endeavour involving the creation of an infrastructure. Imagine what it costs to build a superhighway, and then what it costs to maintain it. Imagine if anyone attempted to use the superhighway start-up cost alone to argue that it was a bad idea, without considering annual maintenance costs, and of course the anticipated benefits.

Yup, we may be a bunch of blinkered sheep up here, but it's still us who decide how to spend our money. We seem to like spending it this way better than, oh, bombing the hell out of a bunch of strangers. On a per capita basis, would ya like to compare the cost of the invasion and occupation of Iraq with the cost of the Firearms Registry -- and don't forget to compare the benefits, too. To the general public, that is, not to their corporate/political masters.

And don't forget that the average of 40% less per capita (I'm tossing out figures from memory now) that we spend on health care leaves us with some loonies to play with. Talk about yer "root causes", eh? Get yerselves a decent healthcare system, get the hell out of Iraq (and a bunch of other small foreign countries), and you too could afford a firearms registry!

.

[Columbia]

80. You ask a simple question and you expect a...

For the first question, the answer "none" would have sufficed.

For the second question, "almost $1 billion" would have been good too.

You do raise one interesting point in your post, which is when you state "Isn't this one of those 'it isn't your country so what do you care?' kind of things?"

Well, golly gee, if you are so offended about mere questions about your country, maybe you shouldn't be so forceful in advocating the stripping of our rights in our country!

[iverglas]

88. maybe you should be careful

not to make statements about me that are false and that I could not imagine if I tried from now til the next millennium how you couldn't help but know are false and that you cannot possibly substantiate.

maybe you shouldn't be so forceful in advocating the stripping of our rights in our country!

If you can find one example of me having done anything remotely resembling this, maybe you should come up with it quick-like.

.

[Columbia]

89. Gee

How about everything you've said trying to infringe our our right to keep and bear arms as protected under the 2nd Amendment to the United States Constitution?

"maybe you should come up with it quick-like"

Are you trying to threaten me?

[Liberal Classic]

92. Good long post there, too.

With criminals defined as you wrote above:

"people who are engaged in a pattern of criminal activity, whether or not they have been convicted of criminal offences"?

To me a registration program addresses the symptom, but not the disease.

Certainly no one here expected criminals to register their firearms. And no one is surprised that they didn't. The Firearms Registry is not intended to be a record of illegally-held firearms.

...

Why would anyone enact legislation in the hope that criminals, whoever that is, would register their firearms? Do we expect criminals to comply with any law?

We don't, but it is the illegally armed criminals who cause problems not citizens in good standing. The proper target of such legislation are people who do break the law, not people who are productive members of society.

The Firearms Registry was designed to make it possible to remove firearms from the hands of "law-abiding gun owners" who cease to be law-abiding, as well as to make it possible to trace firearms that come into other hands than theirs and determine how and why that was, and assess their liability for it. Criminals don't start out life being criminal, y'know; sometimes the law-abiding just up and threaten to kill their spouses or bosses, and then lo! they're criminals with registered firearms that can be removed from their possession instead of secret firearms that they can shoot someone with.

Generally speaking, most violent crimes are comitted by repeat offenders. The fear that gun owners will eventually snap and going postal seems to me to be an alarmist attitude. The percentage of murders comitted by people with no history of criminal conviction or mental illness is small. Most law-abiding people stay law abiding, but recidivism is very high among violent criminals. First time criminals are usually not dramatically violent. People get into a life of crime through the drug trade, familial problems, and the like. Most people don't wake up and decide they're going to become a murderer. Here in the U.S. and from what I've read about Canada it is largely trus also a large portion of violent crime, and especially murders, can be directly associate with the black market trade in illegal drugs. Likewise most guns used in violent crimes are obtained on the black market. The illegal drug trade is closely tied in with black market firearms, because recidivist drug smugglers already are permitted from owning guns, but demand remains high due to the violent nature of the drug trade.

My opinion is that laws regulating the conduct of gun owners tends more and more to be a burden on law-abiding people, but has little effect on the career criminal. In my opinion (which I know is shared among others in the forum) what is needed is a change in policy with regard to the illegal drug trade, as black market with financially rewards violence. The drug war is as effective as the alcohol prohibtion was in fostering violence and smuggling and eradicating alcohol use -- which is to say it isn't good at eradicating drugs but great at fostering violence. Taking the profit motive out of the drug trade will have a significant impact on the number of violent crimes, because so many violent crimes are related to the drug trade.

When was the last time you heard of one liquor store shooting at another over beer distribution territories? It doesn't happen. The Kwik-E-Mart doesn't plan hits on Circle-Q any more. If we can improve the drug war situation we can reduce violent crime without adversely affecting the rights of law-abiding gun owners. There will still be the occasional accidenct and crime of passion, but those sorts of thing is impossible to predict.

[jimsteuben]

65. problems that want solving

"I just don't know how you'd explain all the 'non-criminal' gun owners who, oh, shoot their wives, if you were doing that."

Anyone who murders (whether a spouse or a stranger) is by definition a criminal. A murderer is, I think we can all agree, excluded from the category of "people not inclined toward violence."

"Accidental deaths of children..." etc.

And registration would help in this regard how?






-----------------
"False is the idea of utility...that would take fire from men because it burns, and water because one may drown in it; that has no remedy for evils, except destruction of liberty. The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes...such laws serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man." --Thomas Jefferson, quoting Cesare Beccaria in On Crimes and Punishment (1764).

[iverglas]

73. I just scratch my head

There are some 250 million firearms out there, according to the ATF. Suppose we require registration. Will the criminals register their weapons? Nope. The only people who comply with gun registration laws are the people not inclined towards violence anyway.

Gosh, I was just admonished not to equate gun owners with criminals. I'm sure you didn't mean to equate "non-criminal" gun owners with "people not inclined toward violence". I just don't know how you'd explain all the "non-criminal" gun owners who, oh, shoot their wives, if you were doing that.

Anyone who murders (whether a spouse or a stranger) is by definition a criminal. A murderer is, I think we can all agree, excluded from the category of "people not inclined toward violence."

Have you folks developed some kinda in utero test that identifies "people not inclined toward violence" that I haven't heard of?

Or is there some other way of doing this?

Anyone who murders is a criminal once s/he has murdered. Prior to that, s/he may have been just a "law-abiding gun owner". Just like I was once a non-smoker, but then I took that first puff and became a smoker. You do understand how these things work, right? Was I "a smoker" even before I lit up? (Maybe I was "inclined toward smoking" -- could you have picked me out of a line-up as being that?)

If we were to pass a law requiring smokers to register their cigarette lighters, and making it illegal to smoke unless the lighter were registered, would I have to do this before or after I lit up that first cigarette? If I waited until after, I'd obviously be in violation the very instant that I lit it up. I'd be "a smoker", using an unregistered lighter.

And yet before I lit it up, I wasn't a smoker. So I wasn't required to register my lighter.

If you can sort out this little conundrum for me, and tell me how any law can be passed providing that only who "are" something must do "X", when they become the something in question the minute they do a thing, but aren't the something before they do the thing, I'd be most grateful.

And y'know, we generally frown on laws that apply to people based on what they "are". The rule of law, you know -- everyone is equal before the law, the law has no regard for persons, and all that. It's what we do that the law is properly concerned with, not what we are.


"Accidental deaths of children..." etc.

And registration would help in this regard how?

Well if it isn't some logical fallacy that I can't be bothered remembering the name for.

You have responded to my posts by addressing the issue of registration, but that really was not actually the only thing I was talking about. I was initially responding to a statement that went like this:

alot of pro-gunners would be on your side, CO, if you would reguard solutions that only effect the law abiding as out of the question.

I have since made some effort to ascertain what "solutions" that individual was talking about, to no avail. I assumed that registration was one of them, but I have received neither confirmation nor negation of that assumption.

So I didn't actually say that firearms registration would solve the problem of the accidental deaths of children, all by its lonesome.

You ask how it would "help" in solving that problem, though, and my response is that firearms registration, alone but preferably in combination with other measures, could indeed help.

There are several measures that are needed. One is licensing of firearms owners, assuming that the licensing process involves (as it does in Canada) mandatory training. Training is assumed by many people (and most particularly by opponents of "gun control") to be an effective way of reducing firearms injuries and deaths resulting from negligent handling and storage of firearms, as a result of which children either have unsupervised access to the firearms and accidentally injure or kill themselves or other children, or are accidentally injured or killed by the adult owner of the firearm.

Another is legislation requiring secure storage of firearms that are not in use. This inhibits access to the firearms by children, and reduces the risk of children being accidentally killed or injured by themselves or other children, or by the adult owner.

Legislation requiring registration of firearms can provide an incentive for complying with secure storage requirements (and with prohibitions on transfers to unlicensed individuals). If an owner can incur liability for the harm caused by use of an improperly stored firearm, or even simply expect to be charged for the improper storage if it is used by unsupervised children, or stolen and used to kill or injure someone or to facilitate the commission of a crime, s/he can be expected to be more likely to comply with those requirements. If an owner knows that a firearm can be easily traced to him/her in any of those events (or if s/he has illegally transferred the firearm to someone else who uses it to injure or kill or to facilitate the commission of a crime), because the firearm is registered to him/her, s/he can be expected to be even more likely to comply with those requirements. And compliance with safe storage requirements can be expected to reduce the risk of accidental deaths of children.

And all at very little inconvenience to anyone, at least to anyone who doesn't regard the time spent obtaining a licence, registering a firearm and securing it when not in use as outweighing the higher risks to others that failing to do those things entails in many cases, if not in his/her own. (My speeding doesn't entail danger to anyone, but some other people's speeding does, so I don't claim that speed limits are so inconvenient to me as to outweigh the benefit that can reasonably be anticipated for others of having a universally applicable speed limit -- even though, absent a speed limit, I would be a perfectly "law-abiding car driver", never having used my car to try to kill someone or make a getaway from a bank robbery.)

Since no one was talking about disarming anyone, I fail to see the point of the Jefferson/Beccaria pronouncement in this context.

But since we're there, can you give me the quote where Jefferson insisted that his slaves not be disarmed? The authority you have appealed to is all yours.

.

[iverglas]

55. just by the bye

Can anybody tell me -- not by appealing to authority, but by using logic -- how we get this:

"We hold that a proper claim of the constitutional privilege against self-incrimination provides a full defense to prosecutions either for failure to register a firearm under sec.5841 or for possession of an unregistered firearm under sec.5851."

from this:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

?

When someone is required to register his/her firearm, exactly what criminal case is s/he being compelled to testify in?? The one involving the charge of unlawfully possessing a firearm that does not exist at the time the requirement applies?? Somebody should have looked up "inchoate" in his/her law dictionary, methinks.

Seems like one o' those personal responsibility things to me, again. Exactly who forced this felon to possess a firearm? If he didn't want to incriminate himself, did he not have the option to not have the gun?

Cheeses.

If I travel by subway to rob a bank, my fingerprints might appear on the subway token that I used to get there, and connect me to the crime ... so I can't be made to pay to ride the subway?

I could go on and on ...

.

[MrSandman]

57. The Constituton as applied by SCOTUS...

It makes it the law of the land. Period.

[iverglas]

59. okay

So what?

I'm sure the price of tea in China will be raised before very long and pronounced relevant to whatever somebody chooses to define the topic of discussion as ... but I'm hungry.

.

[MrSandman]

62. Okay,

If prohibited person "Joe" has a firearm and is required to register it, he would be confessing to the unlawful ownership through mandatory registration. This, since it is mandatory, would violate the freedom from coercion of self incrimination. It is still unlawful for Joe to own the weapon, but the mandatory registration does not apply to him.

Inchoate, perhaps
Convoluted, definitely
The Law, exactly.


on edit...my bar-b-q kielbalska was excellent

[iverglas]

74. and that answers my question ...

how?

If prohibited person "Joe" has a firearm and is required to register it, he would be confessing to the unlawful ownership through mandatory registration. This, since it is mandatory, would violate the freedom from coercion of self incrimination. It is still unlawful for Joe to own the weapon, but the mandatory registration does not apply to him.

Let's try it again. This is what the fifth amendment to the US Constitution says, with my emphasis:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Confessing **to whom**? To a court? No! To a person in a position of authority (thus requiring a reading of rights), even? No! If he chose to "confess" a crime to the next-door neighbour, would we then be insisting that he could not be required as a condition of parole to live at a fixed address, because he might have neighbours and he might confess something to them, and that confession might be introduced in evidence somewhere sometime??

**What** criminal case is someone who is required to register a firearm being compelled to testify against him/herself in??

"Testify" -- you know: stand up in court, take an oath or make a solemn affirmation, say stuff. "Case" -- the proceeding in which one is required to do that, based on a particular fact situation which the prosecution alleges demonstrates that an act contrary to a law has been committed.

When the criminal goes to register his/her firearm, where is this case? Where is the testimony being given?

NO ONE is "compelling" the criminal to do a bloody thing! All s/he has to do is NOT OWN A FIREARM. Which is, after all, exactly what s/he is supposed and expected to do. I mean, it's not even like s/he is trying to do something s/he is entitled to do.

Would a criminal whose parole conditions included abstaining from alcohol (a very common one) be exempt from the law against making gin in bathtubs, because if s/he had to go to a bar and buy the gin s/he would be being "compelled to be a witness against him/herself" by saying "a gin and tonic, and make that a double"?

The parolee's own words could be reported to a court by the bartender, in a proceeding for violation of parole conditions, and become evidence against him/her. Prohibiting the parolee from making his/her own gin, thus making him/her have to create evidence that can be used against him/her in court by procuring the gin from someone else, is surely a violation of the privilege against self-crimination.

Or ... s/he could just be expected not to violate the conditions of his/her parole, and if s/he chose to do so, be expected to expect that what s/he did would be evidence of the violation. I mean, duh.


Yeah yeah yeah. I quite understand that this is the law of your land.

So was the decision of the Supreme Court some years ago upholding the Texas law prohibiting sodomy. But as of last summer, it ain't anymore. That same Supreme Court (different judges, same court) held that its previous decision was wrong, both when it was decided and now. It happens.

.

[MrSandman]

96. I answered a question...

The traffic analogy fails...if Joe is carrying a weapon, he must be able to show he is eligible to do so. Same as if you or I are driving our car where a license is required.

Amicus briefs should be filed at the courthouse.

[CO Liberal]

10. If You Start By Taking Anything Off The Table....

...the solution may never be found.

[beevul]

13. Table? What table?

Table? What table? I don't believe were negotiating for anything. I certainly am not here trying to negotiate with the anti-gun agenda. We have compromised enough at "the table" already. That was a mistake from the beginning.

Instead of wasting time looking for compromise, and negotiations, hows about looking for the CAUSE or causes of this problem. Then hows about targeting that CAUSE or causes, rather than doing a process of elimination through legislation or negotiation of peoples rights/privelages/freedoms blindly hopeing to solve a problem with unidentified causes.

Until a solution can be found that targets the cause or causes of this problem, expect resistance from those who are not part of the problem when you decide to put thier interests/rights/callitwhatyawant
"on the table".

Right or wrong, agree or disagree, that IS reality.

[Withergyld]

14. All interstate gun sales MUST go through a dealer and a NICS check ...

MUST be performerd.
"(B1) To whom may an unlicensed person transfer firearms under the GCA?

A person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of his or her state, if the buyer is not prohibited by law from receiving or possessing a firearm, or to a licensee in any state. A firearm other than a curio or relic may not be transferred interstate to a licensed collector. <18 U. S. C 922( a)( 3) and (5), 922( b)( 3), 27 CFR 178.29>

(B2) From whom may an unlicensed person acquire a firearm under the GCA?

A person may only buy a firearm within the person's own state, except that he or she may buy a rifle or shotgun, in person, at a licensee's premises in any state, provided the sale complies with state laws applicable in the state of sale and the state where the purchaser resides. <18 U. S. C 922( a)( 3) and (5), 922( b)( 3), 27 CFR 178.29>

(B3) May an unlicensed person obtain a firearm from an out-of-state source if the person arranges to obtain the firearm through a licensed dealer in the purchaser's own state?

A person not licensed under the GCA and not prohibited from acquiring firearms may purchase a firearm from an out-of-state source and obtain the firearm if an arrangement is made with a licensed dealer in the purchaser's state of residence for the purchaser to obtain the firearm from the dealer. <18 U. S. C 922( a)( 3) and (5), 922( b)( 3), 27 CFR 178.29>
http://www.atf.gov/firearms/faq/faq2.htm#b1

I can't believ the people in the article were only sentenced for 4-6 years. The penalty for gun trafficing needs to be stiffer.

[DU GrovelBot]

31. ## Support Democratic Underground! ##

RUN C:\GROVELBOT.EXE
 
This week is our first quarter 2004 fund drive.
Please take a moment to donate to DU. Thank you
for your support.
 
- An automated message from the DU GrovelBot

Click here to donate.