Everybody is happy but NRA - State Sees Instant Results in Electronic Gun

[Florida_Geek]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/12/25/national/25guns.html

While the NRA is not talked about they would be the only people with problems here...

December 25, 2004
State Sees Instant Results in Electronic Gun Checks
By FOX BUTTERFIELD

WOBURN, Mass., Dec. 24 - When Massachusetts this month became the first state to install an electronic instant-check system complete with a fingerprint scanner for gun licenses and gun purchases, the impact was quickly apparent.

On Wednesday, for example, moments after a court placed a woman's husband under a restraining order, a notice about the order popped up on a new computer terminal at the police station here. Given that information, the Woburn police went to the man's house and confiscated his guns, all 13 of them

..cut...

So far there has been no outcry against the new system from gun owners or the state's gun stores.

...cut...

"I haven't had any negative comments from customers whatsoever, and I've sold over 2,000 firearms since the system went into effect," Mr. Ingrao said.

"The computer is actually quicker, more efficient and less expensive for the dealer," he said, because under the old paper system each form cost 50 cents, not including the postage for mailing a copy to the Criminal History Systems Board. Mr. Ingrao says he believes the new system will save him about $2,000 a year.

...more at NY TIMES....

[jody]

1. Didn't the NRA lobby for and support instant checks? n/t

[Lefty48197]

8. The NRA opposed the checks vehemently. Called them "anti-freedom"

when it became apparent that background checks would become the law of the land, the NRA decided to jump on the bandwagon and pretend that they had supported checks all along.

[jody]

22. My memory is that NRA supported instant background checks with

instant purchase, i.e. no waiting period, before Brady ever entered the picture.

I believe the Brady Bill wanted a 30 day period waiting period and NRA pushed for no waiting period. I also believe a number of states already have instant background checks that qualify under federal law so that no waiting period for purchase is required.

I'm sure someone will correct me with appropriate sources if I am wrong.

[Lefty48197]

26. Actually, when the waiting period and background checks were first

introduced, the NRA responded, "That's anti-Freedom. We MUST have a system that gives INSTANT back-ground checks". They knew damn well that a system like that did not yet exist, so they felt comfortable pretending that they supported it.

here's my source:

http://www.thenraisfullofsh*t.com

[jody]

35. I'm sure both sides will tell different versions of the "instant check"

clause in the law however, the facts are that a number of states already have instant checks in place and citizens in some of those states can buy a handgun and take delivery immediately.

See NRA Fact sheet

QUOTE
Under the Act, states are exempt from the five-day waiting period if their laws require law enforcement officials to conduct records checks to verify that prospective handgun purchasers are eligible to possess handguns. <18 U.S.C. §922(s)(1)(C)(ii)> When President Clinton signed the Act into law in 1993, 18 states and D.C. were automatically "Brady-exempt."
UNQUOTE

I believe those facts support a conclusion that the NRA knew instant checks were viable before the Brady Bill was passed. The fact that the federal government did not develop an effective, efficient NICS is a problem for the executive branch because adequate funds and technology were available.
:shrug:

[Retired AF Dem]

2. I don't like you

I get a restraining order against you, it's not hard. Police come to your house and take property though you have done nothing wrong. Damn I don't see any future problems with this.

[verdalaven]

3. I'm sorry, but it isn't that easy

I know from experience. My family was threatened by a man who had been in and out of jail for assault, including assaulting his own nine year old son, and when I filled out the forms to get a restraining order (to keep him from repeatedly pounding on my door and threatening us daily) I was told that until he actually assaulted one of us the police could do nothing. My fear meant nothing.

Unless it is easier to get a restraining order in your State, in Michigan that wouldn't work.

[slackmaster]

7. Depends on your state

(possible dupe post)

Here in California if you can make a credible claim that an estranged former roomate has threatened you, Family Court will issue a 30-day TRO free of charge. That requires the person to get rid of any existing guns (move them out of the home or turn over to police) as well as blocking new gun purchases.

[Florida_Geek]

4. I do not know about your state, but in Florida

you only get a temporary restraining order, and within 10 days you and the other party go before a judge and he hears both sides and lefts or makes permanent the order. (Been there Done that and had the other party laft out of Court)

I do not see a problem with it, your neighbor gets one shot and if you are not a problem, they can not do it again.

[No Mandate Here.]

5. I saw an NRA magazine at my inlaws

from before the election, and its cover sickened me. There was a photo of Kerry and Ted Kennedy, probably taken on the dais of the Convention, and quotes about their supposed gun position... It said something about taxing firearms and ammunition, and did everything except put devil horns on the two of them. About the only visual demonization they didn't do was to photoshop a picture of Jane Fonda on stage with them.

In the Christmas spirit, my wish for our country is that we find a way to back off from the black or white polarization. There used to be civility. Political adversaries used to be able to be friends.

Say what you will about Mr. Blair, listening to the reasoned, informed and polite political discourse on 'The Prime Minister's Questions', shown on CSPAN, makes me wish for a similar tone here.

[jody]

6. Granted the NRA has successfully defended RKBA but only because

gun control groups continue to push their agenda of banning all guns.

All Democrats are not for gun bans or even bans on handguns. The Democratic Party finally recognized that fact and belatedly revised its platform to say "We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms, and we will keep guns out of the hands of criminals and terrorists by fighting gun crime, reauthorizing the assault weapons ban, and closing the gun show loophole, as President Bush proposed and failed to do."

Unfortunately, the platform is ambiguous because it says "reauthorizing the assault weapons ban" when that ban as written prohibits many guns used for legitimate purposes.

[Lefty48197]

10. That's absolutely fu*king ridiculous

and I am sick and tired of those nuts in the NRA trying to make it sound like I and any significant number of Democrats want to ban guns. If I think that something should be banned, then I will tell you myself, thank you very much. I will never leave it to Wayne LaPierre to speak for me.
The #1 problem with the gun issue in this country is that those
nutty groups like the NRA spend all of their time telling people that I want to confiscate their guns. I have never supported anything like that, yet their paranoia continues...
Ask any of those paranoid gun owners and they will tell you flat-out that Democrats want to ban guns. Absolutely ridiculous.
Claiming that the Democratic party came along belatedly is bullsh*t too. Wayne LaPierre drags out quotes from one or two Democrats, uses the quotes to rally their sheep in the belief that every single Democrat in America supports those two people.

[Paladin]

11. Well Said, Lefty

n/t

[RoeBear]

18. It would seem that to you...

unless someone wants to ban all private ownership of firearms then they aren't a 'gun banner'.

To me a gun banner is someone who tries to ban them one class at a time. First it's Saturday night specials, because they are to cheaply made, then it's assault weapons because they are too well made.
Then there are those 'gun banners' who want to ban them based on where you live not what kind of person you are.

[NorthernSpy]

21. first they came for the Saturday night specials...

To me a gun banner is someone who tries to ban them one class at a time. First it's Saturday night specials, because they are to cheaply made, then it's assault weapons because they are too well made.

Okay, but:

I'm certainly not a gun-banner. But even so, I really don't feel obliged to defend the making and selling of defective merchandise. Not everyone who wants crappy guns off the market is a serial banner secretly plotting to deprive the public of well-made, reliable firearms afterwards (though I suppose that some people probably would like to use the quality issue in this way).

[Lefty48197]

27. Oh yeah. I forgot about the "domino theory"

If I insist that handguns be registgered, and then all of the sudden, I'm in your closet confiscating your shotgun.

[RoeBear]

34. Do you think

they should pass a law to have handguns registered in Michigan?

[jody]

23. But Senator Feinstein said she wanted to ban all guns! Why do you ignore

that fact?

[Lefty48197]

28. I'm not ignoring it. Nor am I trying to rally a bunch of nuts into

believing that every single Democrat (there are over 50 million of us by the way) supports Diane Feinstein's alleged legislative proposal to ban all guns.

By the way, does anybody have a link that shows Diane Feinstein introducing legislation to ban all guns?

"Hey Tim McVeigh, they're coming to take your guns away! What are you going to do about it?"

[MrSandman]

42. It wasn't legislation...

It was a TV interview about the time of the AWB. And it wasn't all guns, it was all assault weapons. She did say if she could have gotten the votes she would have confiscated all of them(assault weapons).


In one sense, I wish she would have had the votes. SCOTUS would have been forced to rule and we would not have been beaten up on this issue by the Republicans on this in 2000 and 2004.

On edit... The NRA has been grand to leave the part out limiting it to assault weapons.

[Romulus]

43. there IS the SF handgun thing

from the early 80's, where she pushed through a handgun ban that was struck down in the courts. It was mentioned in the "SF Handgun Ban II" threads.

Of course, her reaction to Harvey Milk getting shot in City Hall that year is understandable, but not supportable.

[hansberrym]

24. A few wackos are being held up (falsely) as representing

the party. But the fact remains that many of the people denying an individual right of ordinary americans to keep and bear arms have been on the political left. (Gary Wills, Caroline Kennedy, Michael Bellesiles, Michael Dorf, and Dan Abrams to name a few).

The Right has taken advantage of this to discredit reasonable gun control (by employing the slippery slope argument) and Democrats in general(using guilt by association). These are weak arguments if looked at logically, but politics is often decided on gut feelings.

The party platform, stating that the rights of Americans to own firearms would be protected, was an improvement, but I was disappointed that is did not just say in boldface that the party rejects the "Collective Rights" theory.

Gun control and an individual right to keep and bear arms are not mutually exclusive. IMO the slipperly slope argument could be completely undercut if more effort were put into upolding the individual right while stressing also individudal responsibilities.

BTW: Where do you stand on the Collective Right vs. Individual Right
issue?

[Lefty48197]

29. I'll answer the question, as soon as I understand it.

By the way, who are Michael, Michael, and Dan?

[hansberrym]

33. Fair enough, I'll explain.

Which of the below interpretations do you think is most reasonable?



From Lockyer v. Silveira(9th Circuit)

There are three principal schools of thought that form the basis for the debate.

The first, which we will refer to as the “traditional individual rights” model, holds that the Second Amendment guarantees to individual private citizens a fundamental right to possess and use firearms for any purpose at all, subject only to limited government regulation. This view, urged by the NRA and other firearms enthusiasts, as well as by a prolific cadre of fervent supporters in the legal academy, had never been adopted by any court until the recent Fifth Circuit decision in United States v. Emerson, 270 F.3d 203, 227 (5th Cir. 2001), cert. denied, 122 S. Ct. 2362 (2002).

The second view, a variant of the first, we will refer to as the “limited individual rights” model. Under that view, individuals maintain a constitutional right to possess firearms insofar as such possession bears a reasonable relationship to militia service.8


The third, a wholly contrary view, commonly called the “collective rights” model, asserts that the Second Amendment right to “bear arms” guarantees the right of the people to maintain effective state militias, but does not provide any type of individual right to own or possess weapons. Under this theory of the amendment, the federal and state governments have the full authority to enact prohibitions and restrictions on the use and possession of firearms, subject only to generally applicable constitutional constraints, such as due process, equal protection, and the like. Long the dominant view of the Second Amendment, and widely accepted by the federal courts, the collective rights model has recently come under strong criticism from individual rights advocates. After conducting a full analysis of the amendment, its history, and its purpose, we reaffirm our conclusion in Hickman v. Block, 81 F.3d 98 (9th Cir. 1996), that it is this collective rights model which provides the best interpretation of the Second Amendment. (end quote)



For the more background on the persons I cited just search for their names along with "second amendment".

When you are up to speed on the arguments the "Collective Rights" advocates make, you might understand why many individual rights advocates so readily accept the slippery slope argument and simply dig in their heels and oppose most every gun control proposal.

IMO it is the extremists that drive the issue, and if the extremeists pushing the "Collective Rights" crap were neutralized by a clear statement from the party rejecting that nonsense, then the extremists on the other side would be neutralized, and reasonable gun control could be persued without being labeled as gun grabbing. But as long as there actually are gun grabbers out there, reasonable gun control will be a losing proposition.

[Columbia]

25. So do you?

"If I think that something should be banned, then I will tell you myself, thank you very much."

[Lefty48197]

30. Yes

tanks, shoulder fired rockets, land mines, fighter jets... lots of stuff. According to some of the NRA nuts, that statement makes me "anti-freedom".

[mosin]

38. Red herrings

That's a red herring. The NRA has never opposed regulation of dangerous ordnance. Finding a few extremists who consider land mines "arms" doesn't make your case. I'm pretty much of a Second Amendment absolutist--I'm also a First Amendment absolutist--and I support current/reasonable controls on high explosives.

[Lefty48197]

40. Sorry

but if Diane Feinstein suggesting that ar15's be banned means that every single Democrat in America wants to ban all guns, then Tim McVeigh thinking anfo bombs should be legal, means that every member of the NRA thinks anfo bombs should be legal. Isn't insanity fun?

[mosin]

44. I agree...

that those exaggerations are equally ridiculous. Obviously DiFi's desire to ban scary-looking semi-automatic rifles doesn't translate to a universal Democratic desire to ban all, or even any, guns. People on both sides are guilty of exaggerations.

It does make it reasonable to call DiFi a gun-banner, however, since she wants to ban some personal firearms. It was also reasonable to call Kerry a gun-banner since he wants to ban some personal firearms. (And, frankly, for just that reason, if Bush had been even slightly less disturbing, I would have voted third party rather than cast my ballot for Kerry. I much preferred Lieberman or Dean.)

[EDT]

9. Wrong! Any man getting divorced will be screwed over.

Restraining orders are routinely used as a tool by lawyers representing the wife, even if the man is completely innocent.

What this means is any man going through a divorce will have all his firearms confiscated if the wife/girlfriend takes a few routine but vindictive steps to screw him over. And any violation of the restraining order (showing up at his old house to get a few things) in states like Mass is a felony, meaning he loses his gun collection forever in that state.

This is nothing for any divorced man, or even a man with an vindictive girlfriend, to cheer about.

[slackmaster]

12. No ROs were issued when I got divorced

Many people have the maturity to cope with divorce without becoming vindictive or claiming to be threatened when no real threat exists.

What this means is any man going through a divorce will have all his firearms confiscated if the wife/girlfriend takes a few routine but vindictive steps to screw him over.

That's part of the penalty for making a poor choice of partner in the first place.

I don't know how MA law works, but here in California after a 30-day TRO lapses the plaintiff can call a hearing to try to get a permanent RO. Unlike the blanket provisions of a TRO, permanent ROs are tailored to each situation. If the court doesn't see a valid reason to disarm the respondent, he gets his guns back.

[EDT]

14. Isn't everyone getting divorced at the stage where they consider

their partner a "poor choice"? Even amicable divorces where people have
grown apart are often deliberately brought up several notches by divorce lawyers to try and maximize the fault of the other partner.

[slackmaster]

15. You said the magic word

"Lawyers".

We didn't use them. We used a paralegal to do the paperwork and divided our stuff ourselves without much argument.

We had no children from the marriage.

[RoeBear]

17. "without much argument"

Rare.

[slackmaster]

19. We're both rational people and the situation was simple

She knew what was hers, I knew what was mine, and the rest (basically various forms of money) was all community property. When we got married we each had about the same slightly negative net worth and a car. When we got divorced, we each walked away with a house with some equity, some money, and the very same cars.

[Lefty48197]

31. Whew!

Good thing she didn't take your guns, or we might have to worry about the Rooskies invading!

[slackmaster]

36. Rooskies aren't a problem any more

Today my biggest concern is being invaded by Canada, with help from the Finns.

My home in San Diego is separated from the Great White North by a razor-thin three state margin with only a token military presence.

[jody]

37. Every winter, a flock of Snow Birds migrate from Canada to the warm,

white sands of our Gulf Coast and stay a few months. It's only a matter of time before they take up permanent residence here.
:evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

39. In Myrtle Beach, SC they celebrate "Can-Am" days every winter

Thousands of snowbirds descend on the beaches there, which would otherwise be vacant this time of year.

When you have that many foreigners come into an area it's inevitable that at least a few of them are spies.

[Lefty48197]

41. Plus, those are "blue" states, so they'll only use spitwads to defend you

according to right wing NRA hero Zell Miller.

[-..__...]

16. We have come for your firearms.

Democracy and the RKBA is alive and well in MA... :mad:

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/209a-3b.htm

"CHAPTER 209A. ABUSE PREVENTION

Chapter 209A: Section 3B Order for suspension and surrender of firearms license; surrender of firearms; petition for review; hearing

Section 3B. Upon issuance of a temporary or emergency order under section four or five of this chapter, the court shall, if the plaintiff demonstrates a substantial likelihood of immediate danger of abuse, order the immediate suspension and surrender of any license to carry firearms and or firearms identification card which the defendant may hold and order the defendant to surrender all firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns and ammunition which he then controls, owns or possesses in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and any license to carry firearms or firearms identification cards which the defendant may hold shall be surrendered to the appropriate law enforcement officials in accordance with the provisions of this chapter and, said law enforcement official may store, transfer or otherwise dispose of any such weapon in accordance with the provisions of section 129D of chapter 140; provided however, that nothing herein shall authorize the transfer of any weapons surrendered by the defendant to anyone other than a licensed dealer. Notice of such suspension and ordered surrender shall be appended to the copy of abuse prevention order served on the defendant pursuant to section seven. Law enforcement officials, upon the service of said orders, shall immediately take possession of all firearms, rifles, shotguns, machine guns, ammunition, any license to carry firearms and any firearms identification cards in the control, ownership, or possession of said defendant. Any violation of such orders shall be punishable by a fine of not more than five thousand dollars, or by imprisonment for not more than two and one-half years in a house of correction, or by both such fine and imprisonment"

Rest of Chap 290A

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-129d.htm

SALE OF FIREARMS

Chapter 140: Section 129D Surrender of firearms and ammunition to licensing authority upon denial of application for, or revocation of, identification card or license; right to transfer; sale by colonel of state police; rules and regulations

Section 129D. Upon revocation, suspension or denial of an application for a firearm identification card pursuant to the conditions of section one hundred and twenty-nine B, or of any firearms license if said firearms identification card is not then in force or of any machine gun license, the person whose application was so revoked, suspended or denied shall without delay deliver or surrender, to the licensing authority where he resides, all firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition which he then possesses unless an appeal is pending. Such person, or his legal representative, shall have the right, at any time up to one year after said delivery or surrender, to transfer such firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition to any licensed dealer or any other person legally permitted to purchase or take possession of such firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition and upon notification in writing by the purchaser or transferee and the former owner, the licensing authority shall within ten days deliver such firearms, rifles, shotguns and machine guns and ammunition to the transferee or purchaser and due care shall be observed by the licensing authority in the receipt and holding of any such firearm, rifle, shotgun or machine gun and ammunition.

http://www.mass.gov/legis/laws/mgl/140-129d.htm">Rest of Chap 140 129D

What it all means... (at least by one PD's definition).


"RESTRAINING ORDER INFORMATION
MASSACHUSETTS GENERAL LAW 209A

Danvers, Massachusetts Police Department
Lines 1 and 2 apply when an order is issued after court hours. You will be required to appear in court the following day or the next court session.

1. All restraining orders are reviewed by a Judge between the hours of 8:30 A.M. and 4:30 P.M. in a courtroom you will be instructed to appear in.

2. When your name is called, go to the front of the courtroom, up to the Judge's bench or where you are otherwise instructed to stand. The microphone records your testimony for the court, it does not make your voice louder.

3. For the Judge to issue a restraining order, the Judge must determine that the person seeking the order is in fear of the defendant. This fear can be based on the recent incident and/or the history of abuse.

4. You can request that the defendant leave the home and stay away; you can request that the defendant refrain from abuse; you can request custody of your children, support for your children; and restitution for damages caused by the defendant.

5. The NO CONTACT portion of the order means the defendant cannot come near you, cannot call you, cannot write you letters or send you cards, cannot send you flowers or leave you notes, and cannot send someone else to talk to or call you on the defendant's behalf. It does not matter whether or not the contact involves any threat. The defendant simply CANNOT contact you.

6.The Judge can order the Police to collect from the defendant any guns, FID card and/or keys to your home, car, etc.. If you want any of these taken away from the defendant when he is served with papers by the Police, make sure you ask the Judge to order this.

More...





Ohhhh, but look here! At least one enterprising FFL has a partial solution to the problem.

http://www.agguns.com/ag/storage.html

"Secure Firearm Storage

Do you need to safely store your firearms? Allow A.G. Guns to safely store your firearms behind our 3 ton stainless steel vault; vacuumed sealed, under ground storage facility.

Many of our customers store their firearms with us for a variety of reasons:

# Relocating into or out of Massachusetts
# Legal Proceedings divorce, restraining orders etc.
# Probate
# Extended vacations
# Etc.


For only $5.00 a month, and a $5 drop off fee, you can store your firearm as long as you need!

[slackmaster]

13. Will someone please explain why...

...we should give a flying fuck what the NRA didn't say about something?

:shrug:

[Jack_DeLeon]

20. I support electronic background checks for all our rights...

:eyes:

I bet nazis wished they had systems such as ours in thier days, it certainly would have made their jobs easier.

[Lefty48197]

32. Can you imagine if the Nazis had the same propoganda machine

that GWB and the NRA have? Wow, would they be green with envy!