[geeks] Followup on weapons seizure

[Anthony Guarnieri]

I myself would like to publically call for the licensing of individuals
with voter registration cards, with prospective 'voters' being tested on
the American system of government 'as designed,' including knowledge of
the writings and speeches of men like Jefferson, Franklin, Paine and
Henry. Voting is just too powerful an action to be left to people of
'unknown ability and character.'



On Sat, 18 Jan 2003, Kurt Huhn wrote:

> Date: Sat, 18 Jan 2003 13:18:31 -0500
> From: Kurt Huhn <kurt at k-huhn.com>
> Reply-To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
> To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
> Subject: Re: [geeks] Followup on weapons seizure
>
> "Chris Byrne" <chris at chrisbyrne.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > But I do believe in the licensing of individuals, not weapons. Not
> > because I think it's the 100% correct thing to do, but because I
> > believe we will never see a fully unregulated environment under our
> > current governement, and that if we must have regulation we should at
> > least have regulations that are effective and make sense.
>
> I refuse to believe that bending to the will of the government is an
> amenable solution to repression.  What if the same were to be said of
> computers?  Computers *are* dangerous in the wrong hands, and the days
> isn't that far off (see DMCA, RIIA, and any other methods used to
> control how we use *our* computers) where this will be reality.  Then
> where will we be?
>
> The erosion is slow, but steady...
>
> >
> > It's really simple. I believe that there should be a minimum standard
> > of competency and safety that must be achieved and maintained to
> > operate a firearm or other explosive projectile weapon. This standard
> > should be arrived at by the governments of the several states, the
> > federal government, the armed forces, police and other law enforcement
> > agencies, and weapon owners and users together. I believe the safety
> > and competency standards used and taught by the NRA are more than
> > adequate for the task, and in fact these standards are used by at
> > least 10 of the states that issue permits largely unmodified.
> >
>
> This is only if you believe that firearm ownership is a priviledge and
> not a right.  I believe it is a right.  Your opinion may vary, it's a
> good thing we're allowed to disagree :)
>
>
> > All citizens or permanent resident aliens should be eligible for this
> > license unless they have been convicted of a violent, alcohol, or drug
> > related felony or involuntarily commited to a mental institution.
> > These are already public records considered when applying for a permit
> > so they do not extend the invasion of privacy any further.
> >
>
> I fail to see how someone convicted a felony 20 years ago, released, and
> has become a contributing member of society, should be barred from
> weapons ownership.  This is a double standard.  A pre-LART as it were.
> I disagree wholeheartedly with this.
>
> > Any illegal use of any weapon by a permit holder would be an immediate
> > cause for revocation. Any charge of felonius violent crime, DWI/DUI,
> > or posession of a controlled substance would result in its suspension
> > pending the outcome of the charges.
>
> I also disagree with this point.  DWI/DUI is not a sever enough crime.
> I don't subscribe to the "legalize drugs" group, but this also is not a
> severe enough crime.  Assuming I had agreed to the licensure of
> individuals to begin with...
>
> >
> > All waiting periods would be abolished. All additional background
> > checks would be abolished. If you have a license you can buy a weapon
> > and amunition. If you don't you cant.
>
> FFL.  Which I have.  I'm thinking this would be similar to each and
> every person getting an FFL.  God, imagine the infrastructure needed to
> support this...
>
> >
> > This license would allow all holders to carry, concealed or open, at
> > all times and in all places. Including public buildings, police
> > stations, courthouses, and schools.
> >
>
> I think this should be allowed anyway...
>
> > There should be a rider on the law bringing this license into
> > existence barring all litigation against weapon and ammunition
> > manufacturers and dealers if the weapon is sold to a license holder
> > and is then misused.
>
> Again, I thinkthis should *already* be in place.  A gun is no more
> dangerous than a car, the use thereof is the dangerous part.  My truck
> is far more an effective and efficient killing machine than all my guns
> put together.  However, it seems absurd to sue Dodge if I used that
> truck to run down hundreds of people, doesn't it?
>
> >
> > I don't think we will ever see this, or anything like it. I think we
> > are going to have worse wnd worse messes of legislation, patchwork
> > from state to state and even city to city. I think there are some
> > places where it will be effectively impossible to own a weapon, and
> > some where everyone does. Just like today only more so.
> >
>
> Cincinatti, Ohio.  Just try and buy a gun there.  San Francisco recently
> announced legislation (I don't know if it passed or not) banning the
> sale and posession of .50BMG rifles inside city limits.  As if someone
> is going to walk into the corner store and hold up the place with an EDM
> Windrunner...
>
> I disagree on a very base level with your proposal, but hey - opinions
> differ.
>
> --
> Kurt                "I remember that I've got a solid base of worms and
> kurt at k-huhn.com      ant eggs.  I puke like a hero all night long."
>                                                       -- Tony Bourdain
> _______________________________________________
> GEEKS:  http://www.sunhelp.org/mailman/listinfo/geeks