On 6/29/2018 6:24 PM, Bill wrote:
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/29/18 2:55 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/29/2018 12:38 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:09:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:
On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:
On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:
On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote:
Mr. Luddite
... shooting in Annapolis, MD ?
..........
This strict gun control laws are really paying off, aren’t they?
Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and out of
control.* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't
surprise me if he turns out to be* a right wing nutcase.
Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the guy from
photo recognition software. It was reported he did "something" to
obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old, named
Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement sources,
who
apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland.
Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim in
2012
against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a minor
conviction for "harassment" some years ago.
Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny, since
Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws.
They have most of the things people are clamoring for as* "sensible"
or "common sense" gun laws
* handgun license to buy one
* handgun de facto registration
*Assault Weapons ban
* high cap magazine ban
* universal background checks on all sales
* red flag law
Do they still have that stupid fired case law?
As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws.
There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification
license."* Even an idiot like Alex could get one.
I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means.
There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are banned if
they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the shelf,
and any number of different semi-auto rifles.
Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is legal, as is
buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland.
I have no idea what a "red flag" law is.
Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of sensible
gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the
ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media rantings but
they didn't.
Thanks for pointing out the futility tho.
Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip!
I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can
be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns
already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who
owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most
places already have them.
The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for
many here ... is a required registration of all guns
and strict enforcement of the required registration. If for some reason
you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to
you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm.
The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held
responsible for it and it's use. If stolen, sold or legally
transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required within
48 hours.
Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles.
So to some ... go take an antacid.
It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me.
It would have done nothing in this case, The guy had no record, he
legally purchased a pretty mundane shotgun and he bought it a while
ago. The cops are saying he was not even on their radar. The newspaper
never pursued charges against the guy. The harassment charge did not
raise any red flags according to him but he did seem pretty nervous
about it.
So, like Harry says, "do nothing".
I am not suggesting a registration of all firearms to their owners is
going to prevent every nutcase from shooting someone. However, it may
help in terms of keeping track of who has what and what happens to the
guns if they get rid of them.
Actually, in this case, the guy *was* on the radar screen because of the
harassment case and his lawsuit. It's in the court records.
One of the questions on the form you fill out for a permit or renewal in
Massachusetts is:
“Have you ever *appeared* in any criminal court as a defendant for any
criminal offense or criminal traffic offense (excluding non-criminal
traffic offenses)?”
Note "appeared". Even the police department website points
this out. It doesn't say "arrested" or found guilty. It says "appeared".
You could have had the charges dismissed or found not guilty however
you are required to answer honestly and they check. An "appearance" may
not cause you to not get the permit or renewal however not answering
the question honestly *will* according the the Police Department
instructions.
How would you appear as a defendant in criminal court without an arrest?
Because they're not that interested in whether you were arrested. They
are interested in whether you went to court. If you were arrested, the
charges could be dropped before you went to court.
The question is how Without an arrest, how would you be in criminal court
as a defendant?
I just read the question again on the application. Something is screwed
up. The Police Department website refers to this question as #10.
On the actual application it is question #4 and is worded differently.
It's confusing.
On the application it asks:
"Have you ever been arrested or appeared in court as a defendant for any
criminal offense?"
I would agree that if you appear in court as a defendant for any
criminal offense it stands to reason that you must have been arrested.
But the question seems to make a distinction.
Anyway, here is how the Police Department explains this question as
question #10 and how to answer it:
"3. Take Note: Application Question #10: “Have you ever appeared in any
criminal court as a defendant for any criminal offense or criminal
traffic offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)?” The key word
is “appeared” rather than “arrested.” Having been charged and convicted
of a crime does not necessarily prohibit you from getting an FID or LTC.
Not answering truthfully does. Understand that “ever appeared” includes
all adult and juvenile appearances. It does not matter if you were found
not guilty, or if the charges were dismissed, or if you received a
continuance without a finding–you still have to answer “yes” to the
question if you ever appeared in criminal court. If you do not answer
truthfully, we will find out, no matter how long ago. If you have a
sealed record, you also have to indicate this; we are notified of
disqualifiers even from sealed records. We will not accept “I forgot,”
“They told me it would not show up,” or “It never showed up before.”
Remember: you are signing this application under penalties of perjury;
you will be denied a license for any untruthful answer and you may face
the possibility of prosecution."
Go figure. I have to renew my permit soon. When I go, I'll ask why
the Police website and it's instructions are not the same as the actual
application. BTW ... I downloaded the application directly from a link
that was on the Police website.