On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 12:59:40 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 7/1/2018 10:10 AM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/30/18 11:28 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:38:41 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 6/30/2018 7:30 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/30/2018 3:56 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/30/2018 2:39 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/30/2018 7:44 AM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 17:19:51 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:28:47 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote:

On 6/29/18 12:09 PM, 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.







I'd certainly support complete registration of all firearms
as a decent
start. Used firearms must be registered, too. Along with the
registration, a mandatory background check of the purchaser.
All
firearms, no exceptions.

That would not have changed any of the recent shootings at all.
They had no problem tracing this guy's shotgun back to the
dealer
within hours. What would registration do?


I can't understand why you are so down on registration of
firearms and
the attendant paperwork and
bureaucracy.

The purpose of all that is to help find the perpetrator when
he robs a
7/11, shoots someone, and
leaves his gun on the counter as he departs.

Now get off this negative attitude!



There's another aspect of mandatory gun registration that I'd
like to
see implemented and enforced.* Similar to some of the
Admiralty/Maritime
laws, I think firearms used in any kind of criminal activity
should have
some level of responsibility traced back to the owner on record,
regardless if the owner on record was even remotely connected
to the
crime committed.

Before Greg points out that it "wouldn't have prevented any mass
killings" so therefore it's not helpful,* I'd like to make the
point
that perhaps with some criminal responsibility hanging on
owner's heads
they may be more careful in the control of who has access to their
firearms.* I am thinking of the kid in one of these shootings
who got
the firearm from his mother who technically owned it.

It's more of an issue of reinforcing awareness of the
responsibility
that goes with having firearms.

1 or 2 new laws certainly are not going to end mass shootings or
criminal activities using firearms.* What is required is a
cultural
change that includes those who are so adamant about their 2nd
Amendment
rights and all the naysayers who find every reason in the world
to argue
that any further attempt to control the use and ownership of
firearms is
fruitless.* Change has to start somewhere.* Better to recognize
and
accept that there's a serious problem and support those reasonable
attempts to at least have some potential affect than to turn a
blind eye
and wake up someday to find that far more draconian measures
have been
enacted.

I fully support the right to gun ownership for last resort self
defense
and sporting activities.* With that right comes responsibility
however.




So, someone steals your car, and uses it in a bank robbery.
What charges
against you will you accept?



What does that have to do with anything?* The car was stolen.* All I
said was that a record of transfer for a firearm, be it stolen, lost
or sold be kept.

My mention of Maritime law was related to the fact that in certain
circumstances a former boat owner can be held responsible for
damage in the future if it's transfer is not properly documented.

There was a case like this years ago when the former owner of a
yacht caused significant damage to a coral reef or protected
salt water grass or something.* The transfer of ownership was
apparently
not properly done and the former owner got hit with a huge fine.
He fought it but still ended up settling for $20K.




You are stating the former/or owner of the gun should be held
liable for
its use if there is no paperwork filed.** Guy steals your gun and
next day
shoots someone.** You do not even know there has been a theft.** What
charges will you accept?


I stated that a transfer ... stolen, sold or lost should be reported
within 48 hours.* As long as that is done, you are not held
responsible.

If you have a gun stolen from you and you don't even notice it's
missing,* I don't think you should have had that gun in the first
place.

That is more to the point of what I am suggesting.* More awareness.






You are out of town for a week?



I don't write the laws.* I just come up with ideas.* :-)

I suppose exceptions would have to exist for situations such as that.


===

The devil is always in the details, and as you try to package
everything up in bureaucratic red tape, new details emerge which
require another layer of regulations and exceptions.* That continues
ad infinitum until the real root cause is addressed:* We've got to get
better at identifying the crazies amongst us and rendering them
harmless.


I thought it was sadly humorous that in the Annapolis shooting, a
*cop* who "investigated" the shooter some years ago determined he was
not dangerous. Police, even in an upscale area like Annapolis, aren't
trained to make a qualfified determination in regard to behaviors or
outright threats that aren't completely overt.


Up here they may not be trained or qualified to psychoanalyze someone
however they *are* authorized to remand someone to the court system
for possible involuntary commitment for treatment for drug abuse or
alcoholism. Not sure it that extends to other behavioral problems.

Doctors, cops and family members can petition the court to have someone
involuntarily be put in a state run de-tox and rehab program.


I wonder where Harry would think the cops *would* be trained to make a 'qualified determination in
regard to behaviors or outright threats that aren't completely overt'.

Maybe Norway?