On 10/2/15 8:53 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 10/2/2015 7:36 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article vf4u0bt5443i5mtab23sjn589hflufbta9@
4ax.com, says...

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.

===

If you don't mind living in an over regulated police state.

Personally I'd rather take my chances with a rare/occasional bad guy
than need a permit every time I turn around. In my opinion we are
already over regulated, especially in the north eastern population
centers where most of this springs from.



Now Luddite, do your ****-slinging at Wayne.
Tell him he's uncaring.
You can't, because he's a fellow traveler.

Why would I? Unlike you, Wayne can express his disagreements
as a mature adult minus the insults and snarky responses you
are so prone to.

Not really. That's why I ****canned him.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:44:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:28 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.

===

If you don't mind living in an over regulated police state.

Personally I'd rather take my chances with a rare/occasional bad guy
than need a permit every time I turn around. In my opinion we are
already over regulated, especially in the north eastern population
centers where most of this springs from.



There is plenty of over regulation that I find annoying or frustrating
... the ban of some popular handguns up here due to the attorney general
and the safety testing labs confusing "certification" process is a good
example ...but getting a permit to legally own a firearm isn't one of my
beefs. It's really a simple process and as long as you are not a
convicted felon your application is generally approved. There's a bit
of a safety net for the public in the process though. It's up to the
local police chief to give final approval and to include any
restrictions. Handgun permits in MA is a "may" issue rather than a
"shall" issue. If an applicant is known by the police department to
have a history of violence, drug or alcohol abuse or other problems that
may not have lead to an arrest or conviction, the permit may be
disapproved. At least it can weed out some who probably shouldn't own
a gun.

===

All of that is a royal PITA and puts you at the whim of a local law
enforcement officer who may or may not be a reasonable person. If you
get a hard liner in your local PD who'd rather not be bothered by the
whole process, and/or wants to err only on the side of safety, they
might just refuse to issue any permits. It puts the cops into the
role of social scientists which they are ill suited for and opens up
the very real possibility for cronyism and corruption.

On 10/2/2015 9:00 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:52:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 6:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.


How would your regular doctor know you were under treatment for severe depression or
whatever? A psychiatrist can't divulge that info without some pretty stringent
requirements.

All your medical records (and I assume mental health records, if any)
are electronically stored and available for authorized people (docs) to
download and read.

Last time I visited my primary care physician he asked about the results
of a stress test I had taken two year prior. Before I could answer he
pulled up the results on his laptop in the exam office.



For anyone besides me to view my health records, I have to sign a privacy release
form indicating same - and that includes my doctor. When I went to a cardiologist, I
signed a release so the results could be sent to my regular doctor. Without my
signature, they could not transmit the results to him.

It's much different for records which are a result of a prescription - such as the
one for the CT scan I had this morning. Those results will be sent to my doctor - the
one who wrote the prescription. They will then be stored on his computer.

So, if you want a gun permit, sign a release allowing your medical and
mental health records to be viewed by your doctor. What's the big deal?

The biggest problem with controlling who has access to guns seems to be
mental health issues and the privacy concerns. No one seems to have an
answer as to how you handle this. It's also obvious that those people
conducting these mass shootings in schools, movie theaters and other
public places have some serious mental health issues. It would seem to
be a good place to focus on in terms of trying to control who has easy
access to guns.

Police departments usually know of people with problems in their
communities. They can't know of all, for sure, but how often have you
heard the phrase, "suspect is known to the police" ... usually due to
some previous reason for contact.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:09:22 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 9:00 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:52:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 6:34 PM, John H. wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.


How would your regular doctor know you were under treatment for severe depression or
whatever? A psychiatrist can't divulge that info without some pretty stringent
requirements.

All your medical records (and I assume mental health records, if any)
are electronically stored and available for authorized people (docs) to
download and read.

Last time I visited my primary care physician he asked about the results
of a stress test I had taken two year prior. Before I could answer he
pulled up the results on his laptop in the exam office.



For anyone besides me to view my health records, I have to sign a privacy release
form indicating same - and that includes my doctor. When I went to a cardiologist, I
signed a release so the results could be sent to my regular doctor. Without my
signature, they could not transmit the results to him.

It's much different for records which are a result of a prescription - such as the
one for the CT scan I had this morning. Those results will be sent to my doctor - the
one who wrote the prescription. They will then be stored on his computer.

So, if you want a gun permit, sign a release allowing your medical and
mental health records to be viewed by your doctor. What's the big deal?

Or I just tell my doctor I've never been to a shrink. There's no way for him to find
out otherwise.

The biggest problem with controlling who has access to guns seems to be
mental health issues and the privacy concerns. No one seems to have an
answer as to how you handle this. It's also obvious that those people
conducting these mass shootings in schools, movie theaters and other
public places have some serious mental health issues. It would seem to
be a good place to focus on in terms of trying to control who has easy
access to guns.

Perhaps the Form 4473 should have a space for the doctor to sign stating..."
Name...has no mental problems which should preclude the purchase of a firearm, to the
best of my knowledge."

That would be pretty simple. The purchaser could take the form to his doc, pay the
office visit price, get a signature (or just forge one), and take the form back to
the gun dealer.

Police departments usually know of people with problems in their
communities. They can't know of all, for sure, but how often have you
heard the phrase, "suspect is known to the police" ... usually due to
some previous reason for contact.


I'll bet it wouldn't be long before you'd hear a lot of cries of 'police racism' when
suspects 'known to the police' were refused permission.
--

Ban idiots, not guns!

On 10/2/2015 9:07 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 20:44:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 7:28 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.

===

If you don't mind living in an over regulated police state.

Personally I'd rather take my chances with a rare/occasional bad guy
than need a permit every time I turn around. In my opinion we are
already over regulated, especially in the north eastern population
centers where most of this springs from.



There is plenty of over regulation that I find annoying or frustrating
... the ban of some popular handguns up here due to the attorney general
and the safety testing labs confusing "certification" process is a good
example ...but getting a permit to legally own a firearm isn't one of my
beefs. It's really a simple process and as long as you are not a
convicted felon your application is generally approved. There's a bit
of a safety net for the public in the process though. It's up to the
local police chief to give final approval and to include any
restrictions. Handgun permits in MA is a "may" issue rather than a
"shall" issue. If an applicant is known by the police department to
have a history of violence, drug or alcohol abuse or other problems that
may not have lead to an arrest or conviction, the permit may be
disapproved. At least it can weed out some who probably shouldn't own
a gun.

===

All of that is a royal PITA and puts you at the whim of a local law
enforcement officer who may or may not be a reasonable person. If you
get a hard liner in your local PD who'd rather not be bothered by the
whole process, and/or wants to err only on the side of safety, they
might just refuse to issue any permits. It puts the cops into the
role of social scientists which they are ill suited for and opens up
the very real possibility for cronyism and corruption.



Doesn't work that way now-a-days. There was a time up here when the
local police chief could (and did) make it policy to deny virtually
all gun permits. It was that way back in the 1980's when I first
thought about getting a permit. I was talking to my lawyer about it
and he basically said, "Forget it". The policy of the chief in the town
I lived did not include issuance of gun permits.

But that changed due to lawsuits brought by several people in several
towns. The towns (and police) lost, due to the terms of the 2nd.

So, now the local police have to have a reason to refuse a permit.
They are still allowed some discretion ... and I think that is good.
If anyone is refused, they can always appeal or sue. Probably not
worth it if you have a reputation of violence or being a problem in
the community though.

In article QMCdnZwV5dFqu5LLnZ2dnUU7-
, says...

On 10/2/2015 7:36 PM, Boating All Out wrote:
In article vf4u0bt5443i5mtab23sjn589hflufbta9@
4ax.com, says...

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 18:41:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

None of this is a big deal nor is it difficult or expensive.

===

If you don't mind living in an over regulated police state.

Personally I'd rather take my chances with a rare/occasional bad guy
than need a permit every time I turn around. In my opinion we are
already over regulated, especially in the north eastern population
centers where most of this springs from.



Now Luddite, do your ****-slinging at Wayne.
Tell him he's uncaring.
You can't, because he's a fellow traveler.

Why would I? Unlike you, Wayne can express his disagreements
as a mature adult minus the insults and snarky responses you
are so prone to.


That's the so-called passion you have for the
innocent victims of gun crime. Wayne doesn't want to
go to all the trouble of getting a permit, because
of "over regulation."
He doesn't give one damn **** about them, because the
poor guy doesn't want to be inconvenienced.
You think he's a "mature adult."
Well, I say he doesn't give a **** about what's going
on. He doesn't want to deal with "government
regulation."

Fellow traveler? WTF are you talking about now?

Well, you just explained it yourself.
Neither of you really care about the victims.
Apparently because you're "mature adults."
Well I do care. I don't travel with you.
I am for federal registration of firearms.
And I want that to be very inconvenient.
You should get used to mass killings, because you
sure won't change anything soft-pedaling gun control.
So just get used to it.
Won't be too long before there's another.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 16:00:28 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 15:36:32 -0400, wrote:

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 14:24:00 -0400, John H.
wrote:

How about severe penalties for illegal weapons possession? Make possession of such a
federal offense - minimum five years.

Most illegal purchases are a federal crime now had have been since the
Johnson administration, including BAO's "hopping across the line to
buy a gun at a show" (at least 2 counts for each gun)

There are plenty of laws, just not a lot of enforcement

I'm talking possession, not purchase. I think federal judges might be a bit more
severe in their punishments.

Every possession represents a sale, transfer (the same in the law) or
a theft.
It is simply an unenforced crime when that was done illegally.

The only way the cops usually fond out about a "possession" is when
they are investigating another crime and the gun charge gets traded
away or simply not even billed.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:29:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

The concept of the license requirement to buy ammo is to
get around the NRA supported 2nd Amendment "right" claims. There's an
interpreted "right" to own firearms which is used to ward off any
reasonable gun control legislation and it would take an Act of Congress
to change the wording or interpretation. It will never happen. But,
ammo isn't mentioned in the "right".

BTW, there are already several states that require a license or permit
in order to legally purchase a firearm. There is also at least one
state (mine) that also requires the presentation of a valid and current
gun permit in order to purchase ammunition.

No permit ... no ammo.


You still have not explained how this stops the mass shooters we have
seen. I can't think of any of them who would did not pass a background
check, except the young ones who got the guns and ammo at home from a
parent who did.

The last time I remember a gun show was involved was Columbine, back
in the Clinton administration.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:38:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

It says that only about 13 states have laws that require a license or
permit.

Yup no crime there ;-)

(Chicago, Detroit, DC, Newark)

Problem solved.

BTW, getting back to what I said before, how many time was the gun
charge actually prosecuted in these places when a gun crime was
committed?

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 17:50:38 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 10/2/2015 1:24 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 09:23:20 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree and the criminal element of our society will always find a way
to get a gun and ammo. However, these mass shootings in schools are not
being done by people with criminal records. They are young for the most
part and obviously suffer from some anti-societal mental health issues.
Making it harder for them to get the supplies (ammo) they need may
help reduce the number of horrific mass shootings, especially in schools.

If the person does not have a record, how do you prevent them from
buying a gun or ammo?


Apparently you missed *all* of the criteria I proposed that leads to a
license. Lack of a criminal record is only one. A doctor's sign-off
as to physical and mental good health is another. The medical details
do not need to be divulged but, for example, if the doc knows the
applicant has a history of drug abuse or is under treatment/medication
for severe depression or whatever, he would just disqualify the applicant.


HIPPA be damned huh?
If there was a "can not buy" attached to your name, who knows what
other things you might have trouble doing. Don't even bother saying
these databases wound be secure or even that they would be immune from
FOIA.

I have no problem identifying crazy people or even locking them up
like we used to do but I would be in the minority.