On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 18:32:08 -0400, John H.
wrote:


The problem with the laws is that they are not enforced, or there is little or no
penalty when they *are* enforced.

Most violations of GCA68 are 5 years in prison and some NFA34
violations are 10 years.

Those are the 2 main federal laws and pretty much everything is just
an amendment to those 2 laws. (mostly to GCA86)

The feeling is that both have been tested in SCOTUS so amendments are
easier to justify.than a whole new law.

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.



You had to sign a HIPPA authorization or he was breaking the law. It
was probably in that 15 page packet you fill out every time you go to
a different doctor.
How many people would sign a HIPPA release if they knew the
information was going to be a public record, as virtually any
government document is. (with the Snowden factor, they are all public
records)
The question becomes what ELSE would be affected by this?
Jobs, housing, credit?

If I was an employer I might be reluctant to hire a guy who the
government says can't be trusted with a gun because of mental
problems. I certainly wouldn't rent them an apartment. Too hard to
clean up the blood when they snap.

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.

Everything the government does is expensive.
It would be interesting to see exactly what the Mass budget is for
your permit program and how much is hidden in other budgets.

Bear in mind most states lose money at the DMV in spite of all of the
taxes and fees.

On Fri, 02 Oct 2015 21:19:36 -0400, John H.
wrote:

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."

Any doctor?

Damn we can't even stop doctor shopping for narcotics. How would this
work?

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:20:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.

That is the same way it works with "Form 4s" (ATF form for machine
guns and silencers) but there is a "trust" loophole that lets you get
around it.

On Fri, 2 Oct 2015 21:38:22 -0500, Boating All Out
wrote:

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.



Nobody has explained how permits, licenses or background checks would
have stopped any of the recent shooters from getting their guns. Until
they snapped, they were pretty much squeaky clean.

wrote:
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.


Years ago in Maryland, armed robbers discharged the firearm during the
robbery. They knew they would be caught, and armed robbery was 20- life.
Plea bargain to assault by shooting and get 2-5, and out in 18 months. Do
not know hat the rules are these days. But scumbags know their way around
the laws.

On 10/3/2015 12:34 AM, wrote:
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.


I think I've said several times that it's not perfect and changes won't
happen overnight. It's a start.

On 10/3/2015 12:43 AM, 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.


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.



It's the risk you take when applying for a gun permit. If you know
you have reasons to be denied, perhaps you shouldn't apply. Another
"plus".

On 10/3/2015 12:59 AM, 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.



You had to sign a HIPPA authorization or he was breaking the law. It
was probably in that 15 page packet you fill out every time you go to
a different doctor.
How many people would sign a HIPPA release if they knew the
information was going to be a public record, as virtually any
government document is. (with the Snowden factor, they are all public
records)
The question becomes what ELSE would be affected by this?
Jobs, housing, credit?

If I was an employer I might be reluctant to hire a guy who the
government says can't be trusted with a gun because of mental
problems. I certainly wouldn't rent them an apartment. Too hard to
clean up the blood when they snap.



I have to admit that it's amazing to see how many reasons there
are that you "can't" do something with very little consideration
as to how maybe you "can". If enough thought and energy were
given to solving the problem as given to the reasons why you can't,
maybe some progress could be made.