|
Another ...
Its Me wrote:
On Saturday, June 30, 2018 at 11:41:50 AM UTC-4, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/30/18 11:33 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Soze - show quoted text - "I'd extend that responsibility to anyone who "gifts" a kid a firearm." I agree wholeheartedly and unequivocally with this post. I would add that ex military types, who should know better, get double the punishment. I heard that a very, very special place in hell is reserved for hateful, racist pieces of **** like Herring. I don't believe in hell, but, if it does exist, I am sure it would be chock full of Herring-like guys. Justan, of course, would be stuck forever in purgatory, not being smart enough to know the electronic door code for hell is 666. Wow. You are a childish, immature asshole. You are special. At least he stole something that was unique.writing. |
Another ...
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/30/18 11:33 AM, True North wrote: Keyser Soze - show quoted text - "I'd extend that responsibility to anyone who "gifts" a kid a firearm." I agree wholeheartedly and unequivocally with this post. I would add that ex military types, who should know better, get double the punishment. I heard that a very, very special place in hell is reserved for hateful, racist pieces of **** like Herring. I don't believe in hell, but, if it does exist, I am sure it would be chock full of Herring-like guys. Justan, of course, would be stuck forever in purgatory, not being smart enough to know the electronic door code for hell is 666. That was dumb. Carry on. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:12:44 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: There still is no minimum age requirement to purchase and own a long gun however and no permits, proof of training or anything is required. Seems nuts to me in this day and age. The way I read it a 7 year old can buy a shotgun or a .22. A buyer must be 18 to purchase a long gun in Maryland. http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-la...n/minimum-age/ That's a federal law. Note this sentence on another website by the same Giffords Law Center that you just cited: "However, there appears to be no minimum age to possess a rifle or shotgun in the state." http://lawcenter.giffords.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-in-maryland/ The one I linked to was last updated in November of 2017. Perhaps Maryland's laws have been further updated since. "Possess" would imply simply having one with you, like when you are hunting. That is why they are pretty soft on an age. Kids can hunt with their parents at almost any age. Same with just plinking in the woods or on a range. I know it may sound foreign to you but you see little kids out west standing over an elk or antelope they just shot in hunting magazines all the time. |
Another ...
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/30/18 9:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2018 8:31 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:38:22 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 12:10 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:30:52 -0400, "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. Since there was no problem establishing who owned the gun, again, what would registration accomplish? It is just one more layer of bureaucracy and no doubt tax. Laws requiring proper storage of the gun already exist, even in gun friendly states like Florida but, since Lanza (Sandy Hook) shot his mom when he took the gun, I doubt the law would have much punishment available to use against her. It's kinda fun watching you come up with every reason in the world to do nothing. At a certain point I think we have squeezed the gun issue about as hard as we can. It is time to start trying to just stop the crazy people who think it is OK to kill a bunch of innocent victims. I have said many times, guns are for lazy people but it is far from the only deadly thing out there. Some can be even more devastating. There are plenty of industrial gasses that are totally unregulated and have the ability to really do some damage. How many people would recognize the smell of acetylene and know to run like hell if they smelled it coming out of the vents in a building? I guess this is what is called today as "having a conversation". Nothing is really accomplished but points of view are identified. Fretwell's point on industrial gases is...absurd. What is absurd on the industrial gases? Columbine and at least one other mass attack had rigged propane bombs, which luckily failed to explode. |
Another ...
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 18:26:19 -0400, John H. wrote: Well of course it's not true everywhere! I wouldn't give 'any kid' a rifle, and I'm sure most 'responsible' adults feel the same way. But, back to what Greg said, none of this extra paperwork you propose would have stopped any of the shootings! In my case the .22 was my grandfather's and he gave it to my dad with the understanding I would get it when I got my first hunting license. It was still in the house and if you think your kid does not have unfettered access to anything in the house when you are not home, you are just naive. I just knew enough not to load and shoot it. I still knew how to take it apart and clean it. That was the cleanest, oiliest rifle you ever saw by the time I was 15. The stock was refinished and I had a sling on it. Within a few months it became apparent in PG county, a shotgun was a safer thing to hunt with because it is pretty hard to assure a mile of free space. They got me a single shot Monkey Ward shotgun. I think that may still be at my ex's house somewhere but she couldn't come up with it the last time I was there. Her cousin may have it. I did not “own” any firearms until after I was married. Dad had all I needed. Just go over and borrow a couple. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:15:12 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/30/2018 6:16 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 15:44:54 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter than those in Maryland. I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day. Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home. Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone background check. === Are you sure about that? I've never had to wait for anything other than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that. Filling out the form takes longer. According to this, FL has a three day waiting period and some counties go up to five days: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...tates_by_state This is why we need uniform gun laws rather than the patchwork system we have now. What may make perfect sense in a suburb of Boston sounds pretty stupid to the people in Bad Rock Montana. That is why we have states and not just one big city government running the whole country. |
Another ...
True North wrote:
ohn H - hide quoted text - On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:44:54 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Mr. Luddite - show quoted text - "This is why we need uniform gun laws rather than the patchwork system we have now" Bingo! Federal laws should regulate firearms and the laws exactly the same from Hillbilly Heaven, Virginia to Boston's finest neighbourhoods. "You've no idea what the **** you're talking about." Really? We get more of your news on cable tv than we need or want. Many cities with the toughest gun laws, like Chicago, have the most gun-related crime. The problem is the people with the guns don't care about the laws and use stolen guns for their crimes. The majority of these cities have Democrats for mayors. Ask your friend about that. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:29:32 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/30/2018 6:50 PM, wrote: No problem in states that allow "kids" to have rifles for hunting as long as they are of the legal age for that state and the rifle is registered to them. Of course the parents still have parental responsibilities as to how and when it is used and stored. I am not sure there is any state (except maybe Hawaii) that does not allow 15 or 16 year old kids to hunt alone. OTOH they still have to be 18 to own a gun so there is a flaw in the logic. Seems to me that there are plenty of flaws in our gun laws. In your former Maryland, they have become very strict on handguns and "assault" type long guns. Background checks, proof of training and permits are required to own. Yet, no permit, license, training certificate or background check is required to buy a shotgun or other "unregulated" long gun. What was it again that the guy used in Maryland the other day? Not to beat the same old dead horse but if he had more training, might he have actually killed more people? How does that help? |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:37:24 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: Massachusetts allows "grandfathered" guns and transactions that took place before (I think) 1996 or 1998. Interesting, that would be every gun I own except the saturday night special (Jennings 9) I got from a friend and that one has been around the block so many times nobody knows who signed the 4473 for it. It does appear I got the box of ammo that came with it, with 14 or 15 rounds missing, one magazine full. I shot 2 magazines worth and put it away. It did go bang every time and at 7 yards put all the rounds in the black. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:00:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/30/2018 8:31 PM, wrote: It's kinda fun watching you come up with every reason in the world to do nothing. At a certain point I think we have squeezed the gun issue about as hard as we can. It is time to start trying to just stop the crazy people who think it is OK to kill a bunch of innocent victims. I have said many times, guns are for lazy people but it is far from the only deadly thing out there. Some can be even more devastating. There are plenty of industrial gasses that are totally unregulated and have the ability to really do some damage. How many people would recognize the smell of acetylene and know to run like hell if they smelled it coming out of the vents in a building? I guess this is what is called today as "having a conversation". Nothing is really accomplished but points of view are identified. When the conversation only concerns more gun laws and there is no attempt to look at the social problems, it isn't a conversation, it is just a rant by people who, as a rule, would never own a gun in the first place. They don't mind being surrounded by security people with guns tho. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:15:38 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: The same video games and movies pretty much are played and watched in democracies around the world. Why don't those societies have the sort of mass shootings we do? Could it be the easy availability of guns and a gun culture? We have a much more violent culture over all. We have more people beating other people to death with their bare hands than most of those other countries have, total murders, in any given year. To those other countries, Grand Theft Auto is just a fantasy. If you live in Baltimore or Chicago, it looks a lot like your daily life and you probably know guys who steal cars for a living. I know the news only wants to report white people getting killed at school or at work but if that was the only murders we had, we would look better than Sweden. The fact remains drug and gang violence, just like those video games, is what drives our murder rate. Next time I get bored I will load the new 2016 FBI crime data set into a database manager and give you all some "views" you don't see on TV. If I just slice out "europeans" killing "europeans" I bet we start looking a lot more like Europe. Of course then you will call me a racist. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:02:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/30/2018 3:44 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter than those in Maryland. I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day. Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home. Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone background check. === Are you sure about that? I've never had to wait for anything other than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that. Filling out the form takes longer. I am sure. It was back in 2003 though, so perhaps the rules have changed. They did the instant (phone) background check, I paid for the the shotgun but the store had to hold it for something like 5 days before I could pick it up. Bought it at a WalMart of all places. Winchester 20 gauge. It could also have been because I was not a permanent Florida resident. Don't know. I never had a Florida driver's license. Florida was kinda strange. I bought and registered a pickup truck down there with Florida tags but I didn't need a Florida driver's license to do it. I still have the shotgun. Never been fired. But now I have a minor problem. Because I bought it in Florida (well before I had a LTC permit in Massachusetts) it is technically illegal for me to have it up here. I didn't know all the rules and laws back then and it may be difficult for me to legally transfer or sell it. This state has no record that I have it. I am sure if I just turned it over to the town police (which is probably what I'll do when the time comes) they will just take it with no questions asked. === I'm a Florida resident and have a Florida CCW so that may play into it in some way. The first gun that I bought in Florida was a 22 which was purchased at a Walmart. Before I could leave the store with it, it had to be completely boxed up and sealed. Then the store manager had to carry it out to my car. There was no waiting period however. Since then I've purchased several hand guns from other dealers with no waiting period and no escort to the car. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:16:19 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 6/30/18 8:31 PM, wrote: At a certain point I think we have squeezed the gun issue about as hard as we can. It is time to start trying to just stop the crazy people who think it is OK to kill a bunch of innocent victims. It's time to start thinking about ways to change out gun culture. It might be better to change our "murder" or just our "violence"culture. In 2016 there were 4066 murders that did not involve guns at all and 544136 aggravated assaults that did not involve guns but many left people gravely injured. It is clear we have more than just a gun problem. (I have started loading the 2016 UCR) ;-) |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:18:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 6/30/18 9:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2018 8:31 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:38:22 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 12:10 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:30:52 -0400, "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, arent 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. Since there was no problem establishing who owned the gun, again, what would registration accomplish? It is just one more layer of bureaucracy and no doubt tax. Laws requiring proper storage of the gun already exist, even in gun friendly states like Florida but, since Lanza (Sandy Hook) shot his mom when he took the gun, I doubt the law would have much punishment available to use against her. It's kinda fun watching you come up with every reason in the world to do nothing. At a certain point I think we have squeezed the gun issue about as hard as we can. It is time to start trying to just stop the crazy people who think it is OK to kill a bunch of innocent victims. I have said many times, guns are for lazy people but it is far from the only deadly thing out there. Some can be even more devastating. There are plenty of industrial gasses that are totally unregulated and have the ability to really do some damage. How many people would recognize the smell of acetylene and know to run like hell if they smelled it coming out of the vents in a building? I guess this is what is called today as "having a conversation". Nothing is really accomplished but points of view are identified. Fretwell's point on industrial gases is...absurd. === Perhaps to you, perhaps because your imagination is limited. I understand his point perfectly: There are lots of ways to create mass mayhem. Look no further than the 9/11 incident for proof. Their only weapons were ordinary dime store box cutters but they managed to leverage them into a weapon of mass destruction using imagination and planning rigor. Are there other ways? Of course, but it would be foolish to publicly speculate about them. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:18:10 -0400, Keyser Soze
wrote: On 6/30/18 9:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: At a certain point I think we have squeezed the gun issue about as hard as we can. It is time to start trying to just stop the crazy people who think it is OK to kill a bunch of innocent victims. I have said many times, guns are for lazy people but it is far from the only deadly thing out there. Some can be even more devastating. There are plenty of industrial gasses that are totally unregulated and have the ability to really do some damage. How many people would recognize the smell of acetylene and know to run like hell if they smelled it coming out of the vents in a building? I guess this is what is called today as "having a conversation". Nothing is really accomplished but points of view are identified. Fretwell's point on industrial gases is...absurd. A couple years ago if I said fireworks and pressure cookers you would have said that was absurd too. Boston has a different opinion. I really don't want to be the one who gives anyone any ideas but have you ever filled a balloon with oxy/acetylene and lit it? One the size of a bowling ball will be about like an old time M-80 and if you filled a building ... no more building. It would make your regular methane explosion (nat gas) look like a firecracker. People would recognize a gas leak because we are trained to know that artificially introduced scent. Acetylene might just get a "is that your after shave"? These things are always absurd until they happen. You can just look at Maryland. You have an assault weapons ban, so the guy used a shotgun. If you have a shotgun ban they will use something else. If we are more interested in gun control instead of nut control we are setting ourselves up for another "absurd" attack. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:33:02 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:19:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 6:19 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:02:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 3:44 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter than those in Maryland. I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day. Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home. Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone background check. === Are you sure about that? I've never had to wait for anything other than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that. Filling out the form takes longer. I am sure. It was back in 2003 though, so perhaps the rules have changed. They did the instant (phone) background check, I paid for the the shotgun but the store had to hold it for something like 5 days before I could pick it up. Bought it at a WalMart of all places. Winchester 20 gauge. It could also have been because I was not a permanent Florida resident. Don't know. I never had a Florida driver's license. Florida was kinda strange. I bought and registered a pickup truck down there with Florida tags but I didn't need a Florida driver's license to do it. I still have the shotgun. Never been fired. But now I have a minor problem. Because I bought it in Florida (well before I had a LTC permit in Massachusetts) it is technically illegal for me to have it up here. I didn't know all the rules and laws back then and it may be difficult for me to legally transfer or sell it. This state has no record that I have it. I am sure if I just turned it over to the town police (which is probably what I'll do when the time comes) they will just take it with no questions asked. Why not just register it? The way I read this, it's permissable: "Although registration is not specifically required by law, transfers of firearm ownership are required to be recorded with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS): by the seller if in state, or by the buyer if out of state. The Massachusetts EOPSS also provides the option to register a firearm, although, other than obtaining a firearm from out of state (a transfer of ownership), this is not required by law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts Thanks. I'll look into this. I asked the owner of the gun shop where I have purchased my other guns here in MA. He's an FFL and he didn't know what I should do. He said he couldn't buy it from me even if I almost gave it away. No records of how I obtained it, he said. You're the buyer in an out-of-state transfer. Seems pretty clear. He's a dealer. They're governed differently than individuals. Actually since Richard knows where he bought it and presumably the approximate date he could have his dealer call that dealer and get the details of the transaction from his "bound book". Since it is Walmart, it may even be in their computer system. This gets a lot tougher if you are talking about a dealer that went out of business and may not have turned over all of his "bound books". Then there is the old "we had a fire". I am sure there are plenty of those transactions that are simply lost and gone forever. I doubt BATF would thumb through all of those books anyway unless it was someone really important who was shot. That is why we don't hear a lot about gun traces if the gun has been around a while. |
Another ...
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, arent 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. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 18:55:58 -0700 (PDT), True North
wrote: ohn H - hide quoted text - On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:44:54 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:* Mr. Luddite* * - show quoted text -* * "This is why we need uniform gun laws rather than the patchwork system we** have now"* * * * Bingo!* Federal laws should regulate firearms and the laws exactly the same from Hillbilly Heaven, Virginia to Boston's finest neighbourhoods.* "You've no idea what the **** you're talking about." Really? We get more of your news on cable tv than we need or want. .... But the cable news is pretty much just the view from out of a New York, DC, LA or Atlanta office building window or where they can drive a news van to in a shift. How much do you understand about Rural America. I bet you don't even know much about Rural Canada. Do you really think they have the same attitude about guns in Alberta as you do in Nova Scotia? My bet is they are more closely aligned to Montana. |
Another ...
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 02:06:10 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: wrote: So, someone steals your car, and uses it in a bank robbery. What charges against you will you accept? For that matter what if they just borrowed your car? A fellow worker at NCR told about his car being stole. He lived in Florida near the border. Georgia highway patrol sees the car and it will not pull over. They put like 150 rounds in the car. Car crashes in to the chain and posts along the highway. His insurance company had to pay for the 150’ of destroyed fence as his car was responsible. He said would have been cheaper to give the thief the car. That is because the insurance follows the car, not the driver or even the owner. |
Another ...
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 02:15:43 -0000 (UTC), Bill
wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: Fretwell's point on industrial gases is...absurd. What is absurd on the industrial gases? Columbine and at least one other mass attack had rigged propane bombs, which luckily failed to explode. Those were just kids who flunked chemistry or never watched Myth busters. The gas inside the tank is not particularly dangerous. |
Another ...
Alex wrote:
True North wrote: ohn H - hide quoted text - On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:44:54 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Mr. Luddite - show quoted text - "This is why we need uniform gun laws rather than the patchwork system we have now" Bingo! Federal laws should regulate firearms and the laws exactly the same from Hillbilly Heaven, Virginia to Boston's finest neighbourhoods. "You've no idea what the **** you're talking about." Really? We get more of your news on cable tv than we need or want. Many cities with the toughest gun laws, like Chicago, have the most gun-related crime. The problem is the people with the guns don't care about the laws and use stolen guns for their crimes. The majority of these cities have Democrats for mayors. Ask your friend about that. When we were in Alaska I commented on the amount of guns. Was told an armed society is a polite society. |
Another ...
wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:15:38 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: The same video games and movies pretty much are played and watched in democracies around the world. Why don't those societies have the sort of mass shootings we do? Could it be the easy availability of guns and a gun culture? We have a much more violent culture over all. We have more people beating other people to death with their bare hands than most of those other countries have, total murders, in any given year. To those other countries, Grand Theft Auto is just a fantasy. If you live in Baltimore or Chicago, it looks a lot like your daily life and you probably know guys who steal cars for a living. I know the news only wants to report white people getting killed at school or at work but if that was the only murders we had, we would look better than Sweden. The fact remains drug and gang violence, just like those video games, is what drives our murder rate. Next time I get bored I will load the new 2016 FBI crime data set into a database manager and give you all some "views" you don't see on TV. If I just slice out "europeans" killing "europeans" I bet we start looking a lot more like Europe. Of course then you will call me a racist. We were a country that was pretty much settle by aggressive, misfits. Took a lot to pack what little you owned and figured out a way to get to America or you were a debtor or thief that was sent here. I think that is one of the reasons the African background people whose ancestors came as slaves have more problems than the later immigration groups. They were a docile group. If you were aggressive, you were either a supplier or you were dead. |
Another ...
wrote:
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 02:15:43 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: Fretwell's point on industrial gases is...absurd. What is absurd on the industrial gases? Columbine and at least one other mass attack had rigged propane bombs, which luckily failed to explode. Those were just kids who flunked chemistry or never watched Myth busters. The gas inside the tank is not particularly dangerous. They tried to use a small explosive to rupture the tank I think. Did not rupture. And a fast leaking tank is a bomb. Couple years ago, in Dublin, Ca near me, a minister was blown through the glass patio doors when the tank developed a giant leak. |
Another ...
On 6/30/2018 8:58 PM, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:59:21 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 2:05 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 13:56:14 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 10:34 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/30/18 9:30 AM, 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. I'd extend that responsibility to anyone who "gifts" a kid a firearm. I see no problem if the "kid" is of legal age to own the firearm and it is transferred to him along with a new registration of ownership. That leaves the original owner (gifter) with no further responsibility. Of course under the rules I have proposed if someone just gifts a firearm to someone without any documentation of the transfer, the original owner should still be held responsible if that firearm ever becomes used in criminal activity. I still ask, why is documentation a mitigator in any crimes? What difference does it really make? Virtually every one of these mass shootings involve legally purchased and properly documented firearms. When you look at the bulk of the murders (around the drug trade), the guns are usually stolen and I doubt anyone will be rushing down to the police station to register a stolen gun, particularly since most are barred from owning one in the first place. Because we have to change our thinking about gun ownership, not outlaw them. You said you had a shotgun at 15 and "unfettered" access to a .22 before then. Tim just mentioned that he had a .357 at 15 and a .44 at 17. Obviously both of you were responsible and careful with them otherwise either or both of you would not be around to be posting in rec.boats today. But, let me ask you this: Do you (and Tim) think that now-a-days any 15 year old kid in your neighborhoods should have the right to have a shotgun or a .357 whatever it was? Is your confidence in other families and the parents that control them high enough to feel comfortable with kids barely beyond puberty walking around with those firearms? Not me. Many parents today don't even enforce some of the basic rules we grew up with. So now, at least, you seem to be admitting this is a societal problem more than a gun problem. Why not put the same scrutiny on parents that you want to put on guns? Why do we need to wait until a kid shoots up his school or more likely kills himself before we even start to look at what kind of parents and family structure they have? We have spent so much time freeing "mom" from her main responsibility raising her kids to pursue a career and told everyone single parent household families are fine that we have forgotten kids need parents. Greg, I have been suggesting all throughout this discussion that we *have* a societal problem, i.e. "culture" that includes a lax attitude about guns, the responsibilities that come with having them and the easy access of getting them. In no way do I think a registration requirement for gun ownership is going to solve all our problems but I think you have to start somewhere. Guns have played a role in most of the mass shootings that have occurred it seems, so if we are going to try to change our culture it seems like that is a good place to start. |
Another ...
On 6/30/2018 9:22 PM, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/30/18 9:18 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:56:38 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter than those in Maryland. I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day. Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home. Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone background check. === Are you sure about that?* I've never had to wait for anything other than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that. Filling out the form takes longer. California used to have no waiting period for long guns, only handguns. Not now, all have 10 day waiting period.* I remember buying my Remington 1100 San Francisco Gun Exchange.** Yes SF used to have gun stores.* And they wrapped it in brown paper and handed it to me.** My Ithaca 37 from monkey ward, handed to me with a box of gratis shells. I am trying to remember the last gun I had to wait for. It was certainly a while ago if ever. In Florida a CCW gets you out the door as soon as the NICS check clears and you get the paperwork done. I really have not bought than many guns tho. Nothing like Harry the gun dealer or our resident collector. The last handgun I bought from a store up north was before the GCA68 at Ye Olde Hunter in Alexandria and I think you just paid the man and left with it. It was a half a century ago tho. I may be wrong* ;-) I wonder if anyone still has those records? When I bought my CZ Scorpion some months ago, I walked out of the store after paying for it in no more than 20 minutes. Just the quick NICS check. It's usually five full days of waiting for a handgun. It may be that if you have a LTC or other permit (if required) the waiting period is waived because you have already had a full background check. That said, based on the websites I've looked at, a permit is *not* required, nor is any proof of training to purchase a unregulated long gun in Maryland. Perhaps that's when a waiting period is imposed? Anyway, the point is that the recent Maryland shooter did not require a permit to purchase the shotgun he used and was likely only subject to the quick criminal background check they quickly do by phone. If the court issues he previously had with his beef with the newspaper were dismissed, there was no criminal background. |
Another ...
|
Another ...
|
Another ...
On 6/30/2018 9:26 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:12:44 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 5:55 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:11:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 1:21 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 12:20:13 -0400, Keyser Söze wrote: wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 10:34:17 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/30/18 9:30 AM, 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. I'd extend that responsibility to anyone who "gifts" a kid a firearm. I suspect that has more to do with your desire to outlaw hunting in all forms than preventing mass shootings since millions of "kids" are given guns every year and a minuscule fraction ever do anything wrong with them. (other than murder helpless animals) There you go again. I have ne desire to outlaw hunting in all forms, as ypu phrase it. You certainly never miss a chance to criticize it but that still leaves us with the fact that "kids" are allowed to hunt alone in most states, including Maryland so that must mean they have unsupervised use of a firearm. I was 15 when I got my first shotgun. I had unfettered access to a .22 before that. I was just looking at Maryland's gun laws including the most recent changes. The focus of the changes seem to be on assault type "military" looking long guns and restrictions on magazine capacities. There still is no minimum age requirement to purchase and own a long gun however and no permits, proof of training or anything is required. Seems nuts to me in this day and age. The way I read it a 7 year old can buy a shotgun or a .22. A buyer must be 18 to purchase a long gun in Maryland. http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-la...n/minimum-age/ That's a federal law. Note this sentence on another website by the same Giffords Law Center that you just cited: "However, there appears to be no minimum age to possess a rifle or shotgun in the state." http://lawcenter.giffords.org/minimum-age-to-purchase-possess-in-maryland/ The one I linked to was last updated in November of 2017. Perhaps Maryland's laws have been further updated since. Possession and buying are two different things. An adult can buy one and let a kid use it for hunting or even give it to the kid. But, the kid can't buy it. You're right. I misunderstood what the website said. |
Another ...
On 6/30/2018 9:27 PM, John H. wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:13:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 6:02 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:02:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 12:17 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 10:34:17 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/30/18 9:30 AM, 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. I'd extend that responsibility to anyone who "gifts" a kid a firearm. I suspect that has more to do with your desire to outlaw hunting in all forms than preventing mass shootings since millions of "kids" are given guns every year and a minuscule fraction ever do anything wrong with them. (other than murder helpless animals) No problem in states that allow "kids" to have rifles for hunting as long as they are of the legal age for that state and the rifle is registered to them. Of course the parents still have parental responsibilities as to how and when it is used and stored. Are there states that require the registration of rifles? Massachusetts doesn't, but I see California does. "The California Department of Justice ("DOJ") retains information about the purchaser and seller of all in-state firearm sales and transfers, and requires that any firearms imported into the state be reported to the DOJ.[14] Furthermore, the Attorney General is required by law to maintain a registry containing the fingerprints and identifying information of the transferee, and the unique identifying information of every firearm transferred in the state, pursuant to §11106.[15]" ...according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...tates_by_state Most states don't require registration of long guns. I think they should. We've kicked the paperwork requirement to death. We disagree. We have. But one other point .... you corrected me about the difference in Maryland's law regarding minimum age requirements. There's no minimum age to possess an unregulated long gun but you have to be 18 to buy one. So, who is responsible for the 15 year old (or younger) kid in possession of a rifle or shotgun? |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:18:10 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/30/18 9:00 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/30/2018 8:31 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:38:22 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 12:10 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 09:30:52 -0400, "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, arent 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. Since there was no problem establishing who owned the gun, again, what would registration accomplish? It is just one more layer of bureaucracy and no doubt tax. Laws requiring proper storage of the gun already exist, even in gun friendly states like Florida but, since Lanza (Sandy Hook) shot his mom when he took the gun, I doubt the law would have much punishment available to use against her. It's kinda fun watching you come up with every reason in the world to do nothing. At a certain point I think we have squeezed the gun issue about as hard as we can. It is time to start trying to just stop the crazy people who think it is OK to kill a bunch of innocent victims. I have said many times, guns are for lazy people but it is far from the only deadly thing out there. Some can be even more devastating. There are plenty of industrial gasses that are totally unregulated and have the ability to really do some damage. How many people would recognize the smell of acetylene and know to run like hell if they smelled it coming out of the vents in a building? I guess this is what is called today as "having a conversation". Nothing is really accomplished but points of view are identified. Fretwell's point on industrial gases is...absurd. Luddite didn't write the last sentence. Playing cutsie with the carrots, Krause? Needing attention? |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:18:19 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:56:38 -0000 (UTC), Bill wrote: Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter than those in Maryland. I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day. Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home. Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone background check. === Are you sure about that? I've never had to wait for anything other than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that. Filling out the form takes longer. California used to have no waiting period for long guns, only handguns. Not now, all have 10 day waiting period. I remember buying my Remington 1100 San Francisco Gun Exchange. Yes SF used to have gun stores. And they wrapped it in brown paper and handed it to me. My Ithaca 37 from monkey ward, handed to me with a box of gratis shells. I am trying to remember the last gun I had to wait for. It was certainly a while ago if ever. In Florida a CCW gets you out the door as soon as the NICS check clears and you get the paperwork done. I really have not bought than many guns tho. Nothing like Harry the gun dealer or our resident collector. The last handgun I bought from a store up north was before the GCA68 at Ye Olde Hunter in Alexandria and I think you just paid the man and left with it. It was a half a century ago tho. I may be wrong ;-) I wonder if anyone still has those records? According to this, handguns require three day wait: http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-la...e-law/florida/ |
Another ...
|
Another ...
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 05:06:49 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2018 9:26 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:20:55 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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. It might be quite a while before I noticed one missing unless they made a mess getting to it. Most of mine are all locked away in out of the way places that are not easy to get to. Florida is not on the list of states with mandatory reporting of stolen guns. Here's the list: States with Mandatory Loss/Theft Reporting Laws California Connecticut Delaware District of Columbia Illinois Maryland (handguns and assault weapons only) Massachusetts Michigan (thefts only) New Jersey New York Ohio Rhode Island That's only 11 states out of the entire USA. Crazy. When I called insurance company to report theft of three rifles, their first question was, "Did you report the theft to the police?" That might entice owners in those other states to make a report. |
Another ...
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 05:14:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2018 9:27 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:13:17 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 6:02 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:02:37 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 12:17 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 10:34:17 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/30/18 9:30 AM, 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, arent 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. I'd extend that responsibility to anyone who "gifts" a kid a firearm. I suspect that has more to do with your desire to outlaw hunting in all forms than preventing mass shootings since millions of "kids" are given guns every year and a minuscule fraction ever do anything wrong with them. (other than murder helpless animals) No problem in states that allow "kids" to have rifles for hunting as long as they are of the legal age for that state and the rifle is registered to them. Of course the parents still have parental responsibilities as to how and when it is used and stored. Are there states that require the registration of rifles? Massachusetts doesn't, but I see California does. "The California Department of Justice ("DOJ") retains information about the purchaser and seller of all in-state firearm sales and transfers, and requires that any firearms imported into the state be reported to the DOJ.[14] Furthermore, the Attorney General is required by law to maintain a registry containing the fingerprints and identifying information of the transferee, and the unique identifying information of every firearm transferred in the state, pursuant to 11106.[15]" ...according to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_la...tates_by_state Most states don't require registration of long guns. I think they should. We've kicked the paperwork requirement to death. We disagree. We have. But one other point .... you corrected me about the difference in Maryland's law regarding minimum age requirements. There's no minimum age to possess an unregulated long gun but you have to be 18 to buy one. So, who is responsible for the 15 year old (or younger) kid in possession of a rifle or shotgun? Parent or adult who gave, or loaned, the kid the gun. I'm thinking this would apply: Maryland law provides that a person may not store or leave a loaded firearm in a location where the person knew or should have known that an unsupervised child would gain access to the firearm.1 This section does not apply if: The childs access is supervised by an individual age 18 or older; The childs access was obtained as a result of unlawful entry; The firearm is in the possession or control of a law enforcement officer while the officer is engaged in official duties; or The child has a certificate of firearm and hunter safety.2 Interestingly: Maryland also prohibits any person from selling, renting or transferring ammunition for a regulated firearm to a person under age 21, or any ammunition to a person under age 18. Maryland also prohibits the sale or transfer of a rifle or shotgun to a person under age 18. So whoever gave or sold the kid ammo could be in deep ****! http://lawcenter.giffords.org/minimu...s-in-maryland/ |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 18:55:58 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:
ohn H - hide quoted text - On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:44:54 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote:* Mr. Luddite* * - show quoted text -* * "This is why we need uniform gun laws rather than the patchwork system we** have now"* * * * Bingo!* Federal laws should regulate firearms and the laws exactly the same from Hillbilly Heaven, Virginia to Boston's finest neighbourhoods.* "You've no idea what the **** you're talking about." Really? We get more of your news on cable tv than we need or want. And you watch it. Says something about you, eh boy? Even worse, you believe it. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 22:19:22 -0400, Alex wrote:
True North wrote: ohn H - hide quoted text - On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:44:54 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: Mr. Luddite - show quoted text - "This is why we need uniform gun laws rather than the patchwork system we have now" Bingo! Federal laws should regulate firearms and the laws exactly the same from Hillbilly Heaven, Virginia to Boston's finest neighbourhoods. "You've no idea what the **** you're talking about." Really? We get more of your news on cable tv than we need or want. Many cities with the toughest gun laws, like Chicago, have the most gun-related crime. The problem is the people with the guns don't care about the laws and use stolen guns for their crimes. The majority of these cities have Democrats for mayors. Ask your friend about that. And most of them have had their Democrat mayors for a long, long time. Of course, neither Krause nor his boy will respond to that. |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 23:27:38 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:33:02 -0400, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 19:19:31 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 6:19 PM, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:02:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 3:44 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter than those in Maryland. I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day. Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home. Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone background check. === Are you sure about that? I've never had to wait for anything other than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that. Filling out the form takes longer. I am sure. It was back in 2003 though, so perhaps the rules have changed. They did the instant (phone) background check, I paid for the the shotgun but the store had to hold it for something like 5 days before I could pick it up. Bought it at a WalMart of all places. Winchester 20 gauge. It could also have been because I was not a permanent Florida resident. Don't know. I never had a Florida driver's license. Florida was kinda strange. I bought and registered a pickup truck down there with Florida tags but I didn't need a Florida driver's license to do it. I still have the shotgun. Never been fired. But now I have a minor problem. Because I bought it in Florida (well before I had a LTC permit in Massachusetts) it is technically illegal for me to have it up here. I didn't know all the rules and laws back then and it may be difficult for me to legally transfer or sell it. This state has no record that I have it. I am sure if I just turned it over to the town police (which is probably what I'll do when the time comes) they will just take it with no questions asked. Why not just register it? The way I read this, it's permissable: "Although registration is not specifically required by law, transfers of firearm ownership are required to be recorded with the Massachusetts Executive Office of Public Safety and Security (EOPSS): by the seller if in state, or by the buyer if out of state. The Massachusetts EOPSS also provides the option to register a firearm, although, other than obtaining a firearm from out of state (a transfer of ownership), this is not required by law." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Massachusetts Thanks. I'll look into this. I asked the owner of the gun shop where I have purchased my other guns here in MA. He's an FFL and he didn't know what I should do. He said he couldn't buy it from me even if I almost gave it away. No records of how I obtained it, he said. You're the buyer in an out-of-state transfer. Seems pretty clear. He's a dealer. They're governed differently than individuals. Actually since Richard knows where he bought it and presumably the approximate date he could have his dealer call that dealer and get the details of the transaction from his "bound book". Since it is Walmart, it may even be in their computer system. This gets a lot tougher if you are talking about a dealer that went out of business and may not have turned over all of his "bound books". Then there is the old "we had a fire". I am sure there are plenty of those transactions that are simply lost and gone forever. I doubt BATF would thumb through all of those books anyway unless it was someone really important who was shot. That is why we don't hear a lot about gun traces if the gun has been around a while. If I were Luddite, I would go here and start the process: https://mircs.chs.state.ma.us/fa10/a...n=presentTrans |
Another ...
On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 05:02:52 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 6/30/2018 9:23 PM, wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 16:02:27 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/30/2018 3:44 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:36:59 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: The laws governing the purchase of a shotgun in Florida are stricter than those in Maryland. I bought a shotgun in Florida back when we wintered down there after we found a 4-5 foot rattlesnake coiled up at our front door one day. Like Maryland, they did a quick telephone background check, rang me up but I had to wait several days to pick it up and take it home. Maryland lets you take it home the same day after the quick phone background check. === Are you sure about that? I've never had to wait for anything other than the background check and that only takes a few minutes, if that. Filling out the form takes longer. I am sure. It was back in 2003 though, so perhaps the rules have changed. They did the instant (phone) background check, I paid for the the shotgun but the store had to hold it for something like 5 days before I could pick it up. Bought it at a WalMart of all places. Winchester 20 gauge. It could also have been because I was not a permanent Florida resident. Don't know. I never had a Florida driver's license. Florida was kinda strange. I bought and registered a pickup truck down there with Florida tags but I didn't need a Florida driver's license to do it. I still have the shotgun. Never been fired. But now I have a minor problem. Because I bought it in Florida (well before I had a LTC permit in Massachusetts) it is technically illegal for me to have it up here. I didn't know all the rules and laws back then and it may be difficult for me to legally transfer or sell it. This state has no record that I have it. I am sure if I just turned it over to the town police (which is probably what I'll do when the time comes) they will just take it with no questions asked. Bring it back to Florida and sell it. Alternately list it on one of the gun consignment web sites and sell it. A Mass FFL will actually be the seller of record to BATF. The Massachusetts FFL who I talked to won't touch it because I have no proof of ownership. If I had originally purchased it in Massachusetts there would be no problem because the transaction would be in the state database (registration). It's not a big deal. I am going to look into the information that John provided. I am about to get rid of most of my firearms anyway. I'll keep the one I occasionally carry and probably one other. The rest are just collecting dust in a gun safe. Try this: https://mircs.chs.state.ma.us/fa10/a...n=presentTrans |
Another ...
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 21:34:23 -0400, wrote:
On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 17:55:45 -0400, John H. wrote: On Sat, 30 Jun 2018 14:11:56 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: I was just looking at Maryland's gun laws including the most recent changes. The focus of the changes seem to be on assault type "military" looking long guns and restrictions on magazine capacities. There still is no minimum age requirement to purchase and own a long gun however and no permits, proof of training or anything is required. Seems nuts to me in this day and age. The way I read it a 7 year old can buy a shotgun or a .22. A buyer must be 18 to purchase a long gun in Maryland. http://lawcenter.giffords.org/gun-la...n/minimum-age/ Actually if that site is right you need to be 18 to buy a long gun from a dealer by federal law "Dealers may not sell or deliver a long gun, or ammunition for a long gun, to any person the dealer knows or has reasonable cause to believe is under age 18". Since you need to show ID and fill out a 4473, that is pretty certain. That's what I said. A buyer must be 18 to purchase a long gun in Maryland. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:46 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com