|
Another ...
John H. wrote:
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 11:19:31 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:17 AM, True North wrote: 12:09John H - show quoted text - "You reckon your boy, donnee, believes that?" You "reckon" I believe a fragile, accident prone, old fart like y'all can ride that Moto Guzzler any distance? The question is whether old fart herring or old, worn out guzzi will break first. Get the Ducati out and let's see!! I'm sure I'd give out long before the Guzzi. Hell, it's only 29 years old. That's a baby. There's no Ducati. |
Another ...
Keyser Soze wrote:
On 6/29/18 4:12 PM, True North wrote: Mr. Luddite - hide quoted text - On 6/29/2018 2:29 PM, Its Me wrote: On Friday, June 29, 2018 at 2:08:28 PM UTC-4, True North wrote: On Friday, 29 June 2018 15:00:50 UTC-3, John H wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 10:57:08 -0700 (PDT), True North wrote: On Friday, 29 June 2018 13:09:47 UTC-3, 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. Gives us outsiders some hope that America can someday resolve this problem and stop the mad love affair with guns of all types. How would you do that, donnee boy? Used to be that old ex military types were the usual culprit in mass shootings so a good start would be yearly checks on your mental stability after the age of 60. hand guns should be totally banned...no exceptions except for law enforcement. I'm sure y'all can come up with other effective actions. I think canaduh should just build a border wall and then you 'nadians can stop ****ing your pants in fear. "Let the Queen pay for it .. :-)" Not a chance. If we build it we'll make Trump pay for it.....well, either him or his Repugnant Party. There's an idea...a wall protecting Canada and a wall protecting Mexico, paid for by Trump. Love it. Do you jerk him off when you high-fived him? |
Another ...
Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 6/29/2018 6:24 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 2:55 PM, Bill wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 12:38 PM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:09:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite ... shooting in Annapolis, MD ? .......... This strict gun control laws are really paying off, aren’t they? Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and out of control.* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't surprise me if he turns out to be* a right wing nutcase. Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the guy from photo recognition software. It was reported he did "something" to obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old, named Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement sources, who apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland. Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim in 2012 against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a minor conviction for "harassment" some years ago. Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny, since Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws. They have most of the things people are clamoring for as* "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws * handgun license to buy one * handgun de facto registration *Assault Weapons ban * high cap magazine ban * universal background checks on all sales * red flag law Do they still have that stupid fired case law? As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws. There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification license."* Even an idiot like Alex could get one. I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means. There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are banned if they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the shelf, and any number of different semi-auto rifles. Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is legal, as is buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland. I have no idea what a "red flag" law is. Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of sensible gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media rantings but they didn't. Thanks for pointing out the futility tho. Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip! I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most places already have them. The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for many here ... is a required registration of all guns and strict enforcement of the required registration. If for some reason you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm. The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held responsible for it and it's use. If stolen, sold or legally transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required within 48 hours. Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles. So to some ... go take an antacid. It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me. It would have done nothing in this case, The guy had no record, he legally purchased a pretty mundane shotgun and he bought it a while ago. The cops are saying he was not even on their radar. The newspaper never pursued charges against the guy. The harassment charge did not raise any red flags according to him but he did seem pretty nervous about it. So, like Harry says, "do nothing". I am not suggesting a registration of all firearms to their owners is going to prevent every nutcase from shooting someone. However, it may help in terms of keeping track of who has what and what happens to the guns if they get rid of them. Actually, in this case, the guy *was* on the radar screen because of the harassment case and his lawsuit. It's in the court records. One of the questions on the form you fill out for a permit or renewal in Massachusetts is: “Have you ever *appeared* in any criminal court as a defendant for any criminal offense or criminal traffic offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)?” Note "appeared". Even the police department website points this out. It doesn't say "arrested" or found guilty. It says "appeared". You could have had the charges dismissed or found not guilty however you are required to answer honestly and they check. An "appearance" may not cause you to not get the permit or renewal however not answering the question honestly *will* according the the Police Department instructions. How would you appear as a defendant in criminal court without an arrest? Because they're not that interested in whether you were arrested. They are interested in whether you went to court. If you were arrested, the charges could be dropped before you went to court. The question is how Without an arrest, how would you be in criminal court as a defendant? I just read the question again on the application. Something is screwed up. The Police Department website refers to this question as #10. On the actual application it is question #4 and is worded differently. It's confusing. On the application it asks: "Have you ever been arrested or appeared in court as a defendant for any criminal offense?" I would agree that if you appear in court as a defendant for any criminal offense it stands to reason that you must have been arrested. But the question seems to make a distinction. Anyway, here is how the Police Department explains this question as question #10 and how to answer it: "3. Take Note: Application Question #10: “Have you ever appeared in any criminal court as a defendant for any criminal offense or criminal traffic offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)?” The key word is “appeared” rather than “arrested.” Having been charged and convicted of a crime does not necessarily prohibit you from getting an FID or LTC. Not answering truthfully does. Understand that “ever appeared” includes all adult and juvenile appearances. It does not matter if you were found not guilty, or if the charges were dismissed, or if you received a continuance without a finding–you still have to answer “yes” to the question if you ever appeared in criminal court. If you do not answer truthfully, we will find out, no matter how long ago. If you have a sealed record, you also have to indicate this; we are notified of disqualifiers even from sealed records. We will not accept “I forgot,” “They told me it would not show up,” or “It never showed up before.” Remember: you are signing this application under penalties of perjury; you will be denied a license for any untruthful answer and you may face the possibility of prosecution." Go figure. I have to renew my permit soon. When I go, I'll ask why the Police website and it's instructions are not the same as the actual application. BTW ... I downloaded the application directly from a link that was on the Police website. If you were not arrested, you would not appear in court as a defendant! |
Another ...
On 6/29/2018 8:48 PM, Bill wrote:
Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 6:24 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 2:55 PM, Bill wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 12:38 PM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:09:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite ... shooting in Annapolis, MD ? .......... This strict gun control laws are really paying off, aren’t they? Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and out of control.* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't surprise me if he turns out to be* a right wing nutcase. Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the guy from photo recognition software. It was reported he did "something" to obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old, named Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement sources, who apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland. Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim in 2012 against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a minor conviction for "harassment" some years ago. Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny, since Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws. They have most of the things people are clamoring for as* "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws * handgun license to buy one * handgun de facto registration *Assault Weapons ban * high cap magazine ban * universal background checks on all sales * red flag law Do they still have that stupid fired case law? As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws. There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification license."* Even an idiot like Alex could get one. I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means. There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are banned if they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the shelf, and any number of different semi-auto rifles. Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is legal, as is buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland. I have no idea what a "red flag" law is. Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of sensible gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media rantings but they didn't. Thanks for pointing out the futility tho. Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip! I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most places already have them. The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for many here ... is a required registration of all guns and strict enforcement of the required registration. If for some reason you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm. The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held responsible for it and it's use. If stolen, sold or legally transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required within 48 hours. Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles. So to some ... go take an antacid. It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me. It would have done nothing in this case, The guy had no record, he legally purchased a pretty mundane shotgun and he bought it a while ago. The cops are saying he was not even on their radar. The newspaper never pursued charges against the guy. The harassment charge did not raise any red flags according to him but he did seem pretty nervous about it. So, like Harry says, "do nothing". I am not suggesting a registration of all firearms to their owners is going to prevent every nutcase from shooting someone. However, it may help in terms of keeping track of who has what and what happens to the guns if they get rid of them. Actually, in this case, the guy *was* on the radar screen because of the harassment case and his lawsuit. It's in the court records. One of the questions on the form you fill out for a permit or renewal in Massachusetts is: “Have you ever *appeared* in any criminal court as a defendant for any criminal offense or criminal traffic offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)?” Note "appeared". Even the police department website points this out. It doesn't say "arrested" or found guilty. It says "appeared". You could have had the charges dismissed or found not guilty however you are required to answer honestly and they check. An "appearance" may not cause you to not get the permit or renewal however not answering the question honestly *will* according the the Police Department instructions. How would you appear as a defendant in criminal court without an arrest? Because they're not that interested in whether you were arrested. They are interested in whether you went to court. If you were arrested, the charges could be dropped before you went to court. The question is how Without an arrest, how would you be in criminal court as a defendant? I just read the question again on the application. Something is screwed up. The Police Department website refers to this question as #10. On the actual application it is question #4 and is worded differently. It's confusing. On the application it asks: "Have you ever been arrested or appeared in court as a defendant for any criminal offense?" I would agree that if you appear in court as a defendant for any criminal offense it stands to reason that you must have been arrested. But the question seems to make a distinction. Anyway, here is how the Police Department explains this question as question #10 and how to answer it: "3. Take Note: Application Question #10: “Have you ever appeared in any criminal court as a defendant for any criminal offense or criminal traffic offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)?” The key word is “appeared” rather than “arrested.” Having been charged and convicted of a crime does not necessarily prohibit you from getting an FID or LTC. Not answering truthfully does. Understand that “ever appeared” includes all adult and juvenile appearances. It does not matter if you were found not guilty, or if the charges were dismissed, or if you received a continuance without a finding–you still have to answer “yes” to the question if you ever appeared in criminal court. If you do not answer truthfully, we will find out, no matter how long ago. If you have a sealed record, you also have to indicate this; we are notified of disqualifiers even from sealed records. We will not accept “I forgot,” “They told me it would not show up,” or “It never showed up before.” Remember: you are signing this application under penalties of perjury; you will be denied a license for any untruthful answer and you may face the possibility of prosecution." Go figure. I have to renew my permit soon. When I go, I'll ask why the Police website and it's instructions are not the same as the actual application. BTW ... I downloaded the application directly from a link that was on the Police website. If you were not arrested, you would not appear in court as a defendant! Well, now you did it. Got me looking this stuff up. :-) Turns out, *yes* in most states you can be charged with a crime and be required to appear in court without being arrested. Usually it applies to misdemeanor crimes and a citation to appear in court is issued. |
Another ...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:01:28 -0400, John H.
wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 15:42:27 -0400, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:09:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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 usual argument against mandatory registration is that in can be seen as a first step towards confiscation. That might seem ridiculous to some but it has happened elsewhere, and it's very hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube once the information and law is out there. It would turn a large percentage of the population into law breakers, sort of like prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit. Not so farfetched an idea. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/27/59725...cond-amendment I'd go along with total repeal if they substituted term limits as the new amendment. Two different issues but it does demonstrate why these guys should retire. They are delusional. Even if you could get a repeal out of congress and that is a huge stretch, there is no way you get enough states, even if they do split up California. |
Another ...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 21:14:10 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/29/2018 8:48 PM, Bill wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 6:24 PM, Bill wrote: Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 2:55 PM, Bill wrote: Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/29/2018 12:38 PM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:09:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite ... shooting in Annapolis, MD ? .......... This strict gun control laws are really paying off, 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. It would have done nothing in this case, The guy had no record, he legally purchased a pretty mundane shotgun and he bought it a while ago. The cops are saying he was not even on their radar. The newspaper never pursued charges against the guy. The harassment charge did not raise any red flags according to him but he did seem pretty nervous about it. So, like Harry says, "do nothing". I am not suggesting a registration of all firearms to their owners is going to prevent every nutcase from shooting someone. However, it may help in terms of keeping track of who has what and what happens to the guns if they get rid of them. Actually, in this case, the guy *was* on the radar screen because of the harassment case and his lawsuit. It's in the court records. One of the questions on the form you fill out for a permit or renewal in Massachusetts is: Have you ever *appeared* in any criminal court as a defendant for any criminal offense or criminal traffic offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)? Note "appeared". Even the police department website points this out. It doesn't say "arrested" or found guilty. It says "appeared". You could have had the charges dismissed or found not guilty however you are required to answer honestly and they check. An "appearance" may not cause you to not get the permit or renewal however not answering the question honestly *will* according the the Police Department instructions. How would you appear as a defendant in criminal court without an arrest? Because they're not that interested in whether you were arrested. They are interested in whether you went to court. If you were arrested, the charges could be dropped before you went to court. The question is how Without an arrest, how would you be in criminal court as a defendant? I just read the question again on the application. Something is screwed up. The Police Department website refers to this question as #10. On the actual application it is question #4 and is worded differently. It's confusing. On the application it asks: "Have you ever been arrested or appeared in court as a defendant for any criminal offense?" I would agree that if you appear in court as a defendant for any criminal offense it stands to reason that you must have been arrested. But the question seems to make a distinction. Anyway, here is how the Police Department explains this question as question #10 and how to answer it: "3. Take Note: Application Question #10: Have you ever appeared in any criminal court as a defendant for any criminal offense or criminal traffic offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)? The key word is appeared rather than arrested. Having been charged and convicted of a crime does not necessarily prohibit you from getting an FID or LTC. Not answering truthfully does. Understand that ever appeared includes all adult and juvenile appearances. It does not matter if you were found not guilty, or if the charges were dismissed, or if you received a continuance without a findingyou still have to answer yes to the question if you ever appeared in criminal court. If you do not answer truthfully, we will find out, no matter how long ago. If you have a sealed record, you also have to indicate this; we are notified of disqualifiers even from sealed records. We will not accept I forgot, They told me it would not show up, or It never showed up before. Remember: you are signing this application under penalties of perjury; you will be denied a license for any untruthful answer and you may face the possibility of prosecution." Go figure. I have to renew my permit soon. When I go, I'll ask why the Police website and it's instructions are not the same as the actual application. BTW ... I downloaded the application directly from a link that was on the Police website. If you were not arrested, you would not appear in court as a defendant! Well, now you did it. Got me looking this stuff up. :-) Turns out, *yes* in most states you can be charged with a crime and be required to appear in court without being arrested. Usually it applies to misdemeanor crimes and a citation to appear in court is issued. === In NY there is something called a "Desk Appearance Ticket" which is a citation to appear in court. The official wording makes it clear that you have in fact "been arrested" even though you were not necessarily handcuffed and taken to the station house. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Desk_appearance_ticket |
Another ...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 16:14:26 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/29/2018 3:42 PM, Wayne.B wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:09:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: 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 usual argument against mandatory registration is that in can be seen as a first step towards confiscation. That might seem ridiculous to some but it has happened elsewhere, and it's very hard to put the toothpaste back in the tube once the information and law is out there. It would turn a large percentage of the population into law breakers, sort of like prohibition and the 55 mph speed limit. Australia is often given as an example after their mandatory buy-back of firearms following the 1996 massacre in Port Arthur, Tasmania, where 35 people were killed. Two buy-backs were conducted, one in 1997 and the other in 2003. The buy-back program also included new laws governing gun ownership and qualifications with restrictions on automatic and semi-automatic rifles, pump action rifles and shotguns, stricter requirements for the registration of all firearms and stricter requirements for the storage of all firearms. Here's what's interesting: In the two decades following the reforms, the annual rate of gun deaths fell from 2.9 per 100,000 in 1996 to 0.9 per 100,000 in 2016 yet today, in 2018, there are more firearms privately owned in Australia than there were before the buy back programs and tightening of firearms laws. That may suggest that the number of guns didn't make the difference. It was getting the unregistered, unaccounted for guns out of the hands of people that probably shouldn't have them and then being more particular about who can own a firearm moving forward following the buy backs. They still had a mass shooting in may and they are looking at even stricter laws. |
Another ...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 18:01:00 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/29/2018 5:19 PM, 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? Greg, just because it didn't matter in this particular case doesn't mean it doesn't matter in *all* cases. Which one would it have mattered in? For that matter which laws would have stopped any of these guys? I'll wait |
Another ...
On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 18:03:02 -0400, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote: On 6/29/2018 5:33 PM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 13:05:18 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/29/2018 12:38 PM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 12:09:42 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote: On 6/29/2018 11:38 AM, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/29/18 11:32 AM, wrote: On Fri, 29 Jun 2018 08:05:34 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 10:55 PM, wrote: On Thu, 28 Jun 2018 21:13:47 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote: On 6/28/18 8:50 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote: On 6/28/2018 8:38 PM, Tim wrote: Mr. Luddite ... shooting in Annapolis, MD ? .......... This strict gun control laws are really paying off, aren’t they? Tim, it's more like this country has gone totally crazy and out of control.* No clues yet what this guy's motive was but it won't surprise me if he turns out to be* a right wing nutcase. Well, for what it is worth, the police have identified the guy from photo recognition software. It was reported he did "something" to obliterate his fingerprints. He's a white man, 39 years old, named Jarrod Warren Ramos, according to multiple law enforcement sources, who apparently lives in Laurel, Maryland. Ramos has a connection to the paper. He filed a defamation claim in 2012 against the paper but the case was dismissed. He also has a minor conviction for "harassment" some years ago. Tim thinks Maryland has "strict" gun laws. That's kind of funny, since Maryland doesn't have "strict" gun laws. They have most of the things people are clamoring for as* "sensible" or "common sense" gun laws * handgun license to buy one * handgun de facto registration *Assault Weapons ban * high cap magazine ban * universal background checks on all sales * red flag law Do they still have that stupid fired case law? As I said, Maryland does not have strict gun laws. There is no "handgun license." There is a "handgun qualification license."* Even an idiot like Alex could get one. I'm not sure what "handgun de facto registration" means. There is no "assault weapons ban." Most AR-15 type rifles are banned if they don't have heavy barrels, but you can buy an AR-10 off the shelf, and any number of different semi-auto rifles. Only the sale of hi-cap mags are prohibited. Possession is legal, as is buying them across the state line and bringing them into Maryland. I have no idea what a "red flag" law is. Your state is one of the ones the left uses for examples of sensible gun laws. BTE to enlighten you the red flag law mean they had the ability to take Ramos' shotgun based on his social media rantings but they didn't. Thanks for pointing out the futility tho. Ahh, so there's nothing that can be done. Let 'er rip! I've come to the conclusion that there really is nothing that can be done in terms of new gun laws mainly because of how many guns already exist and the lack of records as to where they are or who owns them. Yeah, mandatory background checks, etc., may help but most places already have them. The only thing I can think of .... and this will cause indigestion for many here ... is a required registration of all guns and strict enforcement of the required registration. If for some reason you are found to be in possession of a firearm that is not registered to you as it's owner, it results in immediate confiscation of that firearm. The data base or registry identifies the owner and the owner is held responsible for it and it's use. If stolen, sold or legally transferred a report of that event or transfer would be required within 48 hours. Not dissimilar for titles for vehicles. So to some ... go take an antacid. It's the tiny bit of liberal DNA in me. It would have done nothing in this case, The guy had no record, he legally purchased a pretty mundane shotgun and he bought it a while ago. The cops are saying he was not even on their radar. The newspaper never pursued charges against the guy. The harassment charge did not raise any red flags according to him but he did seem pretty nervous about it. So, like Harry says, "do nothing". I am not suggesting a registration of all firearms to their owners is going to prevent every nutcase from shooting someone. However, it may help in terms of keeping track of who has what and what happens to the guns if they get rid of them. Actually, in this case, the guy *was* on the radar screen because of the harassment case and his lawsuit. It's in the court records. One of the questions on the form you fill out for a permit or renewal in Massachusetts is: “Have you ever *appeared* in any criminal court as a defendant for any criminal offense or criminal traffic offense (excluding non-criminal traffic offenses)?” Note "appeared". Even the police department website points this out. It doesn't say "arrested" or found guilty. It says "appeared". You could have had the charges dismissed or found not guilty however you are required to answer honestly and they check. An "appearance" may not cause you to not get the permit or renewal however not answering the question honestly *will* according the the Police Department instructions. There are plenty of plea deals where you do not have a conviction and you do not appear in court. (probation before judgement) It is common with minor offenses or cases where they may not have a very strong case but they know the person will deal to avoid a record. I would be curious about Ramos because the 4 star cop on TV made it sound like the harassment was no big deal. There must be a reason for the question on the permit application form and the police website goes out of it's way to instruct applicants on how to answer that question. These are legislators writing "just one more law". That doesn't mean they are helpful. It is like that cartridge case fingerprinting Maryland did a while ago or the ammo logs. It seemed like a good idea to someone at the time. |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 05:23 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com