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, 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?

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 child’s access is supervised by an individual age 18 or older;
The child’s 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/

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 08:17:10 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 05:14:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:




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 child’s access is supervised by an individual age 18 or older;
The child’s 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/

Unless the kid had a hunting license.
When I was 15, you could buy 12 ga and .22 ammo at 7-11, pretty much
the same as getting a slurpee.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:19:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 08:17:10 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 05:14:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:




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 child’s access is supervised by an individual age 18 or older;
The child’s 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/

Unless the kid had a hunting license.
When I was 15, you could buy 12 ga and .22 ammo at 7-11, pretty much
the same as getting a slurpee.

Couldn't find that exception. The law doesn't prohibit the 'possession' by a kid, just prohibits the
transfer.

Maryland has some stupid people making stupid laws.

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:42:32 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:19:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 08:17:10 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 05:14:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:




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 child’s access is supervised by an individual age 18 or older;
The child’s 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/

Unless the kid had a hunting license.
When I was 15, you could buy 12 ga and .22 ammo at 7-11, pretty much
the same as getting a slurpee.

Couldn't find that exception. The law doesn't prohibit the 'possession' by a kid, just prohibits the
transfer.

Maryland has some stupid people making stupid laws.

That is pretty universal. We seem to elect "law makers" based on how
they look on TV, not how smart they are.
You can look to the leaders on capitol hill or the guys who lived at
the other end of the mall for the last 50-60 years to see that.

On 7/1/18 1:38 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:42:32 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 12:19:55 -0400, wrote:

On Sun, 01 Jul 2018 08:17:10 -0400, John H.
wrote:

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 05:14:34 -0400, "Mr. Luddite" wrote:




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 child’s access is supervised by an individual age 18 or older;
The child’s 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/

Unless the kid had a hunting license.
When I was 15, you could buy 12 ga and .22 ammo at 7-11, pretty much
the same as getting a slurpee.

Couldn't find that exception. The law doesn't prohibit the 'possession' by a kid, just prohibits the
transfer.

Maryland has some stupid people making stupid laws.

That is pretty universal. We seem to elect "law makers" based on how
they look on TV, not how smart they are.
You can look to the leaders on capitol hill or the guys who lived at
the other end of the mall for the last 50-60 years to see that.


Interesting. I cannot recall one instance where I saw a Maryland state
lawmaker on television, and that includes Mike Miller, the local and
current president of the Maryland senate. I've seen the governor a few
times on TV, and of course, the elected federal officials.

On Sun, 1 Jul 2018 13:45:54 -0400, Keyser Soze wrote:

On 7/1/18 1:38 PM, wrote:

That is pretty universal. We seem to elect "law makers" based on how
they look on TV, not how smart they are.
You can look to the leaders on capitol hill or the guys who lived at
the other end of the mall for the last 50-60 years to see that.


Interesting. I cannot recall one instance where I saw a Maryland state
lawmaker on television, and that includes Mike Miller, the local and
current president of the Maryland senate. I've seen the governor a few
times on TV, and of course, the elected federal officials.

You don't have TV ads for your political offices?
Maybe not Mike Miller or Steny. Those guys have been "plugged in" for
30-40 years. They may be running virtually unopposed.
I still remember when Mike Miller was the go to lawyer for bikers with
drug busts and DUIs. We all had his phone number memorized ... just in
case.