On Jan 16, 3:21*pm, wrote:
On Jan 16, 8:13*am, "HeyBub" wrote:





wrote:

You don't even need it to go that far. * In the current debate, the
one thing
I have not heard mentioned is what the specific licensing reqts to buy
a
handgun are in AZ. * I believe all they check is whether you have a
criminal
record and that probably means you must have committed a felony to bar
you from being able to buy a handgun.

Exactly. In my state, and probably Arizona, if you have a concealed handgun
license, they don't even check for criminal records. In Arizona, unlike,
say, California, a private sale is exactly that: private. Nobody from the
state is involved.

Here in NJ, you have to apply to the *LOCAL POLICE DEPT for a permit
for each handgun you want to buy. * Given that the police had already
had
numerous encounters with the nutjob, that alone should have prevented
him from buying a gun, at least legally. * *The police have records of
calls
made by addresss, name, etc that could have been easily checked.

How's that working out for you, considering Camden, N.J. has the highest
crime rate in the nation? What the state has done is to throw a road-block,
and a not insignificant expense, in front of the law-abiding members of the
community.

I don't consider having to fill out a one page application form, get
fingerprinted,
and paying a small fee much of a road-block. * If AZ had a law and
process
similar to NJ, there's a decent probability that the nutcase would not
have
been able to buy that gun legally. * Yes, he could still probably buy
one illegally,
but for a guy like him, it would be more difficult. * I can tell you
right now where
to go in NJ to buy one legally. *Illegally, I don't know. *Clearly
there are people
obtaining them illegally and it's not hard for some people, ie
criminals, drug
dealers, etc. * But it would have presented one more obstacle for the
nutcase
and maybe he would have given up or shifted strategies, had it not
been so
easy. * And just maybe he would have been caught, robbed, or killed
trying
to buy that illegal gun from some criminal.

As for Camden and similar US cities, you do realize that part of the
problem is
that reasonable gun laws here don't prevent criminals from buying guns
in other
states where they have very lax laws and anybody can walk in and buy 5
guns
with only the FED instant background check. *So, you can't judge
what's going
on in NJ, without considering how guns are being obtained buy
purchases over
the counter in many other states.







Part of the application also requires you to list your employer/
occupation
and to give two character references. * Perhaps he could have found 2
people that would say he was A OK, but more likely he wouldn't even
realize that many of those he interracted with knew he was nuts and
would have selected someone who would have rattend him out. * You
also get fingerprinted and they are run through the FBI. The
whole process takes 6 months to a year before you finally get the
permit.
I think it should be speeded up, but have no problem with the reqts.

Inasmuch as self-defense has been a right recognized as part of western
civilization since at least the Magna Carta in 1415, would you feel equally
comfortable with requiring a newspaper to wait even a month so the story
could be vetted by the government? Or an equal amount of time before a
preacher could read a sermon? Or the same requirement for a political rally
permit?

The obvious differences here a

A - A gun is a deadly weapon, capable of causing a lot of carnage in a
few
seconds as has been demonstrated so many times. * Newspapers, sermon
s and politcal meetings don't. *Count up the number of people dead
from guns
each year and compare it to the other categories.

B - The Supreme Court has ruled that reasonable restricitions,
licensing reqts,
etc on guns are not in violation of the second ammendment.







As everyone rushes to judgement, we have yet to learn exactly who
knew what and when. * The biggest scum bag in this whole thing at
the momemnt is the local sheriff. *He's running around shooting his
mouth off, invoking the name of Rush Limbaugh, etc, trying to blame
the whole thing on talk radio and political discussion when he should
be conducting a professional investigation. * *Could it be that's
because the investigation is going to show how many times the nut
came into contact with his officers and nothing was done? *The most
definitive facts so far have pointed to exactly the opposite:

As it turns out, one person wounded in the melee, a dude named Fuller, has
been interviewed several times on TV. It is his assertion that Sarah Palin,
et al, and their vindicitive and violent rhetoric were the root causes for
the Tuscon tragedy. Last night, during a town hall meeting on the episode
sponsored by ABC, this Fuller character (in the audience) went about medium
berserk and had to be dragged out of the auditorium.

Within the hour he was involuntarily committed to a mental health facility.

Interesting. *Just googled it. *Another guy with a few screws loose.



Probably unbeknownst to him, being involuntarily committed for a mental
health evaluation forever forbids him from ever owning a gun.

According to which law? * None that I'm aware of bars anyone from
owning a
gun for life for just being taken for a mental health evaluation.



In my view, though, the connection between mental health and gun ownership
paints with too broad a brush.

First, it's ineffective. We have a penchant in this country for medical
privacy - consider HIPA. This is carried past the extreme limit with regard
to mental health issues. Therefore, it will be impossible as a practical
matter to intersect gun ownership with the mental health databases.

Second, very few of the mental diseases or defects in the DSM are of the
type that would render a person a threat to themselves or others. I've never
heard of someone afflicted with agoraphobia, catatonia, anorexia, or
registering as a Democrat being a threat to others.

(Just kidding on that last)

You can drag in some of the most bizarre comparisons. *No one that I
know of
*is suggesting that someone with anorexia be denied a right to own a
gun.
On the other hand, if the person is psychotic and hears voices, I sure
don't
want him to be able to walk into any sporting goods store and buy a
gun. *And
the privacy issues, eg HIPA are just laws that were passed. *Other
laws can
just as easily be passed to remedy the problem and provide for
findings of
serious mental health problems to be placed in a database with access
for
background checks to buy a gun.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Your nutty Florida preacher (koran burner) had a gun. How do you
account for that? No religious nut should have a gun?