In article ,
Larry Jaques wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:58:14 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Gunner
Asch quickly quoth:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:58:57 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Both bills would repeal a provision that allows journalists access to
the names of permit-holders by county. The records are otherwise off
limits to the public.

Frank Deaner, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association,
said his organization will fight for access.

"This isn't just a public records issue; this is a public safety
issue," he said. "There are all kinds of reasons why people might want
to know their friends and neighbors are carrying a concealed deadly
weapon."

Why? So they can tell who they can get away with mouthing off
to/asaulting/robbing/etc without needing to worry about finding
themselves looking down the wrong end of a gun?

Sure cure for that little difficulty: Assume, whether they are or not,
that *EVERYONE YOU EVER ENCOUNTER* is carrying, and that every one of
them has a screaming case of PMS or its equivalent, and behave
accordingly. Or in other words, don't **** with *ANYBODY*, and none of
them, whether packing or not, are likely to consider shooting you.

Can anybody name one legitimate reason?

No, because there are none. The requirement for government permission
in the form of a permit is already more people knowing you're carrying
(or might be) than should have that knowledge.

--
Don Bruder - - New Email policy in effect as of Feb. 21, 2004.
Short form: I'm trashing EVERY E-mail that doesn't contain a password in the
subject unless it comes from a "whitelisted" (pre-approved by me) address.
See http://www.sonic.net/~dakidd/main/contact.html for full details.

"DeepDiver" wrote

Just posing hypotheticals to expose the gray area and absurdities in the
laws.
Lawyers like the gray areasin laws. Creates room to litigate. If the law
was crystal clear and ironclad, there wouldn't be much work for the lawyers.

It's kind of like shotgun barrel lengths: 18" = good; 17-15/16" = bad

Gotta draw the line somewhere.

Why? What makes a shotgun magically evil at less than 18"?

It's more concielable. I have no use for a shotgun with a barrel under 18".
It's really only good for close in gunfights with people. My 21" slug barrel
is just as efective for said purpose and as a bonus will group 2 1/2 " at 50
yards.

Considering how many criminals use guns (particularly the most violent of
criminals like drug dealers and gang members), it's quite clear that gun
control laws do little to abate the criminal use of firearms.


Or the ridiculous "assault weapon bans" where the criteria for
banning the weapon has to do with its cosmetic appearance.

That one expired over a year ago. It was a stupid law and wasn't
renewed.
It hasn't expired in California. (OK, technically, it's a different law,
but
the California law is very similar to the former federal law.)
It seems a lot of stupid laws get passed in Cal. Maybe because stupid people
elect stupid legislators and executives, which isn't a problem exclusive to
California. But it seems the left coast is on the cutting edge.



As for it now being renewed, that may only be a temporary reprieve.
True. Buy up everything you can afford now before it gets changed. All the
goodies will be grandfathered in , and the prices will rise.
President Bush, of all people, pledged to sign it back into law if passed
by
Congress.

A pretty safe bluff considering the republicans control both houses of
Congress.

And you can bet that President Hillary

You assume WAY too much. This country will never elect a woman to the white
house. in our lifetimes. Not mine anyway.

What part of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
infringed" is not clear to you?
I said some regulations are not clearly unconstitutional. The second
amendment is pretty clear, but there is disagreement among many over what it
means exactly.
Some believe the reference to a militia means the National Guard. I believe
the militia refered to is the people not in the military who have a right to
bear arms just like the military has. In other words an M-16 full auto with
a grenade launcher if I so choose. However I do not argue with the
regulations precluding felons from owning machineguns or any other firearm.
There are enough law abiding citizens in the country to take care of
homeland security should the armed forces fail to do the job orworse, turn
on the people.

Tom

"Gunner Asch" wrote JUNEAU, Alaska A new anti-gun
control law goes into effect in Alaska
Big snip---
Ther are some right thinkers in Alaska.
Tom

"Gunner Asch" wrote. "There are all kinds of reasons
why people might want
to know their friends and neighbors are carrying a concealed deadly
weapon."


Can anybody name one legitimate reason?

I can't think of any. Did Frank Deaner name one? I should email the guy and
ask what reasons there are. Put or shut up.
Tom

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:58:14 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 06:58:57 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Both bills would repeal a provision that allows journalists access to
the names of permit-holders by county. The records are otherwise off
limits to the public.

Frank Deaner, executive director of the Ohio Newspaper Association,
said his organization will fight for access.

"This isn't just a public records issue; this is a public safety
issue," he said. "There are all kinds of reasons why people might want
to know their friends and neighbors are carrying a concealed deadly
weapon."


Can anybody name one legitimate reason?

Gunner

If you know who IS carrying then you know everyone else is not and you
can offer them a loaner until they get their own.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:50:13 -0500, Andy Asberry wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:58:14 GMT, Gunner Asch
wrote:

Can anybody name one legitimate reason?

If you know who IS carrying then you know everyone else is not and you
can offer them a loaner until they get their own.

Good point, Andy. Hadn't thought of that. But, I'm guessing that
isn't the intent of the idiot in question, somehow.

On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:55:51 GMT, "Tom Wait"
wrote:

I said some regulations are not clearly unconstitutional. The second
amendment is pretty clear, but there is disagreement among many over what it
means exactly.
Some believe the reference to a militia means the National Guard.


The National Guard was formed in 1907

The 2nd Am was written in 1787

Gunner

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

On Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:15:04 GMT, Gunner wrote:
On Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:55:51 GMT, "Tom Wait"
wrote:

I said some regulations are not clearly unconstitutional. The second
amendment is pretty clear, but there is disagreement among many over what it
means exactly.
Some believe the reference to a militia means the National Guard.

The National Guard was formed in 1907
The 2nd Am was written in 1787

See how insightful they were?