Text 20187, 291 rader
Skriven 2014-12-18 11:38:00 av TIM RICHARDSON (1:123/140)
Kommentar till en text av BILL MCGARRITY
Ärende: Re: Dogs
================
On 12-17-14, BILL MCGARRITY said to TIM RICHARDSON:
TR> In all states. There is a federal 10 day waiting period. California, to
TR> show how modern' and front-running they are, imposed a 15 day waiting
TR> period.
JD>Too many items I have read that say otherwise.
BM>As of June, 2013 my research ( http://tinyurl.com/bh8wraq ) stated:
BM>There is no federal waiting period. As described below, federal law
BM>allows a dealer to deliver a firearm to a purchaser as soon as a
BM>background check (NICS) is completed, or after three business days even if
BM>a background check has not been completed. Each year, over 3,000
BM>ineligible persons receive firearms through this default provision.
BM>Certain states have implmented longer period even after the NICS check.
On November third, 1993, the Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act was
enacted, which amended the 1968 Gun Control Act of 1968 (which was the knee
jerk reaction to the assassination of John Kennedy).
It imposed a 5 day waiting period on handgun purchases, subjecting the buyer
to a background check.
It mandated that, within five years of the effective date of the act, such
checks would be instantaneous (which in California they are. Right on day of
purchase, a dealer knows if you are eligible to own a firearm in a matter of
minutes, even before they take your money) through a national criminal
background check.
News flash: This would in no way have prevented the Sandy Hook shooting!
TR> You can't always believe what you read in the media from here.
TR> The `background check' was mainly already in place in Anza's state, his
TR> mother purchased the weapons he used in his shooting spree, and she was
TR> in violation of almost all the state's laws that pertained to keeping
TR> firearms from the hands of the mentally ill.
TR> She `knew' he was a dangerous mental case and failed to secure her
TR> weapons in a way that made them in-accessable to him.
TR> She took him on regular target shooting outings.
BM>And if she was alive I'm sure she would have paid dearly for her total
BM>disregard.
Whatever. The point being nothing in Connecticut's laws OR federal laws would
have made any difference. Nothing.
JD>A background check is not required in all states, in a lot of those where
JD>it is required, it gets discarded after purchase, and most cases, from
BM>what JD>I have read, background checks are done on the fly, so to speak.
TR> Since 1998 the FBI has had the NICS in place. A firearms dealer inputs
TR> a person's purchase info into his computer's NICS software, and just
TR> like a cop out on a beat or in their station, recieves within a few
TR> minutes the information of whether or not a person is barred from
TR> firearm ownership or purchase.
TR> Back many years ago you could walk into a gun store in most states,
TR> with a few exceptions, and buy a handgun without even giving your name.
TR> You couldn't do that in New York. They made you jump through a lot of
TR> hoops to buy a handgun, so the handguns I had I bought out of state.
TR> One in West Virginia, and another in Arizona. A few I bought on the
TR> black market in New York, but you had to be careful of that as
TR> sometimes it was a setup by the local cops, or the weapon had been used
TR> in a crime and someone was just getting rid of it.
BM>So you've just admitted you taken part in a federal felont offence?
BM>nteresting.
I, along with many other *New Yorkers* believed the Sullivan Law of New York,
making it so difficult to purchase a handgun you almost needn't bother, was
and IS a violation of the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
We protested that restriction as being un-Constitutional, and that is our
right under that Constitution.
And we `owned' and `possessed' handguns of all sorts for personal and home
protection.
By the way....reference Bernard Goetz.
After I got out of the Army in the late 1960's, one of the main reasons that
influenced my decision to remain out here in the west was the ease with which
you could purchase a handgun, without jumping through a bunch of politician-
invented hoops to do so.
Timothy Sullivan, by the way, was a corrupt Tammany Hall politician who's
basic intent with his `law' was to insure that only *his* body guards were
armed and nobody else.
I strongly suspect that, if the Sullivan Law were ever to be taken up through
the federal court system to the Supremes for a thorough `wringin out'...it
would get tossed. Various side issues of it have been contested over the
years, but its complete resolution has never been realized to my knowledge.
In New York...there are various ways to obtain, without much effort, a state
`pistol permit' that allows on to own and carry a handgun.
One simple way is to join a gun club that is of the sort that goes through a
lot of the `hoops' for you...or at least `smooths the way' to your obtaining a
handgun permit.
Last I knew there were two types of handgun permit there:
`Carry'...and `On Premises'.
The organizations that will greatly `grease the wheels of the progess for you'
are...local and state attorney's exclusive clubs.....most political party hack
organizations of either party (except probably any of the `tea party'
variety')...most `shooting or rod-and-gun-clubs' ...etc etc.
And those are pretty well exclusive of `membership' selection.
For instance...I never recieved an invintation to join such a group, even
though friends and even a few relatives did.
But...the wheel of the `system' were greased such that, within about six to
eight weeks, you recieved your `pistol permit' in the mail.
And all that was required of you when you purchased a handgun from that day
onward, was a simple `adding' that firearm to your permit.
But it was so `exclusive' that it almost ensured that most ordinary New
Yorkers would go through their entire lifetime and never be legally allowed to
own a handgun.
It was only an `easily-guaranteed right' of the politically-favored, high-
placed, or privileged-few. No ordinary citizen, or non-member of a certain
`group' need apply.
JD>Its not a
JD>matter of having to wait days for a weapon. A permit, if it is required,
JD>is usually only required for a concealed carry, or maybe even an open
JD>carry of a pistol.
TR> So what? We have a sheriff in this county who made people jump through
TR> so many hoops to get a concealed carry permit they finally had to take
TR> him to court to get the right back!
TR> He made an applicant `state a reason' for wanting a CCP. And if he
TR> didn't like the reason (which was most of the time) you didn't get one.
TR> So your little tirade was for nothing (as usual).
BM>His concern is a tirade? Some would say your lack of concern is
BM>irresponsible.... YMMV
Holy *shoe on the other foot*, Batman!
Funny....whenever I'm posting on *global warming* morphed into *climate
change, or `sodomites', none of you, including you yourself, hesitated to put
whatever I posted on it down to `a tirade'....or `a rant'!
BM>The rest of your statements are 100% accurate with regard to the shooting.
BM>The mother's lack of action concerning her son's issues caused that
BM>tragady. I do commend you on your dilligence in the proper storage of
BM>your firearms. I own two and when I have visitors, they ALWAYS remain
BM>locked in my safe.
I have two accessable to me at all times. I live alone in a remote area, and a
light-weight over-under 12 guage, and a .44 revolver are never far from hand.
I have a large gun safe with other firearms, but always have those two near at
hand. I don't live that far from the border, and Border Patrol activity is
common in this area.
BM>I am the only one who knows the combination so when the
BM>day comes I "buy the farm", guess they'll be burying the safe with me. The
BM>fact remains, more and more, everyday it seems, "people" reach their
BM>breaking point and off they go. That being said, two possible scenarios.
BM>Either arm everyone and their Mother or disarm everyone. Neither side of
BM>the issue want to find out if either solution will work.
Some of the advantages of New York's strictness on guns is...the populace is
mainly lightly armed. The real heavy arms are in the hands of `authorities',
not private citizens. Thats an im-balance of power the Founding Fathers didn't
intend.
If a real civil unrest broke out into open civil war between ethnic groups
(and don't think that can't happen), much of the `law-abiding' of the
population would probably be outgunned.
People make the mistake of thinking the cops and other LEO's of state and
federal types, carry firearms to protect `the citizens'.
Rude awakening, folks: They don't! They carry firearms, and use all those
previously-military equipment, to protect THEMSELVES!
Big revelation:
A 911 call brings you protection by a cop from a criminal type at around 20 to
30 minutes, average.
A .44 special brings you protection from a criminal type at around 1040 feet
per second.
Incidently...you were (dare I say `ranting'?) remarking on my having a handgun
in New York state without benefit of Sullivan Law compliance.
I had several there over the years...my first one at around age 22.
Out here I have never had a `carry' license. But...on occassion I do carry a
.44 special in my front pants pocket, depending on what part of town I'm
planning to visit. I have a doctor's office that takes me through a rather
dangerous part of San Diego, which I visit every couple of months.
There's an old saying that goes something like; I'd rather be judged by 12,
than carried by 6!
Out here, if you justifiably use a handgun in defense of your life, whether or
not you had a `license' to carry it rarely comes into question. The attack you
warded off with deadly force, is its own `justification' for you having had
the weapon in the first place. Very few juries argue with that.
By the way....when someone tries to hyjack your vehicle, or waves a knife in
your face and demands your wallet...Sarah Brady is nowhere to be found! You're
on your own!
---
*Durango b301 #PE*
* Origin: Check Out Doc's QWK Mail Via Web BBS > DocsPlace.org (1:123/140)
|