From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 4 Jan 93 16:19:13 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301021327.48@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> In article <1hvjpgINN1o3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares) writes:
> >In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
> >> To have a handgun in your home, you can
> >> also apply for a Sporting license.  This allows the right to buy 
> >> handguns and ammunition, keep them in your home, and carry them to
> >> "sporting events" unloaded in the trunk of your car.  They probably
> >> only turn people down for this license if they have a felony arrest
> >> record.

> >Or can't pass a written test, or a shooting test, or can't get letters 
> >of recommendation from three other citizens, or doesn't belong to a
> >bona-fide sporting club ($100-$200/year).

> These requirements have changed over the last decade.

Don't teach your grandmother to suck eggs, son.  I went through the
entire process I described no more than THREE MONTHS ago.

> >My wife is stalled on her permit because all of the people she's known
> >for any length of time in the area are anti-gun.

> That's life.

Maybe her life.

She considered asking our next-door neighbor for a character reference.
He's well known in town; selectman for two terms, minister of two local
churches for over a decade.  Mack Mitchell -- maybe you've heard of him,
he's been in the news.  He's now in MCI Concord for six years on two 
counts of rape of a minor.  But character references are so infallible,
so I guess it wouldn't be reasonable to do without them.

> >> The police would like to know who has guns.

> >Probably so; but since having a gun isn't a crime, it's frankly none
> >of their damn business.

> This is assuming that anyone who steps up to the counter to buy a
> gun has innocent intentions.

Wow, what an incredible asshole I must be to insist that the police 
assume that citizens are innocent until they are proven guilty.  What 
would America be like if that were, like, a general rule or something?

> >Well, let's see.  Two months ago, a state police officer stopped a man
> >for speeding.  The man's target permit became visible as he offered his
> >license, and an illegal search of the car followed.  The police found an
> >expensive pistol belonging to the man's mother.  They determined that he
> >was not on his way to a sporting event, so they confiscated the pistol
> >and charged the man under Bartley-Fox.  Bartley-Fox says specifically
> >that you cannot be charged under it if you have ANY license to carry
> >(although the police can then revoke your license).  Despite this, the
> >judge ignored the law and convicted the man.  Also, they did not return
> >the pistol to the mother, another objective violation of the law.

> Why wasn't this in the newspapers?

Don't ask me.  Ask your newspaper.  And demand an answer.  And turn on
your bullshit alarm first.  Then come back and tell us.
-- 

cdt@rocket.sw.stratus.com   --If you believe that I speak for my company,
OR cdt@vos.stratus.com        write today for my special Investors' Packet...
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns