From: ataylor@nmsu.edu (Nosy)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Waiting period == harassment
Date: 8 Oct 92 22:09:27 GMT
	<1992Oct2.155109.10631@news.yale.edu>
	<1992Oct2.161640.12332@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>
	<1992Oct6.145623.3436@news.yale.edu>
Organization: NMSU Computer Science

<In article <1992Oct6.145623.3436@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
<   In article <1992Oct2.161640.12332@Firewall.Nielsen.Com>, jkapson@ad-29.Naitc.Com (John Kapson) writes:
<   |> In article <1992Oct2.155109.10631@news.yale.edu> watt-alan@net.yale.edu (Alan Watt) writes:
<   |> [snip]
<   |> >I don't think departments necessarily have a "make them wait as long
<   |> >as possible" policy,
<   |> 
<   |> Come to Chicago and find out.  What possible reason is there for it
<   |> taking six weeks to get a FOID card form the State Police if not simply
<   |> to harass me?

<   I was posting about the "waiting period" involved in the transfer of
<   firearms to the purchaser.  The FIOD card in Illinois seems to be one of
<   those cases of "you must have it, but we don't have to fund the department
<   which issues it" kind of situation, and a generally hostile bureaucracy.

	Rather like the mandatory training in Rhode Island,
	or the permit system in New York City, or quite possibly
	the implementation of the Brady Bill in some areas.

<   Perhaps I should have been a bit more clear: it depends on how the law
<   implementing the "waiting period" is written.  

	It also depends on how the courts interpret the law and
	how political the police chief is....

<In Connecticut, the
<state/local agencies have a set period of time to disapprove a purchase.
 
	That's allegedly true in NYC as well, I believe...somehow,
	there are always delays for the non-rich/non-famous.

<  Once the time has expired, the seller is legally allowed to transfer the
<   gun.  The police agencies therefore have an incentive to do the background
<   check promptly enough that they can actually stop transfers to inelligible
<   buyers.  Otherwise, it makes them look bad (felon buys gun, commits crime,
<   newspapers say department OK'd purchase).

	What makes you think the newspaper would mention that at all?
	Correct me if I am wrong, but both the Kalifornia and the
	national newspapers gave little or no mention to the fact
	that Patrick Purdy passed the Kalifornia 14-day waiting
	period/background check multiple times...

<   If the law is written such that the seller cannot transfer the firearm
<   until a positive authorization is received from the state, then there is
<   no incentive to act on it promptly.  

	Yup. Funny thing, the original Brady Bill was written this
	way.

	[FOID details deleted]

<   It's worth noting that the Illinois system is almost exactly what
<   the pro-control forces would describe as "reasonable" gun control.
<   That is, the kind of gun-control that if we'd only accept it, they'd
<   stop bugging us.  

	When the Illinois FOID system was passed, it was widely
	touted as the "final" gun control law that would be needed.

	Certain people don't like being reminded of that, nowadays.
	
<   With such a review panel, assuming it's not taken over by incompetants
<   or actively hostile people, the waiting period/CCW system functions here
<   pretty much as written:  it doesn't solve any problems, but it doesn't
<   create any insurmountable barriers either.  Considering that CT is
<   surrounded by New York and Massachussetts, this is a miracle.

	Hardly a ringing endorsement for it.
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns