From: cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavares)
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Date: 7 Jan 1993 22:07:32 GMT
Organization: Stratus Computer, Inc.
Distribution: world
NNTP-Posting-Host: rocket.sw.stratus.com

In article <9301052017.35@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

> >>What was her reason for getting a license for the protection of life and
> >>property.  Business?  A substantiated attack?

Oh.  Another thing.  In my town, you can be the victim of anything from 
personal threats to a substantiated attack and you will STILL NOT qualify
for a "protection of life and property" license.

In my town, "protection of life and property" boils down to PROPERTY ONLY.  
You qualify only if:

1) you are a professional security-type person, protecting someone 
   ELSE'S life or property;
2) you are self-employed AND carry significant cash or valuables.

In both these cases, your license is ONLY considered valid while ON THE
JOB.  Not during off hours.  Change jobs, you get your license PULLED.

Still want to defend the "police chief's discretion" legislation?

> >She shouldn't need a reason.  That she feels a need for resonable means of 
> >self defense should be enough.
> 
> And the police are paid from the taxpayers money to protect her.

Do the following.  FTP to archive.cis.ohio-state.edu, download the file 
/pub/firearms/politics/rkba/dial911, and read it.  You'll learn how
absolutely wrong you are.

> >>>churches for over a decade.  Mack Mitchell -- maybe you've heard of him,
> 
> I know what town they live in from the guys name above.  I am quite surprised
> that they had a problem there, as it is a town that allows hunting, etc.

Don't confuse hunting laws (under the control of elected, representative
selectmen) with pistol permits (under the personal discretion of the chief).
The very discrepancy should show you how much at odds the chief's discretion
is with the opinions of the citizenry.

> Why doesn't any press the Supreme Court on the issue?

Because you have to bankrupt yourself working your case up to them.  This
takes multiple appeals and multiple lawsuits, and when you finally get
up to the top level... they DON'T have to hear your case, at their complete
discretion, and they DON'T even have to give you a reason why.

> >Keep a national database of convicted felons.  Have the purchaser present a 
> >driver's liscence.  Dial up the database.  If there is not a "denied" 
> >response, make the sale.  No wait, no elaborate research.
> 
> So you take the responsibility away from the police, and put it on 
> the poor bastard who owns a gun store.

This is really no different from the responsibility of a bartender not
to serve a minor.  Do you consider this a crushing burden?

And it's no different from the responsibility of the airhead at K-Mart
who calls in your credit card to make sure you have enough money for 
the purchase.  Is this so oppressive?

Note that the same "poor bastard" gets the same responsibility under 
the Brady Bill.  Which do you think he prefers -- having the 
responsibility and making the sale, or having the responsibility and 
then in addition having to wait a couple of weeks MORE to make the sale?

> >Only if you have either a criminal record or a violent history.
> 
> There is a guy on trial right now, Kenneth Seguin, who comes from the
> next town.  He strangled his kids, and chopped up his wife with an
> axe.  He was a "seemingly" mild mannered vice president at a local
> high tech firm.

And I'll be damned, he did it without a gun.

You're looking for perfect security, but you'll never find it.

> Cases like this have been happening all during 1992 in Mass.

We had a winter hurricane that killed a few folks, too.  What laws
do you suggest to prevent a tragic reoccurrence?
-- 

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