From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 00:52:09 GMT
Reply-To: rmkhome!rmk@merk.com (Rick Kelly)

In article <pa142548.603.726244245@utkvm1.utk.edu> pa142548@utkvm1.utk.edu (T. Archer) writes:
>In article <9301021327.48@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.
>
>I don't think so.  Could you cite the the pertinent legislation that changed 
>it please?

Obviously they have, since I described the procedure that I had to go through
in the late 70's, and it has changed now.

I didn't even know that it had changed.

A friend of mine got his sporting license 3 years ago.  He joined a gun
club for less than $100 per year, got the three references, and was given
a permit.  No hassle.

>>>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.
>
>No, that's injustice, ethically bankrupt, and a direct and immediate 
>violation of her Constitutionally protected civil liberties.

The government doesn't tell her how to pick her friends.

>>>> 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.

Unless they are criminals or are on parole.

>>This is assuming that anyone who steps up to the counter to buy a
>>gun has innocent intentions.
>
>That is the basis of our legal system:  assuming innocence until guilt is 
>proven.  Any other approach is termed "prior restraint," and is 
>unconsitutional.

So therefore, prosecuting criminals is unlawful, since it takes away
their rights.

>>>> In Arizona, I believe, there is now a move to restrict the current laws
>>>> that allow children to carry concealed weapons, as many parents are
>>>> concerned that it has become fashionable for junior high students to
>>>> carry concealed weapons.
>>>
>>>Really.  I was under the impression that in Arizona it's not legal to
>>>carry a weapon concealed at all.  Check your facts.
>>
>>Yes, you're right.  They can carry - not concealed.  I personally don't
>>feel that 12-14 year old kids have the maturity to be packing guns
>>wherever they go.
>
>Please cite the relevant passage from the Arizona legal code.  I think that 
>you are mistaken.

Someone from Arizona already did.  Kids can carry.  Arizona cities are
enacting laws to prevent this.  Some Arizona cities require a note from
the parents.  It's a fact.

>>>> >BTW - MA's permit system and "mandatory jail time for unlicensed
>>>> >carry" is one of the great gun control failures.  It doesn't restrict
>>>> >anyone worth restricting and merely provides an excuse for a lot of
>>>> >illegal searches.
>>>> 
>>>> It is a failure, but I don't know that there is a high rate of illegal
>>>> searches.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>That's just the most recent one I know of.
>>
>>Why wasn't this in the newspapers?
>
>Because most newspapers subscribe to the philosophy of advocacy journalism:  
>pick a side in a issue an be a cheerleader.  Since most news organizations 
>suffer from paternalistic statism, they are anti-civil liberties.

The local paper here reports arrests, which are a matter of public record.

>>>> How does a person who would endure hardship by being robbed of $10
>>>> acquire a gun.  I own several guns, and they all cost $200+.
>>>
>>>Well then, better make sure no Massachusetts judge gets her hands on them.
>>
>>I don't carry them around with me every time I go out.
>
>Then they aren't going to do you much good in an emergency.

In MAssachusetts, you are more likely to have someone break into your home,
than have someone threaten to shoot you on the street.

Perhaps I've been lucky, but I haven't been through experiences that would
make me want to carry a gun at all times, except when I lived in Boston.

-- 

Rick Kelly    rmkhome!rmk@merk.com    merk!rmkhome!rmk    rmk@frog.UUCP
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns