From: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)
Organization: The Man With Ten Cats
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 1992 17:12:22 GMT
Reply-To: rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly)

In article <1992Dec31.011711.24829@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>In article <9212301448.43@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>In article <1992Dec28.012227.18236@CSD-NewsHost.Stanford.EDU> andy@SAIL.Stanford.EDU (Andy Freeman) writes:
>>>In article <9212260955.14@rmkhome.UUCP> rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>>>Most police chiefs in Massachusetts will now grant a gun license for the
>>>>protection of life and property to any woman who has a restraining order
>>>>out against a man.
>>>
>>>"MOST"?  Sounds stupid to me.  Note that even "all" doesn't help most
>>>women who are victimized.
>>
>>By most, I took that meaning from a statement by the Massachusetts Police
>>Chiefs Association, when they said that a restraining order is a valid
>>reason for granting a license for the protection of life and property.
>
>While the association may feel it's a valid reason, some MA chiefs
>disagree.  "All" would be nice, but "most" reflects reality.

That's why I said most.

>BTW - Did you ever wonder why the AMOUNT of property carried is
>considered relevant?  If Trump loses his watch to a mugger, he's out
>pocket change, while losing $10 can be a real hardship for a poor
>person.  Considering who gets useful police protection, restricting
>the poor's ability to take care of themselves is a cruel joke.

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+.

>>>The rape rate qualifies as "good cause" unless one is playing
>>>legal/political power games.  Given that, what's the police chief
>>>deciding?
>>
>>The psychological state of the person applying for the gun, offset by
>>an FBI check of the person's record, and the level of the basic need
>>to be armed 24 hours a day.
>
>And what does that have to do with restraining orders?  (And if it
>does, why is "most" correct above and not "all"?)

Nothing.  That is what the police chief must decide for anyone who
applies for a PLP license.  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.

>Disarming most people is, at best, complete waste of time.  How many
>people who we don't want carrying obey this law?  None?  Then why are
>we threatening other people with jail?

The police would like to know who has guns.

>"Need" is basically irrelevant, except to control-freaks.

Perhaps.

>>>In other words, poor women need not apply.  (We already knew that
>>>though.  Off-whites get similar treatment.)  We now know what the
>>>chief is deciding....
>>
>>The appeal doesn't cost anything.
>
>I'll be happy to give Kelly $5 for every "free" appeal he pays for.
>(An acquaintance was out $500 for only a brief excursion into that
>process.)  Or, was Kelly referring to the chief's costs?  It is free
>for him.  A denial that results in significant harm is no skin off his
>back either.

A friend of mine successfully appealed through the State Police by going
to the local barracks and filling out a form.  He may have had to pay
a $10 filing fee.  Who did your acquaintance give $500 to?

>>>There is experience with "anyone who wants can carry legally"; it is
>>>significantly better than the experience with "only criminals and
>>>people with politcal pull carry", which what you get with
>>>discretionary permit systems, like the one Rich finds so "good".
>>
>>Is it?
>
>Yes.  As Kelly points out, even MA police will grudgingly admit that
>guns are useful for self-defense.  (Note that the statistics had to
>become overwhelming before they did, and as soon as the heat drops,
>they'll go back to their old "we'll protect you".)  Since rapists
>don't restrict themselves to people the police favor ....

>A number of states have decided to issue permits to most anyone who
>applies.  They haven't had the horrible experience that Kelly assumes.
>Are Bay Staters different?

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.

>>If you honestly think that the state of California should issue each
>>citizen of the state a handgun, and let them do with it as they will,
>>fine.  I'll stay in Massachusetts.
>
>Strawman.  I didn't propose letting anyone "do ... as they will".  I
>said that few will do anything wrong, and the ones who will do
>something wrong don't obey the carry law anyay.  Since all we can do
>about them is deal with the wrong they do, why are we hosing people
>who aren't doing wrong?

What percentage of California residents over 18 carry legally licensed
handguns?  You're speculating.

>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.

-- 

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