From: PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu (David Veal)
Subject: Re: Dressed for Rape
Organization: The University of Tennessee, Knoxville
Date: Sat, 2 Jan 1993 21:57:35 GMT

In article <9301021327.48@rmkhome.UUCP>
rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:

>
>In article <1hvjpgINN1o3@transfer.stratus.com> cdt@sw.stratus.com (C. D. Tavare) writes:
>>In article <9212311212.23@rmkhome.UUCP>, rmk@rmkhome.UUCP (Rick Kelly) writes:
>>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.

       That's amusing.

>>> 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.

        This is the only proper assumption.  The government is not
*allowed* to decide you are a criminal unless *they* can produce
proof.  That's why *they* have to prove you guilty in a court of
law, not you who has to prove yourself innocent.  That's why *they*
have to have a sufficient amount of evidence to even bring you to
trial.  It invites the sort of government abuse our Constitution was
written to prevent if they are allowed to label you a criminal unless
you prove otherwise, or until they get around to checking you out.

>>> 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.

        Some are.  Some aren't.  Most probably aren't.

>>> >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?

       It may have been somewhere.  But summary confiscation, of any
property, doesn't seem to make the news very often.  It's fairly common
to confiscate weapons and not return them even if there are no charges
filed or the person is acquitted.

>>> 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.

       A $200 dollar gun is a one time investment.  And it's taking
a gamble to assume all a mugger wants is your wallet.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Veal     Division of Continuing Education Information Services Group
               University of Tennessee, Knoxville
               PA146008@utkvm1.utk.edu
Newsgroups: talk.politics.guns