Look here, a responsible gun dealer

[krispos42]

Police: Woman Borrows Gun, Kills Husband

BAKER COUNTY, Fla. -- A woman is accused of borrowing a gun from a neighbor and then shooting and killing her husband Monday in their home south of Macclenny, according to the Baker County Sheriff's Office.

<snip>

However, a gun dealer said Jackson was pleading a self-defense case to him last week when she tried urgently to buy a gun from his shop.

Bill Krall, owner of Hole In The Wall Antiques Guns and Ammo, said Jackson came into his store last Thursday to buy a gun.

"She was telling me how her husband had threatened her and they were going to court on Tuesday, and she needed a gun right now," Krall said.

He said he knew something was not right and went directly to the sheriff's office when the woman left his store.

<more>

http://www.local6.com/news/15476648/detail.html

So lookit that, a profit-mongering, money-hungry, heartless, souless, gun-pushing, gun-pimping dealer... didn't sell a gun to a distraught woman, didn't buy her sob story, and went to the police immediately afterwards.

Huh.

Makes me wonder how often this happens, and if anybody has ever done any polling or surveys on this.

Anybody know?

[bossy22]

1. we report suspicious activity

all the time at the store i work in....straw purchases, unstable people....anything you can think of....though we are starting to stop reporting them- the PD sent us a letter basically saying "we dont investigate anything you tell us so stop bothering us" Got to love Nassau PD

[Indy Lurker]

26. Can you post one of those letters

black out all the names and dates, and addresses, but I for one would like to see what the police say.

[thereismore]

2. I wonder what would happen if that gun shop owner had been a Libertarian?

The kind that believes everybody has the right to a gun or any weapon for self defense?

[bossy22]

3. ummmm

probably the same outcome.........

[thereismore]

4. In the end, yes. Unfortunately. nt

[bossy22]

5. so....

was there a point to your comment- im not asking this to be rude- im curious if you were trying to say something and i just didnt get it

[Name removed]

7. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[bossy22]

8. i was guessing that

but as always i believe that a person should be given the oppurtunity to explain

[thereismore]

10. see my post #9. peace nt

[thereismore]

9. I thought it was plain: We know what she had in mind when she said she

needed it for self-defense. This is where libertarians would say: It's her sacred right to have a gun, so by God I'll sell her one!
As a consequence of the sale, she would go kill a man, because that's what she was hell-bent to do. So if the gun shop owner instead told her there is a mandatory wait period, the man might be alive today. She eventually got hold of a gun differently but that's beside the point.

I hope this is clear: I am saying that a wait period looks justified in light of this case. That's all.

[johnbraun]

11. Again. The gun dealer acted like a Libertarian and used his judgement.

He was perfectly free to sell her a gun. He decided not to. Period.

Libertarians aren't automatons. They can choose to sell someone a gun or not.

You're just strawmanning here and attempting to push your agenda ("Waiting periods"? What is this, 1994?).

It's not flying. Give it up.

[bossy22]

12. ....or

she would have just waited the 3 days and then killed him....or she would have borrowed her friends gun, or she would have stabbed him.....i don't think this case justifies anything but having a good head on your shoulders could save lives

[SteveM]

24. I think a "wait period" is not justified, according to your comments...

You say: "She eventually got hold of a gun differently but that's beside the point." That's the problem and the point with wait periods: they affect lawful purchasers of firearms; they DO NOT affect someone bent on obtaining a gun for nefarious purposes.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

41. Nonsense

You write: 'You say: "She eventually got hold of a gun differently but that's beside the point." That's the problem and the point with wait periods: they affect lawful purchasers of firearms; they DO NOT affect someone bent on obtaining a gun for nefarious purposes.'

They clearly impede and slow the process so that someone can rightfully either reconsider the consequences of their criminal activity or perhaps it's as simple as having time to get ....... sober.

The notion that a waiting period has never prevent someone from engaging in nefarious activities is simply nonsense.

[Turbo Teg]

44. Waiting periods

are feel good laws. They make the person "Feel good" because they think they actually did something, but it really doesn't do anything. Why would you make someone wait to buy a gun that already has one? That's one thing that gets me. I might be able to more understand them wanting a waiting period for your first gun (even though I still think it wouldn't do anything) but why make someone wait to get another one? I find it funny that the people in Kalifornia got all bent out of shape about the 10 day waiting period that they had during the riot in the early 90's. "You mean to tell me I have to wait 10 days?!?!? They're rioting NOW!! LOL.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

47. Did You Feel Good

...... when you denied a gun sale to a drunk who now has to wait and find another store when he is perhaps ...... sober?

I would and so should you!

[Turbo Teg]

52. I do feel good about it,

but I also am not going to think that he would have just given up.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

54. You Should and He Might Indeed Go to Another Store

But the benefits far outweigh what he might do.

I'm guessing many other gun dealers would do just like you did.... follow the law.

Regardless, he might just sober up by then.

The waiting period no doubt has benefits.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

49. Huh?

You ask: 'Why would you make someone wait to buy a gun that already has one?"

Why would he NEED one right then and there? Perhaps he sold it to someone who could not legally get one? Perhaps something has changed between when he bought his first one and this sale?

You ask: 'I might be able to more understand them wanting a waiting period for your first gun (even though I still think it wouldn't do anything) but why make someone wait to get another one? "

Well.... that's progress.

Why are you comparing 'rioting' over a decade ago to gun 'waiting periods' today? What does that have to do with anything other than your loathing and stereotyping all Californians. Is that like a 'feel good' thing?

[Turbo Teg]

53. Why would he need one

then and there? Only because it's his right to. Maybe he did sell it to someone who couldn't legally get one, what does that have to do with anything?

I just thought that people trying to buy guns during a riot and having to wait was funny. I don't loathe californians, I loathe thier laws. Not really like my "Feel good" thing. We all know waiting periods don't do anything.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

55. Waiting Periods

You asked and I responded to the notion that someone might need a gun right then and there.

You responded: 'Only because it's his right to."

There is no constitutional right to have a gun on demand. Courts have upheld waiting periods.

You ask: 'Maybe he did sell it to someone who couldn't legally get one, what does that have to do with anything?"

Guns and why people may want to walk in and get a gun right away.

You write: 'I just thought that people trying to buy guns during a riot and having to wait was funny. I don't loathe californians, I loathe thier laws. Not really like my "Feel good" thing. We all know waiting periods don't do anything."

I can accept the first three sentences because they are your opinions. The last sentence is simply not true. I disagree making your statement false.

[johnbraun]

6. The gun dealer acted like a Libertarian.

The law didn't apply in this case - he used his judgment to determine that he didn't want to sell to the buyer.

[DeadEyeDyck]

89. I am a libertarian

and I also believe I have the right to deny to sell guns to anyone for any reason and to report anyone's weird behavior to the police. Don't you see? Being free to so something does not mean I won't!

[class2068]

13. That's just an insult to me

Many here are responsible gun owners. Your rant insults us and damages you. Please apologize.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[johnbraun]

20. If the OP meant this as a way to illustrate that gun dealers are responsible, I apologize.

[krispos42]

22. You got it!

:-)

[krispos42]

21. All the insults I used...

have been hurled at gun-owners, like myself, and gun-rights advocates, also like myself. The hurlers of such terms are overly-enthusiastic gun-control supporters that apparantly believe that Smith & Wesson makes several billion dollars in profits a year by selling revolvers and pistols, and that gun dealers gang up on teenagers in city parks and force them to buy "assault weapons" from them. Oh, and gun owners also have itsy bitsy penises that our mighty "deadly assault weapons" make up for whenever we fantasize about blowing apart a couple of home invaders with our privately-owned surface-to-surface missile.

:-)

I'm on your side. Relax. I know it's primary season and all, but take a breath. And check out a few of the high-post counts here in the Gungeon to get a lay of the land.

Welcome aboard! :hi:

[catnhatnh]

15. Welcome to the "Brave New" face of DU....

You post about a responsible gun dealer and ask if that's common....you've been here over 3 years and have nearly 4000 posts-as in your credentials are fairly well vetted....you get slammed by three posters....average time on DU under 2 months and average posts about 200.One asks for an apology??? For WHAT? There's a new faction here and they make discussion difficult...

[bossy22]

16. i mean this with utmost politeness

...but wha???

im very confused about what you are complaining about

sorry i keep editing because i keep rereading what you say, im still very confused

[catnhatnh]

17. I replied to the OP....

I did not complain.I feel you are being disingenuous.There are five posters to this point in the thread-the OP, you, me, and two others.The OP cited an article about a responsible gun dealer and asked how common this was...Instead of discussion, one of the other posters wrote, "he just wants to throw cheap shots" to which you replied, "I was guessing that" followed by another poster who wrote to the OP "your rant insults us....Please apologize." And now you reply to me acting confused and overly polite.I've watched this forum and recently new posters have entered and made it much more confrontational. I believe you are one of those.Welcome to DU, but please discuss more and try to be less judgemental.Regards, Cat

[johnbraun]

18. I believe the OP was trying to shut down people that think all gun dealers want crazies to be armed.

...by posting an example of one that used his judgment and refused to sell to a crazy person. Most other gun dealers will do the same.

thereismore replied with a smear, and I replied to him.

[bossy22]

19. complaint

was not the right word to use in hind sight. I truly did not understand what your post was about, it was confusing.

my comments were not desigend to be confrontational

[Turbo Teg]

23. Good. My shop

refuses sales at least once a day. Usually straw purchases, but last week this guy came in drunk as a skunk trying to buy the gun he had in lay a way. The first thing the salesman asked the guy when he came up to the counter was "have you been drinking" because the guy smelled very strongly of alchohol. He said he hadn't been, but we're not stupid. We refused the sale and gave him his money back for his lay away and told him he couldn not buy a gun from us any more.

[SteveM]

25. Good move. And I've seen other FFLs refuse purchasers in my presence.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

42. Thank You

I applaud you.

[Turbo Teg]

45. Good, One post we don't have to fight about ! :)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

51. Agree

........ and I'm truly glad you did that.

I hope other gun dealers do the same thing and I'm sure most do.... hopefully.

[iverglas]

61. a straight question

Would it have been legal for you to sell a firearm to an intoxicated person?

[bossy22]

62. i think the answer is sort of murky

according to the Federal form 4473- the one which you fill out to buy a gun- it says "have you ever abused alcohol or an illegal substance- by getting drunk you can construe that to be abusing alcohol and make a case that then the guy is ineligable to purchase a firearm....im not sure....all i know i would never sell to someone who smelled of booze- and i think most dealers wouldnt either

[fightthegoodfightnow]

97. Murky?

You are kidding me.

There is a constitutional right to be able to buy a gun intoxicated?

I'm glad you would not sell a gun to someone intoxicated but it's quite something to think that someone should not be denied a gun WHILE THEY ARE drunk, regardless of whether or not they have 'ever abused alcohol or an illegal' substance.

[bossy22]

111. hey don't kill the messenger

i dont make the laws- do i believe there should be a law like that- yes....i just dont know if it exists are not...from my position i think it is a murky issue cause i know of no such law.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

112. Wow

Selling guns to drunks is legal where?

Yet another good reason for waiting periods, wouldn't you agree?

[sergeiAK]

75. No -nt

[iverglas]

27. I find this very odd

Apparently, the feeling is that it is just fine for a private business to make decisions that interfere in an individual's ability to exercise a right ... but that the public should not be involved in those decisions?

And, it seems, that the public should rely on private businesses to make the right decisions, decisions that will avert harm coming to someone in the public?

Strikes me that's quite a responsibility to lay on the shoulders of private businesses, which don't have the resources, not to mention the desire in some cases, to perform it.

The same effect could be produced, much more consistently and reliably, by assigning these decisions to an authority operating under public oversight. Firearms dealers are not accountable to the public. So why would or should the public rely on them for protection from individuals like this? Why would the public not want to institute its own protective mechanisms, subject to its own oversight?

Requiring individuals to be licensed in order to acquire and possess firearms will screen out at least some people with characteristics that make them bad risks for firearms possession, much more consistently and reliably than hoping that firearms dealers will screen them out, even if they are able to.

What if the woman had been a little smarter, and gone to the store and asked for a handgun she could use to practise target shooting?

Well, in this instance the victim would still be dead, since someone else who plainly should not have been in possession of a firearm gave her one. If a licensing requirement had been in place, that person also might not have had the firearm -- or might have thought twice about committing the criminal offence of transferring it to an unlicensed person.

How nice it is that sometimes good things happen. Why anybody wouldn't want to take measures to provide a little more certainty that bad things will happen less often still eludes me.

[EricTeri]

28. What's so odd about it?

Nobody is obligated to sell you something. If the seller doesnt think you should buy it, he is within his rights not to sell it.

Unless you think the state should control all access to everything...

[iverglas]

30. Here I go, back to spelling things out.

But maybe I'll let you do it first. Explain what you're talking about.

"I find this very odd," I said.

Now, what did you think the "this" in that sentence was referring to?

I'll give you a clue.

Nothing you said had anything to do with what I was saying.

[EricTeri]

33. Condescending little thing aren't you?

I love that ignore feature. Buh-bye.

[iverglas]

36. okay, I admit it

Yes, yes, you're right. The "this" that I found odd really, really, really was the fact that a firearms dealer refused to sell a firearm. Or maybe that someone approved of that decision.

Am I warm?

I always like to get clarification about what I meant when I said something. I do tend to get awfully confused if someone doesn't explain it for me.

[EricTeri]

29. What's so odd about it?

Nobody is obligated to sell you something. If the seller doesnt think you should buy it, he is within his rights not to sell it.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

99. Does the Same Logic Apply

.............. to a bar owner who doesn't want to sell anything on his premises to a gun owner with a gun?

[Tejas]

110. "We reserve the right to refuse service"

Barefoot?

No shirt?

Pants hanging down past your butt?

Hate the Bill of Rights?


........then off the property you go!

[fightthegoodfightnow]

113. Was That a Yes or a No

....... to my question?

Restrictions on dress and what you can bring on to private property have been upheld by the courts.

Heck, most night clubs already check for guns.
Most movie theaters post signs saying bags are subject to inspection.
Most stadiums will not let you bring a rifle into a sporting arena.

And they can do that without having their patriotism questioned.

[russ1943]

31. Ahhh, yes!

Just a comment to express my delight at seeing the user name iverglas, again. My reason for occassionally perusing this board has been "refreshed".
Welcome back.

[iverglas]

34. hee hee

Yer not gonna believe this, but I've just been banned for a month from the board where I've been hanging out ... only 7 days after the previous one-month ban expired.

What was the subject matter of this upstart discussion board, so obviously lacking in your own excellent powers of discernment, you ask?
















Why,














genealogy.




I never do this, but I think it's called for: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Or as they'd say there: pmsl!

[sir pball]

32. Right, because licensing worked so well..

..to stop the killings at NIU.

[iverglas]

35. awwwww

Going to play "let's pretend" again now, are we?

Yes, that's the system of licensing I was talking about. Absolutely. You read my mind.

In the let's pretend world, anyhow.

[sir pball]

37. Do explain then.

Requiring individuals to be licensed in order to acquire and possess firearms..

If that's not the licensing system you were talking about, then please elucidate.

That was the licensing system I was talking about - in Illinois, a Firearms Owner ID card is required to purchase or possess any firearm of any sort, no exceptions no excuses. The NIU shooter had a valid FOID card.

[iverglas]

38. mea culpa

I actually haven't followed the latest in the unending series of firearms killings in your country.

Apparently that system is as unperfect as the Canadian system, where the individual who did the shooting and killing at Dawson College in 2006 also had the necessary licence to acquire his weapons.

We will of course note that I did not say in my initial post that a firearms licensing system would prevent any such incidents occurring.

What I did say was:

The same effect could be produced, much more consistently and reliably, by assigning these decisions to an authority operating under public oversight. ...

Requiring individuals to be licensed in order to acquire and possess firearms will screen out at least some people with characteristics that make them bad risks for firearms possession, much more consistently and reliably than hoping that firearms dealers will screen them out ...

Driver licensing schemes do not screen out all people with characteristics that make them bad risks for driving vehicles. I don't see many people using that as an argument against a licence requirement for driving a vehicle.

Yes, yes, yes, the two things are not exactly the same.

The fact remains that whether a measure will work with 100% effectiveness to achieve its purpose is seldom regarded as the criterion for whether it should be adopted.

... Having now read a little about the shooting, it seems difficult to tell whether a more thorough screening process would have resulted in denial of the permission to acquire firearms. Apparently the individual had received psychiatric treatment some time in the past, and may have been in need of some supervision in that respect.

Regarding the situation in this thread, Canadian law, for example, requires that a spouse (or recently estranged spouse) be notified of an application for firearms acquisition certificate and sign off on it. There are gaps in this, too. If the individual already had a licence from a time when there were no marital problems, or if the spouse were already subject to intimidation and coerced into signing off on the application, the screening would not work.

This is taken from a quite old report in Canada, but the info is still useful:

http://www.cfc-cafc.gc.ca/media/annual_report/default_e.asp

The applicant’s spouse can also use the special spousal line, accessed through our toll free information line, to express concern. There were over 2,000 calls made to the line from April to November 5, 1999, to report crime or provide warning about a person, and women’s organizations are expressing gratitude for making this avenue available to women.

* In January 1999, in Newfoundland, the spouse of an applicant was notified based on information provided in the application form. The spouse reacted very negatively to the idea of the applicant possessing a firearm, saying she feared for her personal safety. A full investigation was conducted and the applicant was denied a licence.

* In August 1999, in Nova Scotia, a women called the spousal line with a concern that her estranged husband was applying for a PAL and was going to indicate that he did not have a spouse because she had refused to sign his application. She was quite concerned for her safety and the safety of their children and reported his intentions to the spousal line. She later filed a complaint with her local police agency in order to generate a FIP hit. This means that if he tries to obtain a licence in the future, it will automatically trigger an investigation.

Quite a few more women are killed by intimate partners in the US every year than the number of people killed in mass killings on university campuses. It may be that no system that allows for firearms possession by members of the public is going to outsmart someone bent on that kind of act. But it may be that a system can be devised that would significantly reduce firearms deaths and injuries of women by their partners. I don't think the Illinois system provides the kind of safeguards in that regard that the Canadian system does.

Canadian law provides that an application may be rejected "if it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person, that the person not possess a firearm". Yes, that allows for discretion. We up here have this funny habit of not standing for the arbitrary exercise of discretion. I am simply not aware of any great outcry against the discretion exercised by firearms officers.

Well, one case ...

http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/city/article/231991

SAINT JOHN (New Brunswick) - A 68-year-old Sussex area man, who was found not guilty of manslaughter following the shooting death of an intruder on his rural property in 2006, has lost his bid to get his guns back.

... Mason testified that when he came across a strange truck parked behind a log pile, he shot at it to mark it so police could identify it in case the driver tried to flee. One shot travelled through the cab of the truck and hit Smith.

At his trial, Mason said he heard sounds coming from inside the barn when he fired at the truck and thought the truck was empty. But after he discharged the gun, he heard someone call him by name from inside the truck, saying he was shot. As the truck pulled away at high speed, Mason shot at it two more times, saying he was attempting to flatten the tires so it couldn't get away.

The firearms official who reviewed the application agreed Mason had passed a firearms safety course but said his actions that night, firing three shots, amounted to unsafe use of a firearm and was a justification under the law for refusing to issue a licence.

Not quite sure how he managed that acquittal, myself. Sure don't have any problem with keeping guns out of his hands. Anyhow, he can still apply for a form of judicial review of the decision.

You just never can tell when one of those law-abiding gun owners is going to do something wild and crazy, can you?

And no system that allows for individuals to possess firearms is going to prevent all murders and mishaps from occurring. That's no reason not to adopt a system that can reasonably be expected to reduce their incidence.

[sir pball]

56. Do you know, when one purchases guns in Canada,

Is the license all that's required, or is a further background check carried out?

I ask because I've been thinking a bit since my last post, and assuming that a licensing system is based on a background investigation that certifies the holder is reasonably "safe" to own a gun...then the NICS system down here is functionally identical. Granted it needs a lot of beefing up and better interdepartmental communication so that any and all information that would bar an individual from buying a gun gets in, including psych issues, domestic violence, so forth and so on, but practically speaking I don't see much of a difference between conducting the necessary investigation once and issuing a license versus investigating at every purchase. And yes, I think NICS should be available and required for person-to-person transfers.

[iverglas]

58. I believe so

"Is the license all that's required, or is a further background check carried out?"

The licence is all that's required, to my knowledge. But it's actually not the same as the NICS system.

No records are maintained through the NICS system, as I understand it. There is an instant check, and if the answer gives the all clear, the transaction can take place.

A true licensing system maintains records on the licensee. A speeding ticket I might get affects my licensee status, since the records of speeding tickets and licensees are cross-connected. The system doesn't wait until I go to buy a car (yes, I know, not a perfect analogy) to come and take my license away once I'm ineligible; it revokes my license. In the case of firearms, the licensee then becomes ineligible to possess firearms, and follow-up can be done, whereas in the US the only effect would be that the person would be unable to purchase firearms from a dealer.

Obviously, I have to say that without a registration scheme, licence revocation is not a hugely effective way of removing firearms from someone who becomes ineligible to possess them, but it is still a law enforcement tool and at least a minimal preventive measure.

Here, if a judge makes a firearm prohibition order as part of a criminal sentence (which is commonly done for non-firearm related offences such as drug trafficking), there is a record of whether the individual is licensed to own firearms. The license is then revoked. The individual is then ineligible to purchase firearms legally, and highly unlikely to be able to do so. No chance of something slipping through the cracks (as long as there is follow-up on the prohibition order, which is a less complex process than getting things into NICS, I would think).

The licensing system here doesn't depend on something being in the system when an application is made. An investigation is conducted, part of which is the spousal contact. But yes -- if something occurs after the licence is issued that should affect the licensee's status, it might not come to the attention of the licensing authority. The help line referred to in the document I mentioned is one effort to fill that gap.

A licensing system also makes it easy to determine whether someone who has a firearm has it legally. S/he is either licensed to have it or isn't. And as I mentioned, it can also serve as somewhat of a deterrent to licensees doing things they shouldn't, like transferring a firearm to an unlicensed person. It draws a clear dividing line between people who are probably law-abiding and people who, in some respect, probably are not. A person who has gone to the trouble of getting a firearms license, I would think, could be expected to be less likely to engage in illegal transfers of firearms -- both because s/he apparently has some regard for the law, and because s/he may be more likely to get caught and suffer consequences as a result of being on the books. (Obviously firearms registration is needed to beef up the risk of getting caught and suffering consequences.)

Just a bit of how I see the systems as differing.

But obviously your support for requiring NICS to be used for private transactions is hugely sensible, in terms of how things are done in the US, of course. That requirement could have some significant effect on acquisition of firearms by ineligible persons -- both by making it more difficult for them to do so and by making lawful owners less likely to engage in transactions with them, whether completely innocently or by turning a blind eye.

[bossy22]

64. firearm licensing is all well and good

but not only do i believe it violates my rights (which im not going to go into in this post) but that it also is impractical in this country. Many small rural PD's would not be able to handle the licensing system (since the licensing system would probably be done through state and local PD's). It would take too much money and too much man power to effectively administrate it. Not to mention the price issue- there is without a doubt that some more urban PD's will jack up the price of a licensing to make it hard for most people to get- they did this with the pistol permit system in New York State- in my college county it is 10 bucks for a lifetime (good till revoked) down at my home on long island- its $200 every 5 years- and 10 dollars for each additional pistol.

I just think about the money that could go into it could be spent on more Federal enforcement of straw-purchase laws (this is how criminals get most of their guns) and beefing up NICS....i think NICS is a great system if run correctly.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

94. If Firearm Licensing is

....... 'well and good' how exactly does it violate anyone's rights?

The courts have upheld state firearm licensing making your suggestion that it is a violation of the Constitution simply not true.

As for 'federal enforcement of straw purchases', I'm curious to know whether or not you think they have constitutional authority to do so?

[iverglas]

109. and leaving aside the "federal" part of it

which I gather may be problematic ...

enforcement of straw-purchase laws

-- how is it accomplished?

The point of contact is still dealer/purchaser. Apparently the NICS system is not useful for identifying straw purchasers, the whole point being that the purchaser in such cases is clean.

This still puts the onus on the dealer -- a private party, operating under no public oversight except post facto and then only where wrondoing can be proved -- to identify potential straw purchases and refuse to transact.

Why is this the best approach? Why rely on dealers -- who do not have the information they need, and who are not accountable otherwise than after the fact and only if proof of some sort is available -- to protect the public from the harms that may well follow from a straw purchase?

Here's how a registration system can do that.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2000/05/02/gun_ring000502.html

A joint police effort between Canada and the U.S. broke up a gun smuggling ring Tuesday. Officers seized almost 2,000 M1 Garand rifles, guns that date back to the Second World War.

They also found three machine guns, and a large number of gun parts.

The guns and the parts are all perfectly legal in Canada. It's also legal to sell them in the U.S. The illegal part is that they were being shipped there labelled as auto parts.

... Taverner says a large number of gun registrations in Canada caught the attention of authorities. They began their investigation a year ago.

Matters not what the firearms in question were and why they were being purchased/sold, so let there be no red herrings tossed in. Point is that obvious irregular purchases came to the proper attention.

A would-be straw purchaser is, I submit, rather more likely to be deterred by the knowledge that there will be a record of his/her purchases than by the really very slim possiiblity that s/he will be convicted under existing US legislation.

And the result -- fewer purchases of firearms that are then transferred into the hands of people who are ineligible / plan to use them for criminal purposes -- is a good thing, no?

[sir pball]

65. I have a possible alternative solution

For your point of registration being an effective way of removing firearms once the owner is disqualified - set up the laws so that any conviction that results in loss of RKBA also automatically issues warrants for a thorough search of the offender's home/place of business/anywhere else they might be able to keep a gun.

At it sits now, you're generally on your honor to turn over your guns if you lose them, which I do think is ridiculously ineffective and foolish, but I do have enough reservations about registration in terms of both effectiveness and ulterior motives to oppose it. I'm far more in favor of reactive instead of proactive measures if they're done properly (e.g. the offender is held for 24 hours while the searches are carried out).

[bossy22]

66. i would only agree to something like that

if the there is probable cause to believe the offendor is in possesion of firearms

[sir pball]

81. The way I look at it

Since RKBA is a civil right, when you do something to lose it you lose other civil rights too - it's analogous to random cell searches in prison, they don't need to have probable cause. That's why I said after a conviction and not just after charges..

[iverglas]

86. the problem is

The way you look at it isn't based on anything! Not even on a coherent reading of the old practice of civil death.

Since RKBA is a civil right, when you do something to lose it you lose other civil rights too

The only reason that someone loses "RKBA" in the US is because there is a law that says so, actually, many different laws in various states, I believe.

A law that says that Thing X shall happen just can't be interpreted as meaning that Thing Y shall happen too.

On a very quick search of a Canadian legislation database, this is from the regulations in one province:

Searches
8. A Centre Manager may authorize a search at any time of
(a) the correctional centre or any part of it, including adjacent property;
(b) an inmate;
(c) the property of an inmate; or
(d) any vehicle located on the premises of the correctional centre.

That's something that would likely withstand constitutional scrutiny very easily -- any alleged violation of the right against unreasonable search and seizure either (a) isn't a violation, because it's reasonable, or (b) is justified under the tests for justification.

But if the regulations said that the centre manager could put an inmate in leg irons because s/he didn't like the colour of the inmate's hair, and a prisoner challenged the regulation, it would likely be struck down -- because the violation of the right to liberty/security of the person was not justified.

So no. Being legitimately deprived of the ability to exercise one right or freedom does not necessarily imply that the person so deprived may be deprived of the ability to exercise another. Otherwise, inmates, for instance, would just be sitting ducks for anything anyone wanted to do to them.

Inmates in the US commonly bring habeas corpus applications over various things, I believe. If they had no "civil rights", they couldn't. They wouldn't have standing to bring the application.

So in the US, the whole civil death business has not yet been put to death, and it makes quite an unholy mess. Civil death -- actually taking away someone's rights, not just imposing limits on how they are exercised -- is simply not compatible with a society and system of laws that recognizes rights as fundamental / "inalienable". How can someone be stripped of an inalienable right?? The sentence can't even be parsed.

You see, I just can't make sense of this business of "restoring rights" which is the backdrop to how the right to possess firearms is discussed around here. You can't restore someone's inalienable rights, because you can't take them away in the first place.

Now, the right to life or the right to liberty is not a civil right, for instance. It is a fundamental / human right, and commonly a constitutional right. The right to vote or to own property is a civil right, and can also be a constitutional right. (The right to vote is a constitutional right in Canada, the right to own property is a constitutional right in the US.)

If the right to possess firearms is regarded as on the same level as the right to vote, then it is apparently being regarded as a mere civil right, which is contingent on a person qualifying for it (e.g. by citizenship or age or other status), not a fundamental / human right.

And yes, in the US, it is common for persons convicted of offences to lose other civil rights, the main one being the right to vote. But again, that is just a peculiarity of local legislation. It isn't something from which anything else can be extrapolated. The right to vote could be taken away without taking away the right to possess firearms, and vice versa, e.g.; and both could be taken away without taking away the right to own property. At least, in a society that still practised civil death, as the US does to some extent. Since Canada and most other western countries don't still practice civil death in any form, the question doesn't arise.



Background:
http://csc.lexum.umontreal.ca/en/2002/2002scc68/2002scc68.html
The Supreme Court of Canada decision striking down the law that denied federal prisoners the vote.

43 The idea that certain classes of people are not morally fit or morally worthy to vote and to participate in the law-making process is ancient and obsolete. Edward III pronounced that citizens who committed serious crimes suffered “civil death”, by which a convicted felon was deemed to forfeit all civil rights. Until recently, large classes of people, prisoners among them, were excluded from the franchise. The assumption that they were not fit or “worthy” of voting — whether by reason of class, race, gender or conduct — played a large role in this exclusion. We should reject the retrograde notion that “worthiness” qualifications for voters may be logically viewed as enhancing the political process and respect for the rule of law.

[sir pball]

87. You make very good arguments

And give me a new perspective on the matter - I hadn't even thought of this at all until yesterday; I have a nasty habit of looking before I leap so the entire concept might not stand up to scrutiny.

But if the regulations said that the centre manager could put an inmate in leg irons because s/he didn't like the colour of the inmate's hair, and a prisoner challenged the regulation, it would likely be struck down -- because the violation of the right to liberty/security of the person was not justified.

That's absolutely true and a very good point, and it's certainly germane to this discussion - but at the same time, I intuitively "feel" less of a problem with searching for *guns* when an offense has occurred that nullifies the right to own *guns*...it's like putting an inmate in leg irons because s/he attacked a guard. It's not that an inmate loses ALL civil or Constitutional rights, but some are curtailed for a time.

I guess it comes down to a semantic argument about the precise grammar of a Constitutional amendment, as so often happens down here - but in this case it's the 4th and the word "reasonable". I don't really see it being unreasonable to take steps to insure that a person banned from owning guns is not in fact in possession of any. Perhaps some detective work would be a better option than a simple search, questioning of friends, relatives, so forth, to determine if there are guns, but unfortunately law enforcement is stretched thin enough already. It was a spur of the moment idea I had that I will agree is beginning to look a lot more problematic than it seemed.

[iverglas]

88. and I'm not disagreeing with the impulse behind the proposal

As I've noted, it's problematic here too. So a prohibition on possession is imposed, in a sentence. So? There's a prohibition on whatever the person did to get that prohibition, too. ;)

That's why I like measures that don't depend on criminals to prevent crime -- I prefer to make it as hard as possible, without unjustifiably limiting the exercise of rights, for 'em to do it.

Easier said than agreed on.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

96. Exactly

Why should someone lose the right to vote and not the right to keep and bear arms?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

95. You Mean Like

............. violating the law?

[iverglas]

67. there are good arguments for various positions

set up the laws so that any conviction that results in loss of RKBA also automatically issues warrants for a thorough search of the offender's home/place of business/anywhere else they might be able to keep a gun.

You might find yourself standing in a small crowd on that one, given how the gun-owners hereabouts seem to want to stand on their rights rather a lot. Unreasonable search? One would think, if there were no grounds to believe that the individual actually possessed firearms.

Of course, given how many of the gun-owners hereabouts do seem to think that people "forfeit" their rights when they commit crimes, I dunno.

Just to clarify, although you may have seen it before, criminal convictions in Canada do not result in automatic loss of entitlement to possess firearms. Firearms officers are directed to consider certain types of convictions specifically in disposing of applications, but no conviction in itself results in automatic loss of entitlement. That comes through prohibition orders made as a part of sentencing, and parole and probation conditions which ordinarily include a ban. That ban expires when the parole and probation do, and prohibition orders imposed specifically at the time of sentencing are also time-limited. Mind you, it's pretty unlikely that someone who was the subject of a prohibition order would be able to get a licence after it expired, barring some pretty heavy duty rehabilitation.

A blanket prohibition on firearms possession by anyone convicted of an indictable offence (felony equivalent), e.g., would be regarded as cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the principles of fundamental justice (somewhat broader than due process), etc. etc., up here. And an automatic warrant and seizure such as you describe would pretty certainly not be permissible, constitutionally, up here. Mind you, there's a good chance that someone charged with, say, drug trafficking would already have had their homes and other premises searched, long before the trial date. ;) But for someone charged with / convicted of driving while disqualified because of an impaired driving conviction (an indictable offence) to have his/her home searched upon conviction ... hmm. I don't think our Supreme Court would be in a forgiving mood for that one.

This issue is a pretty good example of the different approaches commonly taken in the US and Canada to situations where rights are in issue.

The idea of any kind of blanket denial of or interference in the exercise of rights is anathema to Canadians generally, for example. The Conservative government is attempting to introduce all sorts of minimum sentences and would love to do some kind of three-strikes thing, and while it may play well with stupid people, the newspapers are unanimous in publishing the unanimous opinion of people who know what they're talking about (both editorial and op-ed) demonstrating that these plans are worthless, and unacceptable in our society.

We don't go with allowing the rights of people who have done bad things to be trampled on willy-nilly -- but we do go with foregoing the exercise of some of our own rights, in some situtions and some ways, in an effort to reduce the incidence of bad things happening. It's a societal choice. It works, and it looks sensible to me. One reason is the absolute accountability we demand from government. I realize that things may look different in places where things are different. ;) Of course, I do wonder why it isn't the way that things are different that somebody would want to change -- starting with demanding more accountability from government.

[sir pball]

83. As you say, different approaches.

I'm not advocating a search on any conviction, just on ones where RKBA is lost. I don't know if I agree with the "blanket prohibition on firearms possession by anyone convicted of an indictable offence (felony equivalent)", your driving example being prime, but that's the way it is down here and I'm willing to make some concessions within those constraints.

I'm not ENTIRELY comfortable with my own idea, but the more I think about it, the less trouble I do have with it, as long as the warrant is strongly specific for firearms (e.g. can't bust you for possession if they find a bag of pot, don't know the precedent on that off the top of my head)...I do feel that once you lose RKBA through due process, the government is entitled to take steps to insure that you aren't KBA. I'm also not opposed to the possibility of restoring RKBA after sentence is served, on an appropriate basis of course.

As I said, I'm rather opposed to registration, but I can agree there should be some more effective way of getting firearms from those who become disqualified to own them beyond "if you have 'em, get rid of 'em" and this is the best way I can think of.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

40. Is It Really Your Position that Gun Licensing

........... doesn't save lives and help prevent crime?

[Turbo Teg]

43. That's my position.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

46. Well........ that's just plain........

...........ok......... I'll restrain myself.

Are you really saying that your self imposed 'waiting period' when you denied a gun sale to a drunk did not potentially save a life?

[Turbo Teg]

48. Just a question

How would you feel about having to be licensed to have children? We could screen potential parents to see if they would be good parents or not, or at least see if there's any indication that they wouldn't be. We would be able to see how the mother and father were around each other to see if there's much potential for divorce. We would also be able to see if they were finacially secure enough to have children.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

50. Let Me Get This Right

You are comparing getting a license to having children?

First of all, children are people and not guns.... a distinction that seems to be important to make to you. Second of all, no one is being denied a gun if they have obeyed a law. If they broke a law, that is an action they took against the law. See .... society views the notion that felons should have a gun as being a bad thing. Society does not view the notion of having children as a bad thing.

Other than reaffirming my bias that so many have something to prove by having a gun to overcompensate for something else lacking in their life, what exactly is your point again?

[EricTeri]

98. No he wasnt comparing getting a license to having children.

He was asking you - rather bluntly and in plain English i might add - how you would feel about licensing people to have children.

License people to own guns. License people to have children. Do you not see the point he was attempting to make? If you're in favor of licensing people to exercise one right, how do you feel about requiring an license to exercise another right?

The question was clear. It is you who is attempting to muddy the discussion (as usual)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

102. Reality

You ask "He was asking you - rather bluntly and in plain English i might add - how you would feel about licensing people to have children."

I think the public is smart enough to know that the two issues are completely separate and unrelated.

You want to compare your baby (whoops....... I mean your gun) to a child..... go right ahead.

I make no such comparison and I think the public, if not you, is smart enough to know one is unrelated to the other.

[iverglas]

108. actually, the poster was aking *me*

License people to own guns. License people to have children. Do you not see the point he was attempting to make?

I see what was being said, but I wouldn't actually call it a point.

The "point" being made was that possessing a firearm and having children are sufficiently similar that it is reasonable to treat one the way the other is treated.

And that "point" is pretty blunt.

Apparently the basis of the analogy is that possessing a firearm and having children are both things that people have a right to do.

Dogs have four legs, tables have four legs. What kind of kibble do you feed your table?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

Self Deleted

Why do these posts sometimes get posted twice?

[fightthegoodfightnow]

114. Way Over the Heads of Some

......... but I got a laugh.

You write: 'Dogs have four legs, tables have four legs. What kind of kibble do you feed your table?'

Too funny!! I've got to remember that.

[iverglas]

116. no analogy is perfect

but some sure are less perfect than others. ;)

Kinda like men ...

[iverglas]

59. well, that could be a very good idea

I haven't checked lately, but there may have been an epidemic of people aiming their children at convenience store clerks, tripping over their children and dying of head injuries -- or banging their heads repeatedly on their children until they die, leaving their children lying around the bedroom and having them stolen by thieves who trade them for drugs to people who then use them to intimidate neighbourhoods and kill a few bystanders during their turf wars, stealing their parents' children and swinging them wildly around a classroom and taking out a few of the students ...

Let me know if I've been missing the news.

[NewMoonTherian]

71. Of course not, that's silly.

On the other hand, there are numerous instances of child abandonment, neglect, abuse and murder, and countless unreported instances of inferior care.

Can you deny that draconian licensing schemes and restrictions would prevent a huge number of deaths, injuries and psychological problems?

That was the essential thrust of Turbo's post. Strictly limiting almost any activity can be construed as positive, but there is a line society shouldn't be willing to cross. <opinion> I think we've reached and crossed that line with guns.</o>

[iverglas]

73. opinion

You've got yours, and I'm sure you're very fond of it.

Without something to demonstrate that it's any better than any other, well, there it is.

If I were to honour the question rather more than it deserved by giving a straight answer, I would point out some flaws with the analogy that, to my mind, distinguish the cases sufficiently to explain and justify different approaches.

Can you deny that draconian licensing schemes and restrictions would prevent a huge number of deaths, injuries and psychological problems?

I suppose not, if we assume that they were sufficiently draconian to prevent just about anybody from having children.

Strikes me that this would have a rather more negative effect on a society than preventing just about anybody from having a handgun.

[NewMoonTherian]

74. I have a deep respect for your opinion as well.

I know that it's rooted in logic that stems from your personal experiences, as is mine. Our opinions make us unique, and allow us to have a lively but hopefully respectful debate.

I was posting mostly just to clarify Turbo's analogy and express that, although the two issues are vastly different, it raises a valid question about superfluous legislation in any field.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

85. Should Have Stopped At: The Two Issues Have Nothing To Do with Each Other

You write: ' was posting mostly just to clarify Turbo's analogy and express that, although the two issues are vastly different, it raises a valid question about superfluous legislation in any field.'

You should have just stopped at 'the two issues are vastly different.'

Because the reality is the two issues have nothing to with each other.

If you really believe that there are not enough safeguards to prevent a not only a very unpopular piece of legislation like that regulating a license for children, then I suspect there is not much talking to you about any analogy to guns.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

84. And A Good One It Is

You write: 'Strikes me that this would have a rather more negative effect on a society than preventing just about anybody from having a handgun.'

Finally, someone who not only thinks, but makes sense.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

82. Guns

You write: 'Strictly limiting almost any activity can be construed as positive, but there is a line society shouldn't be willing to cross. <opinion> I think we've reached and crossed that line with guns.'

Do you think anything other than doing nothing should be done?/
Do you think relaxing gun regulations is the way to reduce gun violence?

I am just not following that logic. It's just ......... illogical.

My fundamental issue with the gun lobby is they think the solution is to arm everyone, as if no one can get a gun now.

It's just ridiculous.

The problem of gun violence is much bigger than guns... I get that.... but to say that gun regulations are the problem is just ludicrous.

[NewMoonTherian]

90. Now we're getting somewhere.

"Do you think anything other than doing nothing should be done?/
Do you think relaxing gun regulations is the way to reduce gun violence?"

Both great questions. I think there's a lot that can be done to curb violent crime, independent of firearms law. Increasing penalties for violent and repeat offenders comes to mind, as well as improving police resources in various ways. I'm sure this is being discussed in more appropriate forums, but there you have it.

As far as relaxing gun restrictions, there are actually several areas where I think this could be effective, though not a cure-all by any means. I'd like to see CCW licensees allowed to carry guns on college campuses, as has been done in Utah. Obviously I'd love to eliminate blanket bans such as in D.C. as well.

"My fundamental issue with the gun lobby is they think the solution is to arm everyone"

The majority of RKBA supporters aren't concerned with arming everyone, but with expanding the rights of those who are armed. The gun lobby itself undeniably has an interest in arming more of the population, but they aren't looking to get guns into the hands of dangerous people, simply because the resulting rise in gun violence would hurt their credibility.

"The problem of gun violence is much bigger than guns... I get that.... but to say that gun regulations are the problem is just ludicrous."

Here you've got a great point. Many of these regulations - those that prevent violent offenders and the mentally unstable from legally obtaining guns for example - certainly reduce the risk of violence. Other legislation, such as microstamping and .50 caliber bans, would have no effect at all on gun crime, but seem tailor made to harass innocent gun owners and deter future ownership.

So gun regulations aren't the problem in terms of violent crime. They're a problem, nonetheless, in that they persecute an innocent cross section of the population while distracting from more important legislation that could actually reduce crime.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

91. Not Much to Respond to Other than to Say

........ having more guns on college campus as a solution to college gun violence is really ridiculous.

No........ let me rephrase.............. crazy.

Like I said, the solution to more gun violence for so many is more guns. It's just absurd as is your logic.

[NewMoonTherian]

92. I would argue...

that establishing gun-free zones without extensive measures to enforce the policy(metal detectors with multiple armed officers at each entrance) is ridiculous.

I also submit to you that, while intuition suggests that allowing concealed carry on campus would increase the risk of violence, data from areas where CCW is allowed suggests that it would not. Any evidence that it would prevent mass shootings is strictly anecdotal(thankfully the incidence of these shootings is too sparse to form reliable statistics), and I'll be the first to admit this.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

93. Here's a Fact

The terrorism that took place on the college campuses in Virgina and Illinois was done with a gun.

[NewMoonTherian]

100. Alright, if we're gonna go down this road...

http://www.unionrecorder.com/local/local_story_353224844.html

http://www.vicksburgpost.com/articles/2007/12/31/news/news02.txt

And the clincher:
http://www.thedenverchannel.com/news/14817480/detail.html

I'm not promoting guns as the answer to all our crime problems. I've said that already. I'm illustrating that the presence of a gun in the hands of potential victims enhances the likelihood that injury to innocent people will be mitigated.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

101. And Yet NONE of Those Situations

............ involved a gun in an act of terrorism any American campus.

[NewMoonTherian]

103. Absolutely not.

This is owing, in part, to what I covered in my previous post:

"the incidence of these shootings is too sparse to form reliable statistics"

And pardon the late edit on my latest post. I accidentally deleted part of it adding one of the links.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

104. Dozens of Bodies Not Withstanding

Tell me how many college campus acts of terrorism do we have to have before you can come to any conclusion regarding 'reliable statistics'?

[EricTeri]

105. Can you point to one which has occured...

...on a campus where CCW is ALLOWED?

It has to occur to present an example. So far, the only examples of campus shootings have been on campuses where CCW was illegal, so those with a CCW permit didn't carry.

It is of course interesting to note how fast the situation at the Appalachian School of Law ended though...and with so few deaths.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

106. Concealed Weapon?

You mean like the one that was concealed and caused the terrorism?

[EricTeri]

122. WTF are you talking about? n/t

[Irreverend IX]

123. You win the George W. Bush award for intellectual dishonesty.

Terrorism? The shootings you refer to were in no way terrorism. They were not orchestrated to promote a political agenda or intimidate a government into changing its policies. The shooters were lunatics lashing out at the world, and they had no interest in any greater cause.

And how did they "cause" the terrorism? Those crimes were caused by young men spiraling into insanity. Do you think that cars cause traffic accidents as well?

[sergeiAK]

124. You mean the one that was already illegal? -nt

[NewMoonTherian]

107. Hopefully, none.

That's why I support carry on campus. I think it's the most effective single step that can be taken to prevent further shootings. I don't want reliable statistics at the expense of innocent life.

You accurately made note of the fact that none of the cases of armed self-defense I cited occurred on a college campus, but the fact is that no mass shooting I'm aware of has been attempted on a campus that allowed concealed carry.

Further, the third case I cited - the Colorado church shooting - was an instance of a potential mass murder stopped by armed self-defense.

(As an aside, would it be more appropriate to continue this discussion in a new thread? We seem to be getting off topic in this one, and I don't think I have enough posts to start one myself.)

[fightthegoodfightnow]

115. How Sad

I disagree with your assessment obviously.

Concealed weapons were allowed on both college campuses by the law enforcement.

It didn't work. The notion that having guns will somehow prevent such a thing is ludicrous because it presumes the individual doesn't want to die, fears your gun, or would not find a more rapid fire gun or whatever.

Heck......... even in the old wild west, when there was a draw on 'que', the good guy didn't always win.

[NewMoonTherian]

117. For Clarity,

I accept, as fact, that the killers in these cases had no fear of resistance, or death, and had superior firepower(rapid fire notwithstanding, the assailants had more than one weapon, and in some past killings, explosives).

I'm basing my assessment on the idea that an armed student, faculty member or officer will have the opportunity to kill or incapacitate the assailant. This, as you've accurately pointed out, is not a certainty. The possibility is enhanced, however, if concealed carry is allowed on campus.

With regard to law enforcement, they weren't in a position to respond to the attack in a timely fashion. In the Virginia Tech incident, the murderer locked the doors, trapping his victims and preventing help from outside.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

119. Well .......

I'm glad we agree on somethings. I agree that killers often in these cases have no fear of resistance, or death, and often have superior firepower.

You write: 'I'm basing my assessment on the idea that an armed student, faculty member or officer will have the opportunity to kill or incapacitate the assailant. This, as you've accurately pointed out, is not a certainty. The possibility is enhanced, however, if concealed carry is allowed on campus.'

How can you come to that conclusion without also coming to the conclusion that guns in the classroom destabilize the learning environment, increase the probability of armed conflict over things that should not be settled with armed conflict, that also increase the likelihood, if not the probability, of accidents.

Please elaborate why, if you agree, guns should be allowed in public universities and not in high schools where gun violence has caused just as much damage as in universities.

[NewMoonTherian]

121. Great questions.

"How can you come to that conclusion without also coming to the conclusion that guns in the classroom destabilize the learning environment, increase the probability of armed conflict over things that should not be settled with armed conflict, that also increase the likelihood, if not the probability, of accidents."

The only data we can go on in making that determination is data from among CCW licensees of college age in areas where concealed carry is already allowed. I'd like to see specific data from comparably stressful situations. Utah's forthcoming reports should also he helpful.

I'm not sure what you mean by "destabilize the learning environment". Would it be purely due to anxiety felt by students who are uncomfortable with legally concealed guns on campus? I could speculate on it, but I don't think that would get us anywhere.

"Please elaborate why, if you agree, guns should be allowed in public universities and not in high schools where gun violence has caused just as much damage as in universities."


To answer your question more clearly, I don't know. I hadn't put much thought into carry in high schools. I'd be less likely to approve of faculty members carrying, and I'd certainly want them subjected to closer scrutiny for two reasons.

-They're working with kids, which entails a host of complex issues.

-They find themselves in positions of authority over large groups of unarmed minors, and if you get a creep in the mix, there's no good outcome.

I've admittedly got a bias against public schools and their employees, so I may not be in a position to judge it at all.

[krispos42]

57. Welcome back

I think the newbies are in a for a surprise...

[iverglas]

60. newbies?

Damn, I already had breakfast.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

39. Right........ Because Giving a Gun to Someone Distraught and on Her Word is

..... such a good idea!

It looks like the gun dealer obeyed the law. Good for THEM!!! I applaud their restraint and compliance with the law.

Too bad the neighbor didn't simply help the woman by calling the police.

Moral of the story....... don't give your gun to a distraught woman or for that matter to ANYONE.

I'm thinking the family of the deceased has a case against THAT neighbor who helped in the commission of a crime.

[bossy22]

63. i dont know about a criminal case

but im pretty sure about a civil case

[fightthegoodfightnow]

68. Frivolous Claim

And here is the clear and obvious defense to such a frivolous claim: Allowing guns and alcohol together increases accidents. It is private property and the owner took appropriate actions, including denying entrance to their establishment, any person who owns a gun. Such action PREVENTED the likelihood of gun accidents or deaths on their property.

[bossy22]

69. i dont mean to be rude

but what do you mean by your post....in my post i just said that i believe the family does not have a criminal case against the neighbor but probably a civil case.

i dont know what you are saying

[fightthegoodfightnow]

70. Sorry

I was posting several threads and didn't go up this one to remember we were not talking about a different situation. I was also referring to a civil case, but one involving a restaurant/bar serving alcohol but denying entrance to those who carry a gun.

I've got to walk the dogs, so I'll come back to it in a while and respond.

[bossy22]

72. ahh ok

ive done that before....no prob...just a little confusing

[fightthegoodfightnow]

76. Ok Let's Start Again

......sorry about the previous misunderstanding.

Now, who are you arguing would be subject to a civil case in this case? (For Clarification)

[bossy22]

77. the neighbor

[fightthegoodfightnow]

78. Based on What?

I'm just amazed that so many want to sue others or think they are responsible for their problems. I guess it's the age we live in.

There is absolutely nothing in the article that says anything about what actions the neighbor did or did not take. Nothing.

If that woman believes her life was in danger, I'm guessing she should have gotten out of there rather than return at all. I'm not blaming the victim, but I sure as heck don't think the neighbor is responsible for the criminal actions of someone else.

And somehow the fact she didn't is the neighbor's problem? Give me a break.

[bossy22]

79. i dont know the whole story

and i said may have a case. the neighbor lent out his gun- possibly knowing the kind of state she was in or what she may have done with it. If that is the case he can be held civilly liable. I dont know

the neighbor was part of this case HE GAVE HER THE GUN.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

80. Well

Actually, I misspoke. And for the second time, I do have to apologize.

I reread the article and it did say the neighbor gave her distraught and frighten neighbor a gun so that you are perhaps right: her actions did open her up to a civil case. I believe it is fundamentally wrong to give possession of your gun to anyone, particularly someone in emotional distress.

But of course, you are right in saying we do not know all the facts in the case.

[Tejas]

118. um, the first line of the article would be your clue

"There is absolutely nothing in the article that says anything about what actions the neighbor did or did not take. Nothing."



BAKER COUNTY, Fla. -- A woman is accused of borrowing a gun from a neighbor.........



<sarcasm>I could be wrong, but my secret decoder ring tells me the neighbor performed/took/executed a physical act/action. The neighbor loaned her the gun.

[fightthegoodfightnow]

120. See Post 80

.