How about a federal permit to purchase?

See, living here In PA I can walk out of the store with my property the day I bought it. I don't need a permit or any of that nonsense to do it. I don't want your state's goofy system. If it makes you feel good, then stay in your state and live by it. But we do fine without it, and we don't want it.


You've become conditioned to it. I get that. For those of us who haven't learned yet to live with those needless burdens, don't force your state's tyranny on us.

It's a bad idea to have the Govt. license anything. They can suddenly make all permits invalid. Also it makes it more like NYC, where you are given a purchase order and then it goes on your license with the serial# of the gun, make and model. If they suddenly decided to go house to house, like in the hurricanes, they would know exactly what guns you owned because you would more than likely need a disposition, to get it out of your name should you sell it to anyone.
It's playing right into their hands.

Sorry, Oto60, I think your idea is just as bad if not worse. Not flaming, as you seemed that you wanted, but simply disagreeing - my state hasn't had any of these ridiculous laws that you are so proud of, and we've been getting a long pretty well for over 100 years like that. No FOID, no "permit to purchase" , no registration, no licensing, no permit to carry openly, CCW 1994-2010, 2010 on Constitutional Carry, no government permission slip required, Castle Doctrine, SYG, etc. Comparing murder rates between out biggest city, Phoenix, and your biggest city, Chicago...15.9 per 100,000 in 2011 for the Windy City, and 7.9 per 100,000 in 2011 for the Valley of the Sun, from FBI UCR data.
I'll stick with what works, not with what doesn't work.

Fundamentally, we need to return to a presumption of innocence, not a requirement to disprove mens rea by mere ownership (or desire to own).

If we are to register anyone, it ought not be the majority law-abiding, but the tiny minority who are prohibited. We can even preserve their privacy (and follow HIPAA) by not disclosing the "why," only that the condition of prohibition exists.

Not that the prohibited much follow the rules (or they'd not be prohibited probably).

To those who think MORE Fed control is the answer, just remember this:

"A government big enough to give you everything you want, is also big enough to take everything you have"

Get them involved with your guns and they will take them away like they did in Australia

armoredman said:

Sorry, Oto60, I think your idea is just as bad if not worse. Not flaming, as you seemed that you wanted, but simply disagreeing - my state hasn't had any of these ridiculous laws that you are so proud of, and we've been getting a long pretty well for over 100 years like that. No FOID, no "permit to purchase" , no registration, no licensing, no permit to carry openly, CCW 1994-2010, 2010 on Constitutional Carry, no government permission slip required, Castle Doctrine, SYG, etc. Comparing murder rates between out biggest city, Phoenix, and your biggest city, Chicago...15.9 per 100,000 in 2011 for the Windy City, and 7.9 per 100,000 in 2011 for the Valley of the Sun, from FBI UCR data.
I'll stick with what works, not with what doesn't work.

Click to expand...

Yes, your state has been doing just fine, with the exception of your congresswoman being shot in the head by the exact type of person that I'm talking about.

Look, I get that most of you feel that one law leads to another and you're worried about the gov't taking away all your rights. Can we set that aside for just a second?

Do you guys REALLY believe that felons' rights to guns should be protected? Do you guys REALLY think that we shouldn't be trying to prevent psychopaths from getting guns?

0to60 said:

Look, I get that most of you feel that one law leads to another and you're worried about the gov't taking away all your rights. Can we set that aside for just a second?

Click to expand...

"But other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?"

Um. Just a weeeee bit difficult to ignore. Non-violent felons (a.k.a. Martha Stewart) are one thing. Violent felons are another completely. And who gets to define "psychopath." The current Psychiatric/psychological community defines anyone who is remotely conservative/libertarian as having some sort of "mental illness." I'm a religious person and that's got me pegged as a religious fanatic with some sort of delusion issue. I don't care if everyone on this board thinks I'm nuts, that makes no difference. Now, if some board (or "Gun Violence Commission") decides that all devoutly religious people who hold to their standards are mentally ill, I lose my gun rights. Hows about trying that with the 1st amendment.

Matt

morcey2 said:

And who gets to define "psychopath."
Matt

Click to expand...

Now, I have no idea what current state of psychology is with respect to this stuff, but it doesn't seem too unreasonable to think that your Adam Lanzas, James Holmes, Charles Whitmans, etc... would "fail" some sort of psyche screening. I have to think that shrinks have some way of screening for some of the more obvious nutjobs.

If this were the case, keeping guns out of the wrong hands would actually do a great deal for protecting gun rights for the rest of us.

0to60 said:

Now, I have no idea what current state of psychology is with respect to this stuff, but it doesn't seem too unreasonable to think that your Adam Lanzas, James Holmes, Charles Whitmans, etc... would "fail" some sort of psyche screening. I have to think that shrinks have some way of screening for some of the more obvious nutjobs.

If this were the case, keeping guns out of the wrong hands would actually do a great deal for protecting gun rights for the rest of us.

Click to expand...

While that thought may give you some level of personal comfort - like sipping some warm cocoa on a stormy winter night - I argue that it isn't actually the case. Performing proper mental health screening seems to be about as easy as finding BigFoot. Certainly, everybody should recognize it when they see it, so it shouldn't be that difficult. But, the reality is - like in the case of BigFoot - the actual evidence of a dangerous mental condition is exceedingly underwhelming, until that danger surfaces. Even the professionals have a difficult time analyzing the mental state of some of the "more obvious nutjobs" before they commit violence. And if even they can't agree on the mental state of someone like SEUNG HUI CHO, what makes you think government employed bureaucrats will get it right when tasked with confiscating guns so that "no more children are harmed"?

If you want to make the planet safer by killing all the bears, fine. Just come out and say it - bears scare you and you want them all dead. Just don't try to justify killing all the bears by saying they were just collateral damage in your innocent BigFoot hunt.

{emphasis added}[In Virginia,] The judge or special justice ordering commitment must find by clear and convincing evidence that the person presents (1) an imminent danger to himself or others or is substantially unable to care for himself, and (2) less restrictive alternatives to involuntary inpatient treatment have been investigated and are deemed unsuitable.

{16 months before the Virginia Tech spree shooting}
Cho was found to be an imminent danger to himself by the pre-screener who also found that he was “unable to come up with a safety plan to adequately ensure safety.” He was unwilling to contact his parents to pick him up.

However, Cho was found not to be an imminent danger to self or others by both the independent examiner and the treating psychiatrist at St. Albans, and accordingly neither recommended involuntary admission.

At the commitment hearing, the special justice did find Cho to be an imminent danger to himself; however, he agreed with the independent examiner and treating psychiatrist that a less restrictive alternative to involuntary admission, outpatient treatment, was suitable.

Click to expand...

---> SOURCE <---

ngnrd said:

While that thought may give you some level of personal comfort - like sipping some warm cocoa on a stormy winter night - I argue that it isn't actually the case. Performing proper mental health screening seems to be about as easy as finding BigFoot. Certainly, everybody should recognize it when they see it, so it shouldn't be that difficult. But, the reality is - like in the case of BigFoot - the actual evidence of a dangerous mental condition is exceedingly underwhelming, until that danger surfaces. Even the professionals have a difficult time analyzing the mental state of some of the "more obvious nutjobs" before they commit violence. And if even they can't agree on the mental state of someone like SEUNG HUI CHO, what makes you think government employed bureaucrats will get it right when tasked with confiscating guns so that "no more children are harmed"?

Click to expand...

It would be very hard to predict whether it would work or not because we haven't done it. But there are psyche screenings for lots of jobs, so I'm assuming they're thought to be effective.

And I never said anything about confiscation.

0to60 said:

But there are psyche screenings for lots of jobs

Click to expand...

Yeah, but I don't have a constitutional right to be given a job that requires a security clearance.

There is no way to predict these kinds of events by a massive screening test for all kinds of people. Even in intimate, doctor-patient relationships formed over several months the treating physician can't tell you with absolute certainty whether someone is a danger or not.

0to60 said:

Do you guys REALLY believe that felons' rights to guns should be protected? Do you guys REALLY think that we shouldn't be trying to prevent psychopaths from getting guns?

Click to expand...

See, here's where we differ. I believe if a man who has committed felonies before can't be trusted to live peaceably in society - with or without a gun - he should be kept locked away for his entire sentence and not let out early. Which is what we do. We've taught criminals there really is no penalty for rape, robbery, and even murder.

You're worried about keeping a convicted felon from getting a gun - which is impossible to accomplish - and I'm worried about keeping violent predators segregated from society.

Someone adjudicated mentally ill and a danger to himself or others is an appropriate person to deny a right to a gun. But that's the key term - adjudicated.


There are a whole lot of people who are just outside the mainstream that certain segments of the mental health community might find a bit "touched". And doctors are not angels.

There are people who actually believe that someone who died came back from the dead three days later. Now, if I told you I had a conversation and ate a meal with my neighbor Bob after we buried him last week, I'd probably be crazy. But if you're a Christian, it's OK to believe that. So, what I'm saying is there is no cookie-cutter approach to assigning people a label of mentally ill and moving to take away their civil rights.

It should also be noted, and this goes toward the slippery-slope argument, that Minnesota currently has some legislation in the works that would allow local PD's to charge a "nominal fee" for the permit to purchase. I think they capped it at $25, and who knows if many PD's would actually charge the fee, but the point still remains:

First you have to ask for permission, then you have to pay for it as well?

Right now it is only $25, maybe in a few years it is $100. And you have to re-apply every year. Maybe they decide it should be a p2p for every gun you want to buy. Soon the permit to purchase will price people out of buying guns.

Do you guys REALLY believe that felons' rights to guns should be protected?

Click to expand...

No. I believe that my rights should be protected from people who believe that criminals will magically obey the law when buying guns.

I further believe that the current system might work better if the laws were actually enforced.
.

holdencm9 said:

Right now it is only $25, maybe in a few years it is $100. And you have to re-apply every year. Maybe they decide it should be a p2p for every gun you want to buy. Soon the permit to purchase will price people out of buying guns.

Click to expand...

.
Exactly and Hand Gun Control and the Brady Bunch have proposed this. They proposed licensing of handgun and rifle owners with the cost going up every year to $650. Look at my prior posts on this thread.

I illustrated on my other posts on here on how the cost for permit for a handgun in New York City was increased a fee from $3.00 to $431.50 under the Sullivan Law. There are stories on the nyfirearms.com where people have waited from a year and even longer in to get 'permission' from the government in order to purchase a pistol .

People in NJ are waiting up to 100 days to get permission to buy a squirrel rifle, then once they get the permit...they have to wait up to 11 additional days for the state NICS and they pay an additional $16 State NICS cost. After spending nearly $75 on the FID which includes background check fee + fingerprint fee + cost of the FID. As well as references from two people as well as your employer in some towns. People have to inform their employer that they are getting a permit to buy a firearm...that is about intrusive as it gets.

BullfrogKen said:

There is no way to predict these kinds of events by a massive screening test for all kinds of people. Even in intimate, doctor-patient relationships formed over several months the treating physician can't tell you with absolute certainty whether someone is a danger or not.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying there's a psyche screening that works with 100% accuracy. I'm simply saying that IF there were, say, a 20 minute personality test that could flag the way-out-there cases like adam lanza, it would behoove us to implement it.

Keep in mind, CT was several months ago. We're prolly due for another shooting. If you think the gun control argument is hot right NOW, wait till after the next nutcase goes off the deep end. Its in OUR best interest, as gun enthusiasts, to try to prevent this from happening.

BullfrogKen said:

See, here's where we differ. I believe if a man who has committed felonies before can't be trusted to live peaceably in society - with or without a gun - he should be kept locked away for his entire sentence and not let out early. Which is what we do. We've taught criminals there really is no penalty for rape, robbery, and even murder.

You're worried about keeping a convicted felon from getting a gun - which is impossible to accomplish - and I'm worried about keeping violent predators segregated from society.

Click to expand...

We're in 100% agreement on this. But we're talking about two separate issues here. How hard we punish violent criminals is a whole 'nother topic. Given the country as it is, a place where these people come right back out into society, I'd like to see their 2A rights revoked. It might be impossible to keep guns out of their hands, but geez, it should at least be illegal. Many of the people on this forum staunchly support EVERYONE'S 2A rights. That's just crazy, and asking for trouble.

BullfrogKen said:

Someone adjudicated mentally ill and a danger to himself or others is an appropriate person to deny a right to a gun. But that's the key term - adjudicated.

Click to expand...

I couldn't agree more, but therein lies the slippery slope. The 2A reads "shall not be infringed". Yet here, you yourself are in support of infringing it for certain people. Again, I agree with you. Any rational person would. But in this example, you are NOT in favor of a literal interpretation of the 2A. And isn't that the crux of this whole matter? On one hand, you have the extreme gun guy who thinks he should be able to buy fully autos, nuclear bombs, daisycutters, etc... because the 2A gives him that right. On the other hand, you have the people who think the 2A needs to have some conditions attached.

BullfrogKen said:

There are people who actually believe that someone who died came back from the dead three days later

Click to expand...

I would put that in the "merely irrational" category, not the "dangerously crazy and shouldn't own guns" category.

Judge William Blackstone -

All presumptive evidence of felony should be admitted cautiously; for the law holds it better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent party suffer

Click to expand...

And no less than the fiery patriot John Adams - while defending British soldiers charged with murdering Boston's British subjects - declared:

It is more important that innocence should be protected, than it is, that guilt be punished; for guilt and crimes are so frequent in this world, that all of them cannot be punished.... when innocence itself, is brought to the bar and condemned, especially to die, the subject will exclaim, 'it is immaterial to me whether I behave well or ill, for virtue itself is no security.' And if such a sentiment as this were to take hold in the mind of the subject that would be the end of all security whatsoever

Click to expand...

So to say -

0to60 said:

that IF there were, say, a 20 minute personality test that could flag the way-out-there cases like adam lanza, it would behoove us to implement it

Click to expand...

I'm 100% solidly against that. You're asking a test, administered by a clinician, to serve as sufficient grounds to remove a person's constitutional rights. That's anathema to liberty. The only way we should take away someone's civil liberty is through a legal process where someone:

• alleges a charge,
• is compelled to offer evidence,
• the accused has the right to defense and offer up evidence to the contrary,
• and in this case someone other than the examiner makes the decision to impose that penalty.

Not a clinician. Not a pyschiatrist. Not a bureaucrat. And not anyone other than someone well-versed in what it means to take civil rights away from someone. The court is the proper venue to have that take place, even for someone who the medical community deems a danger to himself or others.

One last comment in response to yours -

0to60 said:

Its in OUR best interest, as gun enthusiasts, to try to prevent this from happening

Click to expand...

The law cannot prevent anything from happening. Laws do not restrain evil. Laws do not make anyone bent on victimizing someone else change their behavior.

The law can punish. The law in some cases can even persuade.

But the law can never stop evil people from doing evil things.


Get that thought out of your head. The only reason you think a law might prevent someone from doing something evil is because your worldview can't imagine otherwise. The prison system is full of people who give no regard to the law, or its neutered penalties.

0to60 said:

I'm not saying there's a psyche screening that works with 100% accuracy. I'm simply saying that IF there were, say, a 20 minute personality test that could flag the way-out-there cases like adam lanza, it would behoove us to implement it.

Click to expand...

That's the problem -- THERE IS NO SUCH SCREENING.

0to60 said:

I would put [the belief that a person can come back to life after three days] in the "merely irrational" category, not the "dangerously crazy and shouldn't own guns" category.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that you would be the one making the categories.

And, if you don't think that actually believing that a potential victim has the ability ability to "respawn" after after being tortured and killed is dangerous, I'm definitely not trusting your quickie 20-minute sanity test.

The whole point of my previous post was to point out that even the professionals can get it very, very wrong. And while an e-Harmony personality profile might be an acceptable tool to select somebody you might want to date, it's no way to determine if a person is sane.

In a nation built on personal freedom, there is no reasonable expectation to believe that crazy people won't go crazy. But, stripping the rights from people that view the world a little different than you, so that you can sleep better at night, is simply not acceptable.

No.

BullfrogKen said:

One last comment in response to yours -
The law cannot prevent anything from happening. Laws do not restrain evil. Laws do not make anyone bent on victimizing someone else change their behavior.

The law can punish. The law in some cases can even persuade.

But the law can never stop evil people from doing evil things.

Click to expand...

You're contradicting yourself. If the law, in some cases can even persuade, then it can stop evil people from doing evil things, at least in some cases. If you don't agree that laws can influence a person's behavior, then that throws into question much bigger things. If laws are ineffective, why have them at all? Do we even need a gov't at that point? I think that's a bit absurd. Laws obviously DO have some effect.

ngnrd said:

That's the problem -- THERE IS NO SUCH SCREENING.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. As I've said several times, I have no idea if psychology is at this point or not. Do you agree, however, that if it WERE possible, that those people should be denied their 2A rights?

And we absolutely ARE able to identify people with a violent criminal past. Do you feel that THOSE people should be allowed to legally own guns?

ngnrd said:

And, if you don't think that actually believing that a potential victim has the ability ability to "respawn" after after being tortured and killed is dangerous, I'm definitely not trusting your quickie 20-minute sanity test.

...

In a nation built on personal freedom, there is no reasonable expectation to believe that crazy people won't go crazy. But, stripping the rights from people that view the world a little different than you, so that you can sleep better at night, is simply not acceptable.

Click to expand...

I think you misread me at some point. The whole "merely irrational" thing was in response to BullfrogKen's comment about some people believing in the resurrection. Not being religious, I find the idea irrational. I do not, however, feel that this belief makes christians too crazy to own guns.

0to60 said:

If the law, in some cases can even persuade, then it can stop evil people from doing evil things, at least in some cases.

Click to expand...

Laws can stop evil people from doing evil things just as much as stop lights can stop cars from rolling through intersections: they don't. Rather, they provide guidance on what is socially acceptable in a particular situation, and provides a penalty for those that choose to ignore it. Nothing more, nothing less.


If you will indulge me, let me paint you a picture...

I drive the same route to work every day, sipping coffee, listening to the radio, and stopping dutifully at each stop light along the way for years without incident. Then, one day, as I reach to change the station because it's playing my ex-girlfriends favorite song, I spill my coffee in my lap, jam my foot on the gas, and barrel through a red light into a school bus, killing seven students and the driver.

When you hear about it on the news, you obviously can't know about the song on the radio, or the spilled coffee. So, what is your first thought when you hear about the tragedy? We need more stop lights? Stop lights need to be bigger and brighter? We need to put train crossing style gates in at all intersections? No? Why not...? Because expecting a stop light to prevent a car from plowing into a bus is an unreasonable expectation.

Obviously, something else happened on this particular day that didn't happen on every other day since I've been driving this route. Now here's the big question...

Whether it was accidental, or intentional, what law would have prevented me from running that light and crashing into a school bus?

0to60 said:

if [pre-determining which people were actually going to harm others] WERE possible, [should] those people should be denied their 2A rights?

And we absolutely ARE able to identify people with a violent criminal past. Do you feel that THOSE people should be allowed to legally own guns?

Click to expand...

Like I've said in other threads: people that have proven that they are a danger to others should be separated from society.

0to60 said:

I think you misread me at some point. The whole "merely irrational" thing was in response to BullfrogKen's comment about some people believing in the resurrection. Not being religious, I find the idea irrational. I do not, however, feel that this belief makes christians too crazy to own guns.

Click to expand...

No, I didn't misread what you wrote. You may not have understood all the implications of what you said. I just pointed out some of the unsavory consequences of what you are willing to accept in order to feel safer.

ngnrd said:

If you will indulge me, let me paint you a picture...

I drive the same route to work every day, sipping coffee, listening to the radio, and stopping dutifully at each stop light along the way for years without incident. Then, one day, as I reach to change the station because it's playing my ex-girlfriends favorite song, I spill my coffee in my lap, jam my foot on the gas, and barrel through a red light into a school bus, killing seven students and the driver.

When you hear about it on the news, you obviously can't know about the song on the radio, or the spilled coffee. So, what is your first thought when you hear about the tragedy? We need more stop lights? Stop lights need to be bigger and brighter? We need to put train crossing style gates in at all intersections? No? Why not...? Because expecting a stop light to prevent a car from plowing into a bus is an unreasonable expectation.

Obviously, something else happened on this particular day that didn't happen on every other day since I've been driving this route. Now here's the big question...

Whether it was accidental, or intentional, what law would have prevented me from running that light and crashing into a school bus?

Click to expand...

That's a decent analogy. What, then, do we do about red lights? In your example, it didn't prevent THAT tragedy. But, it prevented LOTS of others. Is there something that can be done to make the stop light more noticeable? Some stoplights are in some weird places and can't be seen all that well...

I think we absolutely CAN expect stoplights to prevent cars from plowing into schoolbuses, at least most of the time. Sure, there will be the odd driver that blows it, but by and large, stoplights are effective. There's simply no arguing the point.

Background checks (insofar as preventing violent criminals from buying guns) would absolutely be effective. Would these people still get guns? Sure, but it'd be harder and less common. NOT having background checks would be like removing the stoplight because oh well, a car slipped through and caused an accident. They don't work, tear them all down.

Just because something isn't 100% effective in 100% of all cases doesn't mean it isn't valuable.

ngnrd said:

Like I've said in other threads: people that have proven that they are a danger to others should be separated from society.

Click to expand...

You're dodging the question.

Should a person with a history of violent crime be able to legally buy and own guns?