federal assault weapons ban

If a call went out that all gun owners must report for militia training and active duty as a condition of keeping their guns. How many would opt to keep their guns. Particularly if they could be sent to Iraq on the pretext that they were in effect protecting the US. Remember the cry of the supporters of the war is if we don't fight terrorism there they [the bad guys] will soon be here.?

I'm too old to serve. At least that's what they say. I am a law abiding citizen with no criminal record. Thus I can have as many guns as I want. The antis want to make me a criminal for having them. Do you agree with that? If you do, you are in a tiny minority here in the U.S.

cjhsa
Since you are too old to serve, the purpose and justification for owning a gun no longer exists. Inorder to satisfy the requirements of the second amendment that you hold so dear, should you not be turning it in to the proper authorities. Or at the very least give it to someone who can satisfy amendment. :wink:

Yes that seems a sound argument to me.

If you can't or won't or just don't serve in a militia, then you should not have the right to keep a gun. That seem logically to follow the Constitution position.

Back then, the enemy was marching soldiers with muskets.
Now, the "enemy" is terrorists and the weapons against them are the metal detector and the retina scanner, equipment like that.
So maybe the Amendment should now be modernised to substitute the words "detection equipment" for "arms".

Imagine if it had been written 300 years earlier. It probably would have said swords and shields.

Illegal to send the militia to Iraq.

Militia duty is limited by the Constitution to enforcing the law, suppressing insurrection, and repelling invasion.

State governors might be able to have the militia do things not on the list, but only within state borders.

Even if he is too old to be in the militia (it would be reasonable to count people at least up to the age of 45, if not higher), that does not make it illegal to have a gun. It would take a statute to do that.

I don't think that's what they said in the English Bill of Rights.

Make it 800 years and you'll be closer to the mark.

State Sees Instant Results in Electronic Gun Checks

By FOX BUTTERFIELD

Published: December 25, 2004

WOBURN, Mass., Dec. 24 - When Massachusetts this month became the first state to install an electronic instant-check system complete with a fingerprint scanner for gun licenses and gun purchases, the impact was quickly apparent.

On Wednesday, for example, moments after a court placed a woman's husband under a restraining order, a notice about the order popped up on a new computer terminal at the police station here. Given that information, the Woburn police went to the man's house and confiscated his guns, all 13 of them.

The computer is part of the record-check system and allows the police and gun stores to learn right away if a person can legally own or buy a firearm. The system provides instant updates on arrest warrants, restraining orders and convictions, and it links fingerprint scanners and computers at gun stores and police departments with a central database.

Under Massachusetts law, anyone wanting to buy a gun must first obtain a license from the local police department. Now, when a person applies for the license or goes to buy a gun, his fingerprints can be checked electronically to verify his identity.

"This is a quantum leap in improving public safety and also making it quicker for people to buy a firearm," said Edward A. Flynn, the Massachusetts secretary of public safety. The new computer system was developed by the state's Criminal History Systems Board, part of Mr. Flynn's office.

Philip Mahoney, the police chief in Woburn, a city of 38,000 people just north of Boston, said the new system was particularly valuable because "we get notified in real time about any new restraining orders, warrants and arrests."

Under the old system, based on paper records maintained at individual police stations and gun shops, Mr. Mahoney said, "we might not be notified at all if someone was put under a restraining order."

In the case this week, Mr. Mahoney said: "We were able to go to the individual's house immediately after the restraining order was issued, which is the most dangerous time for a batterer. It's a time when the victim is probably moving out, and the risk of violence is highest."

The new Massachusetts electronic system is in addition to the federal requirement that a gun buyer undergo an instant background check. That check is completed by telephone before the gun is sold, with a clerk in the gun store calling the F.B.I. or a state police agency.

Many of the same records are searched in both checks, but the national instant background check is not as up to date as the new Massachusetts system, particularly for restraining orders, and does not require fingerprint verification.

Mr. Flynn said his office was working with the federal Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives to try to consolidate the two checks in Massachusetts.

So far there has been no outcry against the new system from gun owners or the state's gun stores.

"Basically, it's all the same information we had to submit before, so this is not more intrusive," said Carl Ingrao, the owner of Four Seasons Firearms in Woburn. His business is the largest gun store in Massachusetts and was used in a pilot project testing the system beginning last June.

"I haven't had any negative comments from customers whatsoever, and I've sold over 2,000 firearms since the system went into effect," Mr. Ingrao said.

"The computer is actually quicker, more efficient and less expensive for the dealer," he said, because under the old paper system each form cost 50 cents, not including the postage for mailing a copy to the Criminal History Systems Board. Mr. Ingrao says he believes the new system will save him about $2,000 a year.

The electronic system is also faster because once a purchaser's identity is confirmed by the fingerprint scan, the computer automatically fills in the buyer's address, date of birth, height, weight and hair and eye color. That data comes from the gun license application.

"A few months ago, they had to take the system down for a day for a software upgrade, and we had to go back to filling out all the old paperwork," Mr. Ingrao said. "My clerks were saying, 'Hey, the computer is better.' "

Gun owners and the gun industry have often complained that background checks are onerous because they take too much time and prevent people from just walking in and buying a gun when they want to. Mr. Flynn said the new system was an effort to answer that criticism by speeding the process.

By law, police departments in Massachusetts have had 45 days to issue a firearms license. But with the instant check system, the police should be able to issue the license in 24 to 48 hours, Mr. Flynn said, and then a customer with a license will be able to buy a gun in a few minutes.

So far, computer terminals linked to the system have been installed in 159 of the state's 351 police departments and at the four largest gun dealers. The goal is to have them installed in all departments and gun stores by next June, Mr. Flynn said.

A customer at Four Seasons Firearms who collects handguns said he had no objection to the electronic system "because I have nothing to hide."

The customer, who declined to be identified, echoing the concerns of many gun owners about their privacy, added: "The law-abiding gun owners are always put on the defensive when some nut shoots someone. The media makes us out to be the bad guys, but we are just following the law."

Were you expecting someone to object to the substance of the article, au? I don't. There are classes of people not allowed to own firearms, and there should be. We do not need further restrictions; enforcement of existing would be sufficient.

The age thing? I believe orally is correct, though I seem to recall discussion here of a 70 year former medical officer being recalled to active duty. Ask McTag, but I think England has shore watchers and other security functions filled by persons way over the age of 45. That would be a militia function.

Roger
cjhsa wrote


Not I

As to the article, I was curious to see what the reaction would be.

I should note that:
A] The original question concerned assault weapons.
B} My responses to 0ralloy regarding the Militia were tongue in cheek and just meant to counter the pretext that the second amendment based upon the Militia statement opens the door to gun ownership. However, my theses is as valid as those who hang their hat on the Militia need. The need for a Militia went out at the very least 150 years ago. IMO today's militia is the National Guard and reserves.

Milita includes all who may be called upon for the defense of their state, IMO. I have long known of our difference of O.

Roger
Defense of their state from whom. Are we maintaing the concept of a militia to be prepared in the event of a civil war. Let's at least be honest the Militia issue is so much eye wash.

I'd really like to know the details of that restraining order case. If the guy committed no crime, and his wife simply dislikes him, they have no right to take away his property. They did mention "batterer" as if they could simply say the word and justify their own stupidity. Screw Massachusetts.

cjhsa

I doubt one can get a restraining order, even a wife, without cause. Perhaps it was because he was deemed to be a danger to her. On the other hand maybe we should wait until he shoots her before the weapons are confiscated. An once of protection is worth a pound of cure.

Man shoots nurse at convalescent home



Saturday, December 25, 2004 Posted: 11:28 AM EST (1628 GMT)



PERRIS, California (AP) -- An 87-year-old man visiting a family member at a convalescent home allegedly shot a nurse in the face Friday after he became angry about the care the relative was receiving, authorities said.

The nurse was listed in critical condition at a nearby hospital, Riverside County sheriff's spokesman Dennis Gutierrez said.

Minutes after the afternoon shooting at the Ember Care Health Center in Perris, authorities arrested Norman Larson of Sun City for investigation of assault with a deadly weapon, Gutierrez said. Center employees had detained Larson by the time deputies arrived.

"He had been there for about five hours," Gutierrez said. "He had an issue with the way the family member was being cared for."

A woman visiting the center said the gunman threatened to shot another nurse.

"He was going to shoot another nurse and made her get on her knees and beg for her life," Dalis Baca told KABC-TV. "When she pleaded, she said it was Christmas, she had kids, please not to do it, and he let her go."

Citing privacy laws, Gutierrez did not identify the family member. He said Larson and other visitors and patients were being interviewed by investigators.

The 104-bed home is one of 12 convalescent homes Ember Care operates in Southern California, said April Bernabe, vice president of operations.

Perris is about 70 miles southeast of Los Angeles.

Chew on this for a moment. Oh yes, guns don't shoot people, people shoot people.

No one need to hang hats on the dependent clause containing the word milita. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." is a simple, declarative sentence by it self. It could have been preceded by something as senseless as "Peanut butter, going good with jelly. . . .", without changing the meaning of, nor invalidating the amendment. As written, it does not require the existance of a militia (which is a state function, not federal), nor participation in a militia if it does exist.

roger
I was waiting for that. What took you so long. Were I on the other side of the fence would have said the same thing. Always pick the statement that supports your argument. I would argue however that the two statements are dependent on each other.

Holiday shoppers witness shooting death



Friday, December 24, 2004 Posted: 9:42 AM EST (1442 GMT)

PORTLAND, Oregon (AP) -- A homeless man was shot to death during an argument with another man in front of dozens of horrified holiday shoppers on Thursday, police said.

Vincent Stemle Jr., 56, was arrested shortly after surrendering to officers at the scene in front of Meier & Frank, a popular department store across from Pioneer Courthouse Square in the heart of downtown, police said.

He is accused of murder but told police he acted in self defense. Police recovered a gun from him. The victim was identified as Michael Egan, 41.

Court papers say Egan slapped Stemle, knocking off his hat and glasses, and that Stemle shot Egan three times with a .357-caliber Magnum, twice in the back.

They said he did not have a concealed weapons permit.

Police said they and mental health workers had tried to have Egan committed because he had been harassing strangers in Old Town and hitting people without provocation. Witnesses said Egan appeared to be taking a swing at Stemle.

Police said they considered him to be a transient


http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/12/24/portland.shooting.ap/index.html