Flare Sci-Fi Forums: What it takes to get a gun...

This is topic What it takes to get a gun... in forum The Flameboard at Flare Sci-Fi Forums.

To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://flare.solareclipse.net/ultimatebb.php/topic/11/441.html

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

At least here in Erie County, NY.

A man wrote to the Opinion page, telling what he had to go through to get a handgun.

"In order to obtain a pistol, I had to apply in triplicate, be fingerprinted, be reviewed by the FBI, take a gun-safety course, supply six black and white photos, be interviewed by a judge and the local police, supply 3 character references who live in my town, have a valid reason to carry the handgun, and pay over $180 in fees. After at least a nine-month wait, a pistol permit was issued."

Now tell me, does anyone think it is so easy to get a gun legally? Illegally, of course, you can them anywhere.

------------------
"Goverment exists to serve, not to lead. We do not exist by its volition, it exists by ours. Bear that in mind when you insult your neighbors for refusing to bow before it." J. Richmond, UB Student

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Seeing as how I live in a home with several guns, all of which were purchased with a minimun of fuss, and some even purchased with even less fuss at gun shows, I'd have to say your example is extremely rare and cannot be considered representational.

However, keep in mind that I live on the other side of the continent, and these things differ from state to state and even county to county.

And before First rushes in and proclaims that I'm secretly a Nazi, Communist, or agent for Spectre, keep in mind that I'm not advocating any change in gun show policy whatsoever. I'm merely making the objective claim that it is easier to purchase a gun at one, as the laws pertaining to them are different then the laws pertaining to a store selling guns.

------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

Without being overly insulting I'd have to say that is the stupidest thing I have ever heard. Different laws from county to county? Jesus Christ. Just how does such a disorganised legislature function?

------------------
"Blind faith is the crutch of fools"

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

Well, gee, since we all know that everyone is the exact same, there's no reason to have different laws anywhere! And, while we're at it, let's just form one world government with one set of laws, ignoring all disagreements, and pick one supreme dictator at random, since we know he'll be the same as everyone else!

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Bah! Screw Alaska!" - TSN

Posted by Orion Syndicate (Member # 25) on :

Trust Frank to reply to to a serious comment with something stupid.

------------------
Patriotism is the virtue of the vicious.

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

He was making a point, Orion... I got the point, did you?

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

My comment was sarcasm/satire, of course, meant to explain why the different counties have different laws.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"Bah! Screw Alaska!" - TSN

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Allow me to point out, Daryus, that if the national government controlls everything to the microscopic level, the same thing can happen to everything it controls as would happen if they controlled the economy directly. Eventually, they'd screw up, being only human, and then everyone'd be screwed, instead of the people in just one county. And since they'd have to have a hopelessly huge bureaucracy to control everything that closely, it'd take them fifteen years to fix everything, instead of the six months it'd take on a county level.

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

Posted by Curry Monster (Member # 12) on :

*rolls eyes* Who said ANYTHING about controlling things at a micro level? Legislature should deicde local issues based on the existing law. However I just don't see how diverging legal practices within a single political unit can be an effective way to run a country.

Omega, for gods sake, jump off the anti red bandwagon

------------------
"Blind faith is the crutch of fools"

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

But if I did that, who'd drive?

And you don't seem to understand that we AREN'T a single political unit. We are a group of small political units united for common goals in areas like defense. Outside of those areas, clearly defined in the constitution, we all run our own show.

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

Posted by Harry (Member # 265) on :

So this is what will happen in the United States of Europe some time in the future, too?

------------------
"When You're Up to Your Ass in Alligators, Today Is the First Day of the Rest of Your Life."
-- Management slogan, Ridcully-style (Terry Pratchett, The Last Continent, Discworld)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Prakesh's Star Trek Site

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Actually Omega, I don't think your definition of the United States has been valid since...oh, the Industrial Revolution. At least not since the Civil War, although technically it does hold some merit.

------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

Perhaps I should rephrase that. That's the way it legally should be. The way it is is sadly different. One wonders if the states could get together in a class-action suit against the US government and sue for breach of contract for oversteping the bounds stated in the constitution...

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

Posted by Jeff Raven (Member # 20) on :

Omega, that's exactly what the Civil War was about.

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

Omega, you seem to have a vastly different conception of what the USA should be then most of its citizens.

Personally, I rather like knowing that my civil liberties are preserved no matter what state I happen to be in. I also generally consider my nationality to be American, and not Washingtonian, Yakimanian, or Grangerian. And while a People's Republic of Granger might be interesting, I have my doubts as to what benefits if any it could give me. "Hmm, want electricity? Well, that's cool, but we don't have any. Better make a deal with our more powerful neighbor, the Lower Kingdom of Rosa." "Sure, we'll wire you for internet access. But our company only does work in states certified by First Citizen Frank."

I'm afraid the era for tiny states bound together by loose rules went out with the Napoleonic Wars. How self-sufficient is Andorra these days, by the way?

------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven

Posted by Aethelwer (Member # 36) on :

*likes "First Citizen Frank"*

Seriously, the city-state model isn't as bad as you think...as long as we have the Constitution, different regions can usually be allowed to do what they want.

------------------
Frank's Home Page
"People don't mind if you speak a subset of a natural language, especially if you are a child or a foreigner. (Except in Paris, of course.)" - Larry Wall

Posted by nx001a (Member # 291) on :

So what you are saying is that the federal government in DC are intervering too much in the local affairs of states. Like the gun issue that has been in the news a lot recently especially after all those shootings. In that case should the federal governent leave these deomestic issues to the individual states and instead concentrate on foreign affairs like Bosnia, Iraq and Europe.

------------------
"We set sail on this new sea because their is new knowledge to be gained and new rights to be won" John F Kennedy

members.aol.com/mfwan/index.htm

Posted by Kosh (Member # 167) on :

Just to comment on the original post.

The guy got a pistol permit, meaning he can legaly carry a pistol. You don't have to go through all of that to buy a gun.

------------------
Fool of a Took, throw yourself in next time!!
Gandalf

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Yes, but you do if you want to be able to take the gun home from the store, as you have to have a carry permit to leave the store with the gun, or transport it in your vehicle to your residence.

So saying there's a difference is nonsense.

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

Posted by Omega (Member # 91) on :

I didn't say to withdraw from the union, which is what the civil war was originally over. I said to sue the government. The states would have a legitimate complaint. They signed a contract with the government and with each other, stating various things can and can not be done by the parties involved. The tenth ammendment was one of those clauses. Any step beyond the powers granted the government in the constitution constitutes a breach of contract. Of course, you can't sue the national government unless they let you, which is really stupid.

'Personally, I rather like knowing that my civil liberties are preserved no matter what state I happen to be in.'

So do I. That's what some of the clauses in the constitution are for. The states can't revoke your civil rights.

I like the USA. I like the idea of a strong central authority. Just not THIS strong. The people and the states never gave the national government much of the authority that they have userped. Therefore, it has no right to it. The government's job is as stated in the constitution. Nothing more, nothing less.

If those were questions, NX, you hit it right on the head. The federal government is there to prevent tyrrany in the states, to defend their people from external and certain internal threats, and to deal with foreign affairs. That's pretty much it. Anything beyond that is local business.

------------------
You are wise, witty, and wonderful, but you spend far too much time reading this sort of trash.

Posted by Jay the Obscure (Member # 19) on :

Still, the original post sounds more like the process for getting a concealed weapons permit than anything else.

For the Constitutional scholars who may feel like they want to sue the government for too much interference, keep in mind that as interpreted by the courts the 14th amendment to the Constitution allows the federal government to room regulate business.

quote:
The Constitution does not guarantee the unrestricted privilege to engage in a business or to conduct it as one pleases. Certain kinds of business may be prohibited; and the right to conduct a business, or to pursue a calling, may be conditioned. . . . Statutes prescribing the terms upon which those conducting certain businesses may contract, or imposing terms if they do enter into agreements, are within the State's competency."

From: Nebbia v. New York, 291 U.S. 502 (1934)

See also: Find Law

------------------
Compadres, it is imperative that we crush the freedom fighters before the start of the rainy season. And remember, a shiny new donkey for whoever brings me the head of Colonel Montoya.
~C. Montgomery Burns

And be sure to visit The Field Marshal project http://fieldmarshal.virtualave.net/

[This message has been edited by Jay (edited April 04, 2000).]

Posted by Sol System (Member # 30) on :

(Damn you, Jay, for posting before I could finish!)

Omega, I think your interpretation of the Constitution is wrong. I am now going to make my history professor quite proud and show why.

quote:
I hold that in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments. It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself.

Abraham Lincoln, first Inaugural Address.

In other words, the Constitution is not merely a contract, it is the highest law of the land. And if we DO treat it as a contract, any breach of it would have to be recognized by all parties. Specifically, every state would have to show evidence for their complaint. I don't see that. (Lincoln goes on to outline the just causes for revolt as he sees them, to illustrate why the southern states were not justified in their rebellion, but that's not important to our discussion at the moment.)

Moving on, since when have states been the most important part of the equation? The Constitution, specifically the Bill of Rights, shares with the French Declaration of the Rights of Man the distinction of outlying the relationship of government to the people, not to smaller sections of itself.

Also, your interpretation breaks down exactly upon the issue of civil rights. To continue from the same source:

quote:
No foresight can anticipate nor any document of reasonable length contain express provisions for all possible questions. Shall fugitives from labor be surrendered by national or by State authority? The Constitution does not expressly say. May Congress prohibit slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say. Must Congress protect slavery in the Territories? The Constitution does not expressly say.

The Constitution is a document, a piece of paper. It has value only to the extent which it carries out the ideals upon which it rests. Foremost of these is the freedom of the individual. (At times from other individuals; libel and slander laws, etc.) The entire argument behind the right of states loses its focus here, proclaiming that somehow our freedom is better served by a smaller government than a larger one when the history of this nation shows anything but.

------------------
"What did it mean to fly? A tremor in your soul. To resist the dull insistance of gravity."
--
Camper Van Beethoven

[This message has been edited by Sol System (edited April 04, 2000).]

Posted by First of Two (Member # 16) on :

Well, a lot of people forget that there were any amendments after the tenth.

Almost as many as forget that the mechanism for enforcing the other 26 lies solely in the Second.

It's not like there's no precedent. Drag out your almanac and look up the Supreme Court cases:

Northern Securities Co, v U.S. (1904)
Standard Oil Co. of New Jersey et al v. U.S. (1911)
Schecter Poultry Corp. v. U.S. (1935)

The Supreme Court has also limited the states' ability to interfere with business contracts. (1819)

But this is all besides the point. What's frightening is the state of affairs when it's legal to buy a gun, but not legal to take it home with you where you need it. (making a nudge back towards the original topic)

------------------
"Nobody knows this, but I'm scared all the time... of what I might do, if I ever let go." -- Michael Garibaldi

[This message has been edited by First of Two (edited April 04, 2000).]