AP Source: Gun in Tucson shooting legal

[brooklynite]

Source: Salon

A law enforcement official tells The Associated Press that the handgun used in a shooting that killed a federal judge and wounded a U.S. congresswoman in Tucson, Ariz., was purchased legally. U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was shot in the head Saturday morning during an event with voters outside a local grocery store. U.S. District Judge John Roll, and at least five others, were killed in the attack.

The official, who has been briefed on the investigation, spoke to the AP on the condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss details of the case. Officials have identified the shooter as 22-year-old Jared Loughner of Tucson. He is in custody. The Washington Post reported late Saturday that Loughner purchased the gun Nov. 30 from the Sportsman's Warehouse in Tucson.


Read more: http://www.salon.com/wires/us/2011/01/08/D9KKHB780_us_congresswoman_shot_gun/index.html

---

Well, that's a relief; I'd hate to think the shooter broke the law...

[MadMaddie]

1. Perhaps the gun was but was the magazine?

The military rejected him, the question is why? If it was for mental instability then how was he legally able to buy a gun?

[Endangered Specie]

3. Any magazine would have been legal in AZ...

[MadMaddie]

5. No kidding? Even the extended ones?

[Endangered Specie]

7. Yes, but in reality it makes no difference...

A handgun can be reloaded in 2-3 seconds with even minor practice. The standard capacity is 15rds, the extended is 33rds. Being limited to 15 or 10 would add only a few seconds.

[kudzu22]

12. Magazine limits are stupid

It's not hard to reload and keep going, as this video will attest:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UJXNPo5krvw

[Dappleganger]

38. I've got a 15 rd. magazine for my 9mm

But it's a little bit long to use for every day carry.

[PavePusher]

83. What gun?

For most full-size 9mm, 15-round mags are standard size and fit flush with the grip.

[timo]

109. 19

springfield xdm holds 19

[X_Digger]

9. Very few states have magazine restrictions.

iirc, it's either 14 or 15 states have magazine restrictions. Even during the '94-'04 'assault weapons ban', magazines manufactured previous to the ban were grandfathered.

It's beside the point, though- a person competent with a firearm can change a magazine within a second and a half. (Here's one that's less than a second- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLVL9SQdl58&NR=1 ).

[immoderate]

15. I believe the bans on those lapsed.

Maybe they're back.

I think they're easy to get, especially in AZ, not in CA. Haven't been to a gun show (here in FL:crazy:) in a while.

--imm

[benEzra]

77. They never left.

>10 round magazines were not illegal 1994-2004, they were just expensive because of supply and demand.

[FarLeftFist]

22. The FACT that this gun was bought LEGALLY, I believe....

Hammers the final nail in the coffin of conservative ideology.

[PavePusher]

85. Elucidate, please....

I don't see the connection.

[immoderate]

4. *I think* you have to be "officially" mentally ill.

An army rejection is not the same as commitment. ICBWrong.

--imm

[FarLeftFist]

23. Maybe he didn't pass the physical.

[immoderate]

37. Perhaps.

But I bet he made an impression.

--imm

[karynnj]

84. Deleted because X-Digger had already answered the question I asked here

[X_Digger]

6. The standard to legally purchase a firearm from a federally licensed dealer is..

http://www.atf.gov/forms/download/atf-f-4473.pdf

Have you ever been adjudicated mentally defective (which includes a determination by a court, board, commission, or other lawful authority that you are a danger to yourself or to others or are incompetent to manage your own affairs OR have you ever been committed to a mental institution?

I'm not sure being rejected by the military would qualify as such. (And I haven't heard why the military rejected him yet.)

[safeinOhio]

10. Kind of a don't ask and don't tell on

private sales of handguns in that state. You may sell a handgun, as a private non dealer to anyone that you are not aware of as being prohibited from buying one. In other words, if you don't ask the guy if he is crazy or a felon, it is legal to sell to him. Back ground checks are only for FFLs, stores and gun shops. I think about 5 states require background checks on sales of handguns between private parties.

[Name removed]

11. Deleted message

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

[AtheistCrusader]

16. Well, hey, good thing that has not a damn thing to do with the issue at hand.

In unrelated news, the sky is dark.

[X_Digger]

24. This gun was purchased retail..

Can you explain the relevance to the topic at hand?

[PavePusher]

86. It's not about asking. You put the emphasis on the wrong party.

Since a criminal will merely lie...

[pnwmom]

47. And most schizophrenics probably wouldn't qualify then.

Since most aren't adjudicated "mentally defective" or committed to institutions. They just end up with caring family members or on the streets.

[melm00se]

108. because mental illness is a medical condition

and isn't, by many states, submitted to the mighty gun check machine.

additionally, how much detailed medical info do you want the government to have?

[pnwmom]

2. That can't possibly be.

How many times has the ARA insisted that legally purchased and registered guns are never involved in crimes?

[kestrel91316]

42. [phone]

[Skittles]

8. aw, isn't that special

that 9yr old girl should have armed herself :(

[quaker bill]

13. You see, guns actually do kill people

Sorry to all the gun fans, but he would not have tried this with a knife or a baseball bat, and if he had, it is likely no one would have died.

[X_Digger]

14. It was in a shopping center parking lot..

2+ tons of steel would have achieved the same result- possibly worse.

[quaker bill]

32. It is tough to conceal a car

[X_Digger]

35. Did I say he could?

It was in a shopping center parking lot- not much 'concealment' needed.

(graphic pic warning) - http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=66130

[quaker bill]

69. It is much harder

to go reliably go after someone specific with a car. Unless of course you go with an approach that is far more middle eastern and pyrotechnic. This approach fortunately does not seem to fit with the American character, even among the wildest of the far right.

However, what can be done with a gun is now clear.

[timo]

110. holy smokes

I never in my wildest dreams wouldve guessed that picture was local to my area!!

[cleanhippie]

131. Not in the middle of a parking lot, its not.

Still trying to figure out what your point is.

[pnwmom]

43. There would have been plenty of time for her entourage to jump away

while he plowed through any people in his way. Cars weren't THAT close to the event.

[cleanhippie]

132. The nearest car was about 15 feet away!

They were on the sidewalk at the entrance to a supermarket. Cars were passing within FEET of the event every few moments.

[Suji to Seoul]

67. and the two streets that connect the Safeway plaza (Ina Road and Oracle Road)

Are two of the busiest streets in the Tucson area. . .and I always hit that light on the red, no matter what time of day.

I know this Plaza intimately. . .there is a Trader Joe's across the street on Oracle, a Blockbuster Video perpendicular to the Safeway and a Tire Shop across the street next to the gas station on Ina.

This plaza is on the SE side of the intersection.

[AtheistCrusader]

18. Tell that to the dead here:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2008-06-08-stabbing-tokyo_N.htm

It's likely none of you dead people died.

[Devil_Fish]

29. +1. When knives are out lawed, only out laws will have knives. NT

[pnwmom]

44. So how are we better off exactly, allowing nuts to easily purchase

semi-automatic guns instead of knives?

[Devil_Fish]

49. On the contrary, I think we should ban guns, and knives, and base ball bats, and chains, and dogs

can't forget dogs, Rocks, chain saws, cars, trucks, plastic garbage bags, pruning sheers, shampoo, the list is endless really, Steel cable, coper wire, rat poison, swiming pools, Nitrogen,...

[pnwmom]

54. And how easily do you kill or wound dozens of people with shampoo? n/t

[quaker bill]

70. It is the character of the thing

Assasinations have not been attempted with any of the above. For the element of surprise and delivering reliable and near instant death in close quarters, little competes with a handgun. A 9mm Glock handgun was specifically devised for this purpose, nothing else, and is a very effective tool.

This is why many police forces carry them. On the other hand one rarely sees a uniformed officer armed with pruning shears. Care to posit a guess why this is the case?

[piedmont]

113. Are you seriously trying to say that knives have not been used in assassinations? nt

[quaker bill]

143. Not here, since the relative ease of handgun purchase

Perhaps somewhere you can find a case, certainly in history. Guns are the tools of choice for this activity. The chances of being effective are far better with gun. This is why police are armed with them. I am sure some cops carry a knife as well, but a sidearm is standard equipment. You would have to agree that there is a reason for this marked preference.

The human imagination is never at a loss for new and inovative means for mayhem. But there is a reason police do not carry broadswords, pruning shears, maces, garottes, nun-chuks, throwing stars, crossbows, muskets, chainsaws, bazookas, claymores,.... but do carry Glocks. I think it is because they believe this type of weapon gives them an advantage... I could be nuts, but I don't think so.

I also happen to think people buy sidearms "for defense" as opposed to any of the above, because they believe the sidearm will give them an advantage greater than the other potential options. Machetes are quite easy to obtain around here, and certainly if well sharpened, could be quite lethal. But curiously, folks don't rush out and stockpile them for home defense, they buy sidearms instead. If they were equivalent, one would perhaps wonder why the preference? Machetes are after all quite a bit cheaper and easier to maintain.

The problem arises when a mentally unbalanced person gets the same sense of advantage that every one else seems to get by owning such a weapon.

[fasttense]

73. A dog, truck, and baseball bat all have uses beyond killing.

A gun has only one use - to kill. I do not believe guns should be outlawed. But I do believe they should be rationally restricted and controlled. I am an expert marksman/woman?. I hunt and enjoy the use of firearms. But I know they are very dangerous and must be carefully controlled. Firearm access needs to be carefully controlled at the local level.

If not, some radically crazy national media outlet, or maybe even a national politician, will rile up the crazies and, using inflammatory speech and violent symbolism, will direct these unstable people to murder through the ready access to firearms. Oh wait it happened already.

[NickB79]

76. Yeah, it's not like 99.9% of all shots fired in the US are for target practice or anything

And we all know that those damn Olympic athletes that shoot competitively are stone-cold killers :eyes:

[cleanhippie]

133. Who has stated that other than you?

[Dappleganger]

39. I'm not a fan...

but unfortunately the best way to stop a gunman in that situation is another gunman.

[boppers]

51. How was he stopped?

Oh, that's right, he was tackled by an unarmed person.

[Dappleganger]

116. He ran out of bullets and had to reload.

Then was stopped by people, one of whom had already been hit. So, the rules are you have to stand there and wait for them to empty their clip into yourself, family, friends and neighbors before going Jet Li on his ass?

I don't think so.

[melm00se]

111. tell me

how many guns have you seen just leap up off the table on their own accord and killed someone?

a gun is a tool, like a hammer or a nailer or a screwdriler or a drill. it is the mind behind the hands in the controls that matter.

[abqmufc]

17. AZ has some lax guns laws compared to others.

"Last Friday, April 16, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed legislation that will – before summer’s end – enable citizens there to carry concealed handguns without a concealed carry permit.

Arizona now becomes the third state, following Vermont and Alaska in that order, which has no requirement to obtain a carry license to pack a defensive sidearm. The legislation was strongly lobbied by the Arizona Citizens Defense League, and gun rights activists across the map think this is a hot idea, insisting that governments should not have the authority to regulate the carrying of firearms by requiring a permit for concealed carry. Gov. Brewer signed the bill because she trusts the citizens she serves. The law will become effective sometime this summer, 90 days after the legislature adjourns."

http://www.examiner.com/gun-rights-in-seattle/gun-rights-101-az-governor-signs-carry-without-a-permit-law-why-that-matters-here


Having grown up in Central Illinois I was shocked and dismayed by AZ guns laws when I moved to Tucson in '95. I remember working in a local camping store that sold ammo. The first time I sold ammo to someone who was carrying their firearm on their hip just left me floored that it was legal to walk into stores, banks, etc with a gun. I also recall continual controversy regarding gun shows at the county fairgrounds where guns could be bought and sold with no regulation.

[AtheistCrusader]

19. We have the same open carry law in Washington.

The same exact law that disturbed you in that store.

Why is this unusual?

[pnwmom]

45. Which Washington? n/t

[AtheistCrusader]

48. Washington State.

People don't do it very often here, but this is an open carry state.

Affirmed by the state courts as well. (State vs. Casad, State v. Spencer)

[pnwmom]

56. There is an important difference between Arizona and Washington laws.

From the previous post: "Last Friday, April 16, Arizona Gov. Jan Brewer signed legislation that will – before summer’s end – enable citizens there to carry concealed handguns without a concealed carry permit."

In Arizona, concealed carry is now allowed without a permit. Not so in Washington State. WA State does allow open carry, although with some restrictions. The law is not identical to Arizona's.

[X_Digger]

57. Ahh, see you edited.. n/t

[pnwmom]

58. I changed my post while you were writing this. My point is,

Washington has more restrictive laws than Arizona, and doesn't allow concealed carry without a permit.

[X_Digger]

59. True, but the same situation could occur in WA (the sub-thread's OP)

I remember working in a local camping store that sold ammo. The first time I sold ammo to someone who was carrying their firearm on their hip just left me floored that it was legal to walk into stores, banks, etc with a gun.

Washington's laws are more restrictive, but the subthread OP's dismay is possible in many open carry states.

[pnwmom]

60. Yes, and I would be dismayed if I were shopping next to someone with a gun.

I would be even more worried, however, if I thought he was likely to be concealing a gun.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_the_United_States_(by_state)#Arizona

[X_Digger]

61. What you are or are not dismayed by (when legal) is not my concern.

Juan Williams might be concerned when he sees a person in muslim attire board a plane- that's his problem, not mine.

[pnwmom]

62. I was responding to your post.

Washington's laws are more restrictive, but the subthread OP's dismay is possible in many open carry states.

[friendly_iconoclast]

63. Better move to Wisconsin or Illinois, all other states allow some form of concealed carry.

It would seem your anxiety-free shopping options are limited. Might I suggest you simply accept that someone in a store you

shop at might have a concealed handgun and try not to worry about it so much?

[pnwmom]

68. Washington at least requires a permit for concealed carry.

Arizona doesn't.

[PavePusher]

90. Again, what does that have to do with this (or any) incident? n/t

[pnwmom]

121. It has to do with the point of this whole thread.

Which started with the comment that Arizona has lax gun laws compared to other states.

And from what I've read about this incident, the shooter did take advantage of this law because he carried the gun concealed in his pocket, not in a holster where people might be watching it.

[cleanhippie]

134. Are you saying that if AZ did NOT have a liberal concealed carry law then this incedent would not

have happened?

Im confused as to what you point is.

[piedmont]

135. What law would have kept him from carrying in his pocket if he was already intent on murder?

There's a law in Arizona against murdering people, isn't there? Did he obey that?

[PavePusher]

136. You can conceal holstered guns.

Criminals intent on doing harm do not worry about whether they are obeying the proper carry laws.

You have acheived "MASSIVE. FAIL."

Good job.

[AtheistCrusader]

66. Thre is at least one error on that page for WA.

Open carry is legal in a vehicle without a CPL if it is unloaded.

[AtheistCrusader]

65. Concealed Carry is not at issue here, nor was I talking about concealed carry at all.

WA and AZ's laws on open carry are functionally the same.

[AtheistCrusader]

64. Different laws.

I was responding to his concern about serving a customer in a sporting goods store with a gun on his hip. Something perfectly legal in this state as well.

I was not talking about Concealed carry, and I would have specified so if I was. Concealed and Open carry aren't even addressed in the same statutes.

[PavePusher]

88. And that had what to do with this incident?

Please be specific.

[comtec]

21. So what you're saying is that it is possible everyone there had a gun on them

and yet the shock and surprise of the incident prevented anyone from taking out this little murderer?


However, it's all moot.
The judge and 4 others are confirmed worm food.
the senator is alive, but who know what condition she'll be in.

I find it amusing that having a copy of the Marx tagging him as a liberal as it's generally the whack job conservatives that have those books.
Mein Kampf probably has bookmarks on his favorite parts, with quotes outlined or hi-lighted for future reference.

To be fair, aside from brutally murdering people, wounding others, and shooting a US senator, he did everything legally. . . you know this isn't going to go over well.

[boppers]

52. Gabby is House, not Senate. FWIW

[comtec]

74. you're right, the word i was meaning was congresswoman n/t

[JDPriestly]

28. I think it should be illegal to carry a gun on the private premises of another

person or of a business without the permission of the owner and notice to other guests or patrons.

I don't want my neighbors and guests bringing their guns into my house or onto my property. Seems like I should have the right to prohibit others from carrying weapons on my property and that stores should also have that right.

[X_Digger]

30. You do have that right, even in AZ..

You, as a business owner, can put up a no guns sign, and have anyone who does carry arrested for trespassing if you find out and ask them to leave and they refuse.

Now, about your scarlet-letter-esque statement about notice- are there any other exercises of rights that you would like notifications of?

[JDPriestly]

31. If someone has a gun in my house, I want to know.

And if a storeowner permits guns in the store, I would also like to know for my own protection. If I see someone who acts strangely, I will avoid that person.

[X_Digger]

34. You can set reasonable conditions on entry of your home..

Even 'discriminating' on things that you couldn't do (legally) as a business owner.

In 48 of the 50 states, if you don't see a sign on the door saying 'no guns' (or words to that effect), assume that there might be someone carrying there.

Most states that have had 'shall issue' concealed carry for more than a couple of years have 3-4% of the eligible residents avail themselves of them. Of course, there's no rule that that percentage must carry all the time, so you'll never know.

And if you do see a 'no guns' sign on the door, then you can most likely be assured that the only people with guns are criminals- point being, unless you walk through a metal detector, someone could be armed (legally or not.)

[friendly_iconoclast]

55. Your shopping options are limited, then. Plus, you'd have to avoid you own avatar.

Eleanor Roosevelt was a long-time pistol shooter who had a concealed weapons permit.


I'd also point out that the people who would obey the law aren't the ones you have to worry about.

[pnwmom]

46. Makes sense to me. n/t

[Dappleganger]

40. Yet Vermont doesn't have gun murders on the news on a regular basis, do they?

[PavePusher]

93. They aren't that common in Arizona either.

More frequent, yes, but we also have 12 times as many people in our largest city alone, as there are in all of Vermont. We also sit some of the main people/drug smuggling routes between the U.S. and Mexico.

For the record, I'm a Vermont resident in Arizona with the Air Force, so I know a little about both places. Vermont doesn't have a lot of organised crime or gangs who would merely carry guns illegally anyway.

[PavePusher]

89. So, how do the gun-crime stats compare....

between Arizona and Illinois?

[AsahinaKimi]

20. I don't understand...

It says "Officials have identified the shooter as 22-year-old Jared Loughner of Tucson." Why was MSNBC saying the shooter was 50 years old??

[justiceischeap]

25. No, the police are looking for a 2nd suspect, a 50 yr old white male n/t

[AsahinaKimi]

26. Ty

for clearing that up..

[Demeter]

27. And that makes it all right then?

Spare me.

[Arrowhead2k1]

33. I believe the OP was being sarcastic. nt

[brentspeak]

36. In NJ, LE do in-depth interviews with a permit-seeker's friends, family, neighbors, etc.

To make absolutely certain the prospective gun-owner isn't a nut, previous criminal or mental illness record or not. Dramatically cuts down on the type of psycho gun crimes that we saw today in Az.

[-..__...]

41. Ohh, that's comforting to know.

Living in a state where the police go door to door in order to determine if a person is qualified to exercise a Constitutional right.
:eyes:

[brentspeak]

79. At least 6 people dead in Arizona

because a nut was allowed by other nuts to "exercise" his "Constitutional right" to go on a shooting spree.

Funny how law-abiding residents in NJ are still allowed to own guns, and yet lone-nut gun massacres are fewer-and-far between here.

[PavePusher]

95. There is no such Constitutional Right, despite your snark.

In some places, we don't take away the Rights of the innocent to compensate for some asshole abusing his freedoms.

[brentspeak]

128. So which innocent people have had their rights taken away because of proper background checks?

[PavePusher]

94. In New Jersey, almost no carry permits are issued, period.

Oddly, they still have a nasty crime rate, so it doesn't seem to work too well.

Maybe they should do more, harder, faster and deeper.

[brentspeak]

129. Not coincidentally, psycho shootings by legal gunowners like yesterday's don't happen much in NJ

NJ cities have a high crime rate -- just like every other city in the nation. But that's an unrelated issue -- a red herring on your part -- as my post clearly referred to psycho shootings of the sort that happened yesterday in Arizona.

[PavePusher]

137. "psycho shootings by legal gunowners"...

...don't happen much anywhere. They are quite rare.

Do you think there is something special about New Jersey and it's laws that is stopping such things, or have you just been fortunate so far?

[No Elephants]

50. Way to get "legal" and "Tuscon shooting" in the same headline.

A gun is neither legal nor illegal, just as a human being is neither legal nor illegal.

Acquired legally.

[boppers]

53. Tucson.

Common spelling mistake, irritating as hell, though.

[xchrom]

71. recommend

[elocs]

72. We have our very own forum here at DU dedicated to the love of guns

with no restrictions except for maybe convicted felons or the mentally ill. Otherwise their attitude is that everyone should be armed. That way there would still been one hell of a shootout in Tucson, with the original shooter probably killed, but with just as many other innocent bystanders killed or shot, many by the armed "defenders".

[slackmaster]

80. Nobody is actually saying that everyone should be armed

Only people who want to be, and are not legally disqualified.

[brentspeak]

81. Known nutcase wanted to be armed, and was not legally disqualified

And because Arizona police are not allowed to make a determination of the prospective gun-owner's mental state...Result: Whole bunch of dead people.

So yes, for all practical purposes, you are saying that everyone should be armed.

[slackmaster]

82. I don't have a problem with him owning a gun

He hadn't been adjudicated as mentally incompetent, therefore the same rules apply to him as to you and me and everyone else.

I do have a problem with his behavior.

[brentspeak]

91. Very sporting of you to admit you have no problem with a psychopath being armed

Q.E.D.

[slackmaster]

98. If he had been LEGALLY ADJUDICATED as a psychopath, he wouldn't be allowed to own a gun

I'm OK with that because a legal adjudication can be challenged in a court of law.

I am not OK with curtailing a person's civil rights based on mere opinion, innuendo, rumor, etc.

Freedom is not free. The basic presumption of innocence means that sometimes people who do bad things can get tools that we may wish they didn't have.

A much better solution in my opinion is to make mental health care more easily available to everyone.

[brentspeak]

103. There's a legal determination of mental illness prior to commiting a crime? Who knew?

[slackmaster]

104. Sorry, I can't parse your post.

What are you trying to say?

A legal determination of mental illness makes a person ineligible to buy or possess a firearm.

I hope that clears up the facts.

[brentspeak]

118. In order to "clear up" the facts, you have to actually have facts in the first place

And your post, as usual, by design, has none.

Only in the most incredibly remote cases can anyone be legally adjudicated by the courts as "mentally defective". A clearly unstable like the shooter in question, because he had never been previously committed, easily falls through the NRA-approved definition of "legally adjudicated as mentally ill":

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr_2009/aprqtr/27cfr478.11.htm

Act. 18 U.S.C. Chapter 44.
Adjudicated as a mental defective. (a) A determination by a court,
board, commission, or other lawful authority that a person, as a result
of marked subnormal intelligence, or mental illness, incompetency,
condition, or disease:
(1) Is a danger to himself or to others; or
(2) Lacks the mental capacity to contract or manage his own affairs.
(b) The term shall include--
(1) A finding of insanity by a court in a criminal case; and
(2) Those persons found incompetent to stand trial or found not
guilty by reason of lack of mental responsibility pursuant to articles
50a and 72b of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, 10 U.S.C. 850a,
876b.

[slackmaster]

119. Please post a change in law that you believe would have prevented yesterday's shooting

One that would pass a constitutional challenge in court.

Thanks in advance.

[brentspeak]

122. Police-issued handgun permits, with demonstration of justifiable need to own such permit n/t

[slackmaster]

123. I can't accept subjective criteria being used to determine who gets to exercise civil rights

On this, we shall disagree.

[brentspeak]

126. Of course, none of it is actually "subjective criteria"

as such information culled from police-issued background checks are thoroughly discussed between not only among both local and state police, but also before a state police board, and, if necessary, the courts. That's several layers of ultimately objective fact-finding. So no one is actually denied a gun permit on purely subjective grounds. But thanks for the repeating the same tired talking-point.

[slackmaster]

138. What you're describing comes down to simple human opinion, even if it's consensus of some group

Ultimately it distills to an arbitrary group of unelected public employees deciding whether or not they agree that the applicant's stated reasons for getting a permit are sound and sufficient. The issuance of permits would not be consistent from one place to another, or at different times in a given place. Police could simply deny you a permit because they don't like you, and there wouldn't be jack shit you could do about it.

...but also before a state police board, and, if necessary, the courts. That's several layers of ultimately objective fact-finding.

It's not fact until a court says so. Your Byzantine system adds many layers that might take so long to get through that a person's civil rights have been effectively denied without speedy recourse.

A purely objective system (i.e. no felony conviction, no adjudication, no dishonorable discharge from the military, lawful resident of the state, of a particular age, etc.) avoids that problem.

[brentspeak]

145. Police don't "deny you a permit because they don't like you"

As has been patiently explained to you probably a hundred times on these boards in the past several years (are you really qualified to handle the awesome responsibility to own a firearm if you have to have things explained to you time and time and time again?) -- and which your own response accidentally points out -- the background check involves several layers of review (local police, state police, etc.).

[slackmaster]

147. The background check takes less than three minutes most of the time, in most states

Passing or failing it is determined by a set of clear, concise rules. You're talking about creating a bureaucratic maze that could take weeks or months to wade through, and you are unwilling to produce specific criteria that would disqualify a person from owning a firearm.

The system we have in place right now has very clear factors for determining who can have a gun and who can't. You're talking about giving more people opportunities to screw with peoples' exercise of a civil right, in which results would be inherently unpredictable. I thought our party's philosophy was for government to treat all people equally. The system in place works, and it's not at all certain that your proposed process would have prevented yesterday's massacre in Tucson.

[cleanhippie]

140. Dude, "demonstration of justifiable need to own such permit " is NOTHING BUT subjective.

How can you say in one post that the police should have the power to subjectively issue permits based on a "need" that they and they alone determine is applicable or not and then in the very next post say that it is not subjective.

You seem to be having a serious disconnect here.

[brentspeak]

144. You seem to have a serious problem with reading

I never said that the police alone make the judgment on the issue of justifiable need; I wrote that a permit-holder's request is reviewed by local police, state police, a separate board, and, if necessary, a court of law.

[Paladin]

99. You Have A Problem With His Behavior? Gee, Thanks. (n/t)

[slackmaster]

101. I hope you do to

I think you do.

[PavePusher]

96. Police are not generally trained to determine mental state.

But hey, if you want them to determine your Civil Rights, go right ahead. I'll caution you that it doesn't seem to have a good track record...

[brentspeak]

120. Like most Americans, I'm more concerned about my civil right of not being shot by a psycho

who was able to be armed thanks to the efforts of the gun lobby.

What "track record" are you referring to?

[slackmaster]

124. The Soviet Union had millions of people in camps because police decided they were mentally ill

Mental health adjudications should be difficult to obtain and must be subject to challenge, otherwise they would be subject to abuse by families and by governments.

[Name removed]

127. Deleted message

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

[slackmaster]

139. Oh my God, did they come and haul another one off to the Gulag?

:rofl:

[cleanhippie]

141. Where is that right written?

Oh, yeah, its not, you made it up out of whole cloth as a complete misrepresentation of the issue.

[wordpix]

75. college admin's recommended shooter be evaluated for mental issues BUT

instead the kid dropped out of school. (NY Times article, p.1) No Problem---just sell him a gun. :banghead:

[slackmaster]

106. Do you believe college administrators should be able to curtail your civil rights?

What if they decided your political philosophy was "dangerous" and said you shouldn't be allowed to vote?

[slackmaster]

78. The point is that the gun was USED unlawfully

Well, that's a relief; I'd hate to think the shooter broke the law...

Er, he did break the law.

[Downwinder]

92. Who is going to pay for the damage done? Does the gun owner

pay for medical costs for the wounded or is that the responsibility of Safeway, whose property it happened on?

[slackmaster]

97. The shooter is responsible and liable for damages

Owning the gun is not the issue.

[Downwinder]

102. Does he have a gun insurance policy like auto insurance?

Is there any requirement that gun owners show financial responsibility.

[slackmaster]

105. No insurance policy covers damages from criminal misconduct.

If you intentionally crash your car into a crowd of people, your auto insurance policy won't pay for any of the damage you caused.

Homeowner's and renter's insurance policies cover liability for damages from gun accidents

[Downwinder]

107. So what you are saying is that the victims are responsible

for their own medical costs.

[slackmaster]

112. People are always responsible for their own medical costs

You have signed paperwork agreeing to be financially responsible for it every time you have received medical care, even if you were hit by a city bus.

Victims of crimes have the right to sue the perpetrators for damages.

[Downwinder]

114. Makes a good argument for single payer.

That or requiring proof of financial responsibility for a gun purchase.

[slackmaster]

115. I'd be OK with requiring proof of fiscal responsibility to get a permit to carry a gun in public

The equivalent of a liability insurance requirement for driving.

[cleanhippie]

142. That is what the Civil Court system will decide.

Thats kind of its purpose.

[fascisthunter]

87. be careful how you argue about gun rights

its obvious it is not condoned to speak out against a right wing decision made by the SUpreme Court. Saying so gets your post deleted.

[slackmaster]

100. That is not true. DU rules do not prohibit anyone expressing an opinion contrary to that of the SC.

:hi:

[progressivebydesign]

117. of course it was. all you have to have is a pulse to get one in America.

Once again I've been reading the nonsensical and false claims by the gun fans claiming that if more people had been armed, this wouldn't have happened. And that America is SAFER because people can have guns, when in fact countries with strict gun laws, have a nano-fraction of deaths by ALL means, including guns. An armed society is not a polite society, it's a violent society. I'd really prefer to live in one of those countries that has real restrictions... places that have homicides in the hundreds, not in the 10s of thousands. :(

[jvanm]

125. What on earth is the point of pushing guns rights to

the point that it is perfectly legal to walk around in a public place with a semi-automatic and close to 100 rounds of ammunition in clips and at the ready?

[fascisthunter]

130. so that no legislation or regulation impedes gun sales

this isn't about protecting rights, because life is the ultimate freedom here. What is being protected is the gun industries' profits.

[friendly_iconoclast]

146. Thousands of people do that every day. They are known as "cops"

And they have a worse record on a per capita basis for unlawfully shooting people than those with CCW permits.


Yet people like you don't worry about cops, you worry about the civilians with a better record.

Why is that? For that matter, what law(s) do you think would have stopped someone like Loughner, bent on political assasination?