In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
What the anti's are saying (and doing)
Josey1
Member Posts: 9,598 ✭✭
Close gun-show loophole
Congress can take a step toward safety by closing the gun-show loophole on gun purchases.
People may now buy guns at gun shows without being subjected to a background check. The 1994 Brady Law required licensed gun sellers to conduct such checks, but it made no similar requirement for unlicensed sellers at gun shows. The loophole has always been a threat to safety, but the war on terrorism should certainly heighten attention to the law's shortcomings.
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., now has a bill that would give law enforcement authorities ample time to conduct the checks. Sen. John McCain, D-Ariz., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., are offering a different bill that addresses the problem by requiring a vendor's license for gun show operators and giving them access to the federal background-check database. Reed argues that the McCain-Lieberman approach isn't tough enough.
But both Reed and McCain have tied the issue to terrorism, saying it is too easy for would-be terrorists to get their hands on guns under the current law.
The National Rifle Association maintains that Sept. 11 had nothing to do with guns. That position, however, could backfire. McCain and Lieberman are aligned on the issue with Americans for Gun Safety, a group whose motivation sprang from the horrible school shootings of 1999. AGS could hardly be called anti-gun. It espouses ''rights and responsibilities,'' strongly supporting gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.
Whether gun-show sales facilitate terrorists or not, they certainly are ripe for abuse. Congress should explore the issue and close the loophole, putting the power on the side of law enforcement, not the bad guys.
http://www.tennessean.com/opinion/archives/02/06/18296698.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Congress can take a step toward safety by closing the gun-show loophole on gun purchases.
People may now buy guns at gun shows without being subjected to a background check. The 1994 Brady Law required licensed gun sellers to conduct such checks, but it made no similar requirement for unlicensed sellers at gun shows. The loophole has always been a threat to safety, but the war on terrorism should certainly heighten attention to the law's shortcomings.
Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., now has a bill that would give law enforcement authorities ample time to conduct the checks. Sen. John McCain, D-Ariz., and Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn., are offering a different bill that addresses the problem by requiring a vendor's license for gun show operators and giving them access to the federal background-check database. Reed argues that the McCain-Lieberman approach isn't tough enough.
But both Reed and McCain have tied the issue to terrorism, saying it is too easy for would-be terrorists to get their hands on guns under the current law.
The National Rifle Association maintains that Sept. 11 had nothing to do with guns. That position, however, could backfire. McCain and Lieberman are aligned on the issue with Americans for Gun Safety, a group whose motivation sprang from the horrible school shootings of 1999. AGS could hardly be called anti-gun. It espouses ''rights and responsibilities,'' strongly supporting gun ownership by law-abiding citizens.
Whether gun-show sales facilitate terrorists or not, they certainly are ripe for abuse. Congress should explore the issue and close the loophole, putting the power on the side of law enforcement, not the bad guys.
http://www.tennessean.com/opinion/archives/02/06/18296698.shtml
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Comments
Arsenal of evil ... some of the guns and ammunition found at homes of the teachers
By JOHN ASKILL
TWO gun-mad teachers were behind bars last night after hiding a sickening arsenal of weapons at their homes.
The obsessed pair had hoarded their lethal collections despite a nationwide ban after the Dunblane massacre six years ago.
Cops found THIRTEEN handguns at the home of primary school teacher Thomas Hosty, 53. He also had two CS gas canisters, a stun gun and hundreds of rounds of ammunition.
Thomas Hosty ... 13 guns hidden in house
Ex-secondary school master Borys Dmytrenko, 49, kept two loaded handguns by his bed.
Hosty was jailed for 12 months and Dymtrenko for six at Derby Crown Court after admitting possessing illegal firearms and ammunition.
They were trapped in a massive police operation designed to halt the rocketing supply of guns to Britain's crime gangs.
Instead police found a network of middle-class gun nuts who had refused to hand in weapons after Dunblane - when madman Thomas Hamilton killed 16 children and their teacher - and the Hungerford horror of 1987.
Borys Dmytrenko ... sentenced to six months
Many of the guns had been converted, some had their appearance changed and some had serial numbers shaved off.
They included a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver and a double-barrelled .22 Derringer pistol.
Hosty had kept one of the handguns fully loaded in a bedside cabinet at his home in Shaw, Greater Manchester.
He and retired teacher Dmytrenko, of Oldham, Greater Manchester, were members of the Diggle gun club in Oldham.
Last night a police source said: "We were shocked that two teachers, one at a primary school, should be involved given the horrors of Dunblane.
Hamilton ... monster
"But what is more shocking is that this appears to be the tip of the iceberg. We are finding weapons turning up all over the place as a result of this investigation.
"Previously intelligence has suggested weapons coming in from Eastern Europe. But many of the handguns used in gangland killings and murders across the UK have originally come from sources like this within this country.
"We are sure that a great many firearms are still being held illegally by gun obsessives such as these and that is obviously a danger to the public."
He added: "Hosty said he had guns to protect his family because there had been a rise in crime in his area.
"But there had been no more than a handful of crimes in the past two years."
Four other men appeared in court on firearms charges. Fireman Howard Foster, 42, of Halifax, West Yorks, got a six-month suspended sentence. Engineer James Whitehead, 64, of Shaw - who police said converted many of the guns - will be sentenced later.
Anton Ramsden 60, of Shaw, and John Hoarden 51, of Macclesfield, Cheshire, were given community service orders.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/article/0,,2-2002260304,00.html
TALK ABOUT MEDIA BIAS
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
No shield for gun industry
Wednesday, June 5, 2002
BUSINESSES SHOULD be held accountable for the design and efficacy of their products as well as the content of their advertising. Every industry in California has to play by these rules -- except, it seems, for gun manufacturers.
SB682 would change that by repealing a state statute that gives gunmakers immunity from liability. The measure, by Sen. Don Perata, D-Oakland, is in response to a state Supreme Court ruling last year that blocked an attempt to hold an armsmaker liable for crimes committed with the products it makes.
The court dismissed a lawsuit by survivors of the 101 California Street massacre that left eight people dead in 1993 after a man with two assault weapons went on a rampage. The court cited a 1983 law that barred gunmakers from lawsuits on the theory that benefits from their products outweigh the harm. Case closed.
Gun-control advocates were outraged. They argued that, if a gunmaker specifically markets weapons to criminals -- touting "high-volume firepower" and "excellent resistance to fingerprints" -- it must share blame if they're used for crime.
SB682 was approved by the Senate and is due for an Assembly vote as early as this week. "We're just extending the law," said Perata. "It does no more to gunmakers than we do to tobacco."
A repeal of the immunity law will not necessarily expose manufacturers to lawsuits each time a deadly weapon achieves its intended result. It will, however, cause manufacturers to think twice before blatantly catering to criminals in the design or marketing of guns. City attorneys in San Francisco, Oakland, Los Angeles and many other municipalities across the United States believe that they have compiled convincing evidence of such recklessness by the gun industry.
They deserve their day in court
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2002/06/05/ED242154.DTL
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
By LINDA GREENHOUSE
. Re "Justices Expand States' Immunity in Federalism Case" (May 29), you write: Justice Breyer "said the majority had rejected the 'basic understanding reached during the New Deal era that the constitutional system requires 'structural flexibility sufficient to adapt substantive laws and institutions to rapidly changing social, economic and technological conditions.'"
Advertisement
What was the "basic understanding that was reached during the New Deal era" to which Justice Breyer refers? Doesn't the 10th Amendment "restrict ... severely the authority of the federal government to regulate innumberable relationships between state and citizen?"
CLIFFORD SHAW
Portland, Ore.
A. This is a very rich subject. Justice Breyer's reference was to the turn-about that occurred on the court in the late 1930's, when the justices began upholding New Deal programs under an expansive view of Congress's power to regulate interstate commerce. This expansive view remained unchallenged until the current court began reexamining it in the mid 1990's.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Breyer characterized the New Deal court as having rejected "overly restrictive formalistic interpretations of the constitution's structural provisions, thereby permitting Congress to enact social and economic legislation that circumstances had led the public to demand."
Clearly, the New Deal era did not resolve the debate over the extent of congressional power -- it just pushed it below the radar screen for a couple of generations.
Q. Re "Justices Expand States' Immunity in Federalism Case" (May 29), does this ruling have any affect on Indian "states" sovereignty, weakening it or strengthening it? Or does the Indian depend more on the federal relationship due to his land being a federal reservation?
TRENCHARD
A. The decision was based on the court's interpretation of the 11th Amendment, which gives states immunity from suit. Consequently, the decision will have no bearing on the relationship between the federal government a Indian tribes -- which are treated under the law as sovereign nations for many purposes, but don't come under the 11th Amendment.
Q. Re "Justices Expand States' Immunity in Federalism Case" (May 29), Does the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling in Federal Maritime Commission v. South Carolina Ports Authority also immunize municipal agencies from EEOC complaints, which are brought by private individuals and can eventually end up in Federal Court, or in State Court under the State Discrimination Laws?
ROBERT L. GARBER
Pittsburgh, Pa.
A. The 11th Amendment applies only to states, not to cities. The precedents are clear that cities do not share the states' constitutional immunity.
Q. Re "Justices Expand States' Immunity in Federalism Case" (May 29), how would the maritime ruling affect states that have assumed primacy in the enforcement of federal environmental or health and safety laws? Would the states be exempt from citizen suits that charge them with failing to enforce those laws?
GREG EDWARDS
Richmond, Va.
A. Good question! I'm not sure I know the answer, or rather, I'm not sure there's a one-size-fits-all answer, at least not yet. As you indicate, a number of environmental laws have "citizen suit" provisions that explicitly contemplate that individuals will be able to bring their own lawsuits. Justice Breyer's dissenting opinion in the Federal Maritime case suggested that the ruling would curb enforcement of various environmental laws, but he didn't connect the dots with the citizen suit provisions.
One thing to bear in mind is that the 11th Amendment has been interpreted to bar suits only against "unconsenting" states -- meaning that states that have agreed to waive their immunity become "consenting" states and can be sued. Why would a state waive its immunity? They often do, as a condition on the receipt of federal funds, in the exercise of Congress's "spending clause" power. So states that receive various clearn water, clean air etc. grants from the feds may be deemed to have waived their immunity. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about this.
Q: Re "Justices Expand States' Immunity in Federalism Case" (May 29), if the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that states may be held immune from suit by employees under the American with Disabilities Act, the Age Discrimination Act and the Family Leave Act, what's to stop state governments from violating ANY Federal Law, ie: the Equal Employment Opportunity Law? Are we looking at an all young white male possibility in State employee rosters?
DEBBIE TIRADO
A: The federal government can still bring suits against states and state agencies -- the ability of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission to bring a suit in the circumstance you describe is not affected by the Federal Maritime Commission ruling. The 11th amendment immunizes states only against private suits. But of course, as Justice Breyer pointed out in his dissent, the agencies have come to rely on private actions as a kind of supplemental enforcement mechanism and are not currently staffed or structured to do it all on their own.
continued
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
TWO teachers were behind bars today for hiding an arsenal of firearms at their Greater Manchester homes.
They hoarded the lethal guns despite a nationwide ban after the Dunblane massacre six years ago.
Rochdale primary school teacher Thomas Hosty, 53, and ex-secondary teacher Borys Dmytrenko were both handed prison sentences yesterday at Derbyshire Crown Court.
Hosty, who received a 12-month sentence, was officially suspended from Harwood Park Primary in Hardfield Street late last year.
It followed the discovery of 13 handguns at his home in Shaw, by officers taking part in a massive swoop on firearm suspects.
Hosty was found to have kept one of the handguns loaded in a bedside cabinet, claiming he needed to protect his family due to rising crime.
Dmytrenko, also from Oldham, received a six-month sentence, also for keeping handguns.
Converted
During their trial it emerged the pals had been members of Diggle gun club in Oldham and kept guns, many of which had been converted or their appearance changed in some way. Some had their serial numbers shaved off.
The weapons included a Smith & Wesson .38 revolver and a double barrelled .22 Derringer pistol.
Both admitted to possessing illegal firearms and ammunition.
Police began an investigation into illegal firearms because of a rise in gun culture in inner city areas.
But they were shocked to discover a large number of respectable people who had not handed over outlawed weapons after Dunblane, where 16 children and their teacher were shot by Thomas Hamilton.
Now police fear the investigation has only scratched at the surface of the problem.
Yesterday four other men were in court on firearms charges including Shaw engineer James Whitehead, 64, who is to be sentenced later. Anton Ramsden, 60, also of Shaw, and John Hoarden, 51, of Macclesfield were both ordered to do community service. Howard Foster, 42, from Halifax, received a six-month suspended sentence.
Today Coun Colin Lambert of Rochdale's education committee said: "Now that Mr Hosty has been found guilty a disciplinary hearing will take place before the governors at Harwood Park Primary school.
"Obviously Mr Hosty will not be present, but you can be pretty sure what the outcome of that hearing will be."
Drinks
Prosecuting ,John Burgess QC told the court Hosty was an "obsessive collector'' and that he was prepared to break the law to keep the weapons he wanted.
Police carried out their raids last November, including Hosty's home where they discovered the cache of weapons, some hidden under the floorboards as well as large quantities of ammunition, CS gas and a stun gun.
During Hosty's trial it emerged the secretary of Diggle gun club would meet for drinks at the Bull Pub in nearby Shaw each week to talk about guns.
It was here police believe Hosty and fellow enthusiasts discussed how they could work round gun laws tightened in the wake of the Hungerford massacre
http://www.manchesteronline.co.uk/news/content.cfm?story=383289
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
June 2, 2002
Sgt. Kevin D. Miller is angry. He's frustrated. But he's got a plan.
Miller, who supervises the Detroit Police Department's Community Oriented Policing unit, speaks to students all the time at parochial, private and public schools citywide. But Miller, an officer for 16 of his 35 years, does more. He visits parents.
"I ask them what they are doing, how are they educating their child regarding violence," he said. "A lot of times, the children are not told that they're loved. The parents haven't been told that they're loved. So there's this ongoing degree of violence based on upbringing. There's no discussion about how to deal with violent situations without having physical combat."
After years of watching the kids and their parents, Miller has come up with a way to get guns away from children.
He wants school officials -- teachers and principals -- to ask children about guns in their homes, whether those guns are locked up and whether the children feel safe. The names of children who are scared at home would be reported to Child Protective Services and the police.
"We need to talk to children and have that information exposed," he said, a day after visiting Grace Hospital and praying with a 12-year-old Detroit boy shot by a 13-year-old friend who found a 22-caliber gun in his parents' home.
"The school has a responsibility to tell authorities what children are going through at home," he said. "I know that some of these children are crying out for help, but it's not being reported."
Not about civil rights
Miller says he isn't talking about violating civil rights. He's talking about saving children's lives.
"I'm talking prevention. I'm glad the prosecutor is prosecuting parents who don't put their guns away. The child has a right to live."
Miller's idea might work, said Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Nancy Diehl.
"People have a right to have guns in their homes, but if the guns are not put away, is that a threat of harm? I think an argument can be made that, absolutely, it is," she said. "In cases where kids are harmed by guns being left out, parents have been charged. So his idea is not so off-the-wall. I think it's worth pursuing."
Diehl says she's amazed that parents still leave guns out after reading about other parents whose children shot themselves or friends.
"We charge parents to deter them because how could they be punished worse than if they've lost a child?" she asked. "But it doesn't stop them. I give five stars to Kevin Miller. Somebody's got to wake these people up. There's nothing wrong with talking to kids and, based on information that there is harm or threatened harm to a child's health or welfare, that is a mandatory CPS referral."
A gift not given by man
Miller isn't waiting for a legislative mandate. He plans to encourage educators to talk to students more. And, of course, he'll continue talking with them, too.
His biggest message, one he'll give them whether they're in the classroom or the living room, is this:
"Life is a gift. Sometimes we don't see life as a gift. But it is. We don't have the right to take someone else's gift. That gift was not given by man so it should not be taken by man."
Hearing his commitment to children should serve as a reminder to any of us who can help kids.
Making sure that children aren't afraid in their own homes is not just something teachers can do. It's something we all should try to do.
Contact ROCHELLE RILEY at 313-223-4473 or e-mail riley@freepress.com.
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Dunblane, of course, was not funny. But the lack of perspective shown in being able to tell the difference between a collector and a gun-mad wacko is disheartening. Of course, having a collection of old rifles and revolvers (and a "double-barrel" .22 derringer) there is apparently illegal, which is even sadder.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - Josey1 on 06/07/2002 15:21:40