Re: KNOCK KNOCK! -- To much time on our hands

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 03:06:47 02/25/02 Mon
Author: Daytime reader
Subject: Re: KNOCK KNOCK!
In reply to: Rebel 's message, "KNOCK KNOCK!" on 14:59:06 01/10/02 Thu

I was cruising along reading your post when I suddenly blacked out. ZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.

>> > > Anyone here? If so, why? How about a paste job?
> > > >Gun Laws Breed Corruption
>Dr. Michael S. Brown
>Jan. 10, 2002
>
>
>
>Power corrupts. This ancient truism is rooted in the
>dim history of humanity, but has expressed itself in
>America's fascinating experiment with restrictive gun
>laws.
>
>The goal of all gun control laws is to restrict
>ownership to certain segments of humanity. The utopian
>idea of a total ban is obviously impractical, but
>lesser laws intended to keep guns out of the "wrong"
>hands have been too tempting to reject.
>
>Laws that attempt to regulate the availability of
>handguns in the United States began in the Old South,
>where prohibitions on inexpensive or concealable guns
>were aimed at recently freed slaves.
>
>Rapid immigration and social turmoil in the early part
>of the 20th century caused some Eastern cities to take
>similar measures. These were modeled on European laws
>that were considered to be successful in dealing with
>political dissidents, anarchists and labor agitators.
>The most notable was New York City's Sullivan Law of
>1911, which required a police permit to own a handgun.
>
>The common goal of all gun laws was to keep guns out
>of the hands of minority races and immigrants while
>allowing free access for established white citizens.
>This concept of legalized discrimination still exists
>in several states that have not reformed their gun
>permit laws.
>
>Almost every state in the union has some method of
>providing permits to those who need or want to carry a
>concealed weapon (CCW). Thirty-three states offer
>permits to all citizens who pass a criminal background
>check regardless of race, ethnicity or social status.
>These are called "shall-issue" states.
>
>I happen to live in the state of Washington, where a
>quarter-million permits are currently active under a
>shall-issue law. Permit holders have proven to be the
>most law-abiding single sector of society. Police
>agencies in Washington learned long ago that permitees
>are not to be feared. Applicants are universally
>treated in a cheerful and professional manner. When
>stopped for traffic violations, permit holders might
>even receive a bit of extra courtesy.
>
>States which allow police departments to determine who
>gets a CCW permit are called "discretionary" or
>"may-issue" states. This system gives police chiefs
>and sheriffs a special power that is ripe for abuse.
>
>The corruption of the discretionary CCW system is
>legendary. New York City has the most draconian gun
>laws in the nation. A rare police permit is required
>just to possess any firearm in your home. Even more
>difficult to acquire is a permit to allow concealed
>carry of a handgun.
>
>The New York system has provided some of the most
>outrageous examples of how the system can be abused.
>Applicants must go before a special licensing officer,
>known for rude and punitive treatment of applicants,
>especially those who do not have connections.
>
>An article in Newsday tells of one such officer who
>was suspended and fined in 1997 when his misconduct
>exceeded even the lax standards of his department.
>According to the Newsday article, "corruption and
>favoritism have run rampant within the
>pistol-licensing division for decades."
>
>Ordinary citizens who have had death threats or those
>who operate small businesses in high-crime
>neighborhoods have little hope of obtaining a permit.
>And using an unlicensed gun to defend oneself in New
>York City is a guarantee of serious prison time, no
>matter how legitimate the defensive need.
>
>According to information obtained through leaks and
>the Freedom of Information Act, many NYC permitees are
>celebrities and political cronies. The last time
>information was released, celebrity permit holders
>included William F. Buckley Jr., Donald Trump, Joan
>Rivers, a member of the Rockefeller family and Arthur
>Sulzberger, publisher of the rabidly anti-gun New York
>Times.
>
>Another over-represented group included those with
>crime connections. According to the Village Voice:
>"Other licensees include an aide to a city councilman
>widely regarded as corrupt, several major slumlords, a
>Teamsters Union boss who is a defendant in a major
>racketeering suit, and a restaurateur identified with
>organized crime."
>
>Things may have improved somewhat in New York
>recently. Attorneys now advertise on the Internet that
>they can help obtain CCW permits, although the process
>typically requires several months and thousands of
>dollars. In New York City, only the wealthy have the
>right to armed self-defense.
>
>This odd form of corruption is not due to the spiteful
>nature of New York cops. It is a logical result of a
>flawed system, as evidenced by blatant gun licensing
>corruption in other "discretionary" states.
>
>In Massachusetts, a group called Pink Pistols
>criticized a discretionary licensing law in that state
>with this press release:
>
>"From a civil rights standpoint, the law is
>horrifying," complained David Rostcheck, an activist
>with the Pink Pistols, a civil rights group that
>protects the rights of shooters with alternative
>sexualities. "It's racist, classist, sexist,
>homophobic, and it discriminates against the elderly
>and disabled. When people actually sit down and read
>it, even ardent gun control advocates are shocked at
>what it legitimizes. A police chief can deny a license
>to a legally qualified person based on their gender,
>their housing, their sexual orientation absolutely
>anything they want. Jesse Helms never managed to pass
>legislation this discriminatory."
>
>When a state law fails to provide a uniform standard
>for issuing CCW permits, it is impossible for local
>authorities to bestow this privilege fairly. Even if
>common human failings like greed and prejudice could
>be eliminated, other factors still prevent effective
>administration of discretionary laws. Personnel
>turnover, political pressure and variations from one
>area to another ensure that citizens will not receive
>fair and equal consideration of their requests.
>
>The latest and most prominent efforts to expose the
>corruption of discretionary CCW laws are being
>undertaken in California. In addition to the usual
>requirements, California state law says that if
>applicants can prove that they are of "good moral
>character" and have a "good cause" they will receive a
>permit.
>
>Perhaps being an anti-gun politician counts as good
>moral character in California. Two famous permit
>recipients are fanatically anti-gun U.S. Senator
>Dianne Feinstein and gun-owner-hating California State
>Senator Don Perata.
>
>Activist Jim March has begun a long campaign to reveal
>how California cities and counties are abusing the law
>and their citizens. Law enforcement agencies do not
>want this information to become public, even though
>court decisions have declared that it cannot be kept
>secret. They know that their discriminatory practices
>violate various laws and court decisions, so Mr. March
>is forced to file official requests under the state
>Public Records Act.
>
>His first target was Marin County, just north of San
>Francisco. Mr. March documented the bizarre tangle of
>illegal regulations and Catch-22s that face residents
>of Marin County who wish to apply for a permit.
>Applicants with some connection to the government
>receive preferential treatment. A person with no
>government connection may be refused even when he
>meets the same standards.
>
>During his research, March turned up a police report
>from Sacramento County that gives more insight into
>the way that CCW laws are abused in parts of
>California. The honest officer who typed the report
>described how he arrested a drunk who apparently
>showed someone his pistol in an unfriendly manner. The
>drunk turned out to have a CCW permit issued by
>then-Sheriff of Sacramento County Glen Craig.
>
>The officer asked how someone who worked in the
>construction business was able to obtain one of the
>hard-to-get permits. The response was: "It is all
>political. It is just a big game. I am a major
>contributor of [current sheriff] Lou Blanas and Glen
>Craig and they gave me a concealed weapons permit."
>
>The City of Oakland was next. Only one citizen in
>Oakland possesses the necessary good moral character
>to receive a CCW permit in that city of 400,000 souls.
>This gentleman happens to be a close crony of the
>mayor and is known for his behavioral problems, which
>are highlighted by a sexual harassment suit that the
>city settled out of court for $50,000.
>
>March's current target is Santa Clara County, which
>has a reputation for corrupt and discriminatory CCW
>policies. This county illegally refused a Public
>Records Act request from another activist, Nadja
>Adolph, so she and March are considering a lawsuit to
>force the county to release its CCW data.
>
>Adolph and March publish their results on the popular
>website KeepAndBearArms.com, where supporters of gun
>rights eagerly await the next juicy details of
>California corruption.
>
>Another investigation is being undertaken for the
>California Rifle and Pistol Association. Attorney
>Chuck Michel said in a phone interview that he has
>filed 250 information act requests for CCW records
>around the state. Only about 100 police agencies have
>responded.
>
>Michel is particularly familiar with the odd strategy
>pursued by the City of Los Angeles. All permit
>requests there are routinely denied, generating
>numerous lawsuits that cost the city approximately
>$100,000 a year to defend.
>
>At one time, the Los Angeles County sheriff allegedly
>created a special reserve unit that allowed him to
>award CCW privileges to celebrities, friends and
>campaign contributors. This was while he routinely
>denied permits to citizens with multiple death threats.
>
>Under discretionary laws, police officers are forced
>to decide whose life is worth protecting. Like
>something out of medieval times, the average working
>man or woman is denied a permit while celebrities and
>political cronies are blessed by local warlords with
>the privilege of defending their lives.
>
>Thirty-three states have already reformed their laws,
>with excellent results. Contrary to the shrill scare
>tactics of the anti-gun lobby and some self-serving
>law enforcement agencies, blood did not run in the
>streets and people did not suddenly begin to murder
>each other over minor disputes. Violent crime, in
>fact, decreases when shall-issue laws are enacted.
>
>Peaceful Vermont, perhaps the most enlightened of all,
>needs no permit system of any kind, since any adult
>who is not prohibited from owning a firearm may carry
>it concealed at any time for any lawful purpose.
>
>Discretionary carry laws are a breeding ground for
>police corruption and an anachronism that should not
>exist in a society that prides itself on fair and
>equal treatment for all citizens.
>
>Dr. Michael S. Brown is an optometrist and member of
>Doctors for Sensible Gun Laws: www.dsgl.org. E-mail
>the author at: rkba2000@yahoo.com
>
>References:
>
>http://www.rkba.org/research/cramer/shall-issue.html
>http://www.saf.org/LawReviews/Novak1.html
>http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-284.html
>https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewIte
>m.asp?id=2918
>https://www.keepandbeararms.com/information/XcIBViewIte
>m.asp?id=2893
>
>
>
>Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics:
>Guns/Gun Control

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]