Instant check system
Jim Miller asked about the "Brady Bill" instant check system. In the House version no deadline is set for the nation wide system. As for fingerprints, it is one of the ways the bill authorizes to check back grounds. My over payed earrend boy, Congressman Hinchy, got a copy of the bill for me and two of my Cornell pre-law friends looked it over. We still don't know what they want in the end. (not counting the total ban.) The bill did refer to an "individual number" a lot. It is not clear if the "individual number" is your SS number or the serial number of the weapon. I personly like the idea of instant check, if my privacy can be preserved. The last thing I want is either a convicted "rights-violator" with a weapon or someone keeping track on what I buy or don't buy. I have been trying to keep my life out of as many records as possable, and am a bit worried by the vage instant check program. (is visiting a srink for depresion a sign of mental instablity?) Ther should be a way for individuals to check on their own record, as often as they want, yet not alowing for others to check. i.e. the sellor types in your number (public key) and the confuser says OK or NOT OK. You type in your private key and see your arest record and such. One final item, I do agree that weapon ownership is not the issue we should talk to, but how can we protect our privacy yet keep "rights-violators" from open access to weapons. William Kone "I have trained over a thousand young men to eat, sleep, and shoot with their weapon. But, I still get worried the first time I give them the rifels."
kone@COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU writes:
Jim Miller asked about the "Brady Bill" instant check system. In the House version no deadline is set for the nation wide system.
An amendment was passed before voting that sunsets the Brady Bill to five years. So, effectively, there is a five-year deadline in the House version. This ignores the fact that the Feds have admitted that they cannot *force* states to perform the instant check. The Brady Bill only *suggests* that states implement an instant check.
I personly like the idea of instant check, if my privacy can be preserved. The last thing I want is either a convicted "rights-violator" with a weapon [...]
Instant check will initially have some effect on criminals getting guns, but certainly won't stop them. From memory, I think the FBI estimates that over 80% of criminals get their guns from places other than gun shops (for example, from theft, private sale). And as the instant check is implemented, I imagine that the black market will grow further. But this doesn't belong on cypherpunks, so I'll shut up.
There should be a way for individuals to check on their own record, as often as they want, yet not alowing for others to check. [...]
I agree, this is important. In the Virginia instant-check system, which is a de-facto registration (since they also have a stupid "one gun a month" law), you cannot check your status unless you actually try to buy a gun. Recently, a law-abiding citizen mistakenly tried to purchase a gun after only 28 days. He failed the instant check. After a couple weeks, troopers showed up at his house and tried to arrest him. Seems that he had "made a false statement" on his paperwork, which is a felony. Luckily, he did some fast talking and they later decided to drop all charges. This whole business make me sick. -- Patrick M. Fitzgerald, pmfitzge@ingr.com ______ / ___ ) [The United States] can't be so fixed on our / __)/ /__ desire to preserve the rights of ordinary (_/it(_____) Americans ... - President William Clinton, March 1, 1993, during a press conference in Piscataway, NJ, as reported by "The Boston Globe", 3/2/93, pg 3
From: kone@COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU Date: Fri, 12 Nov 1993 02:27:00 -0500 [...] One final item, I do agree that weapon ownership is not the issue we should talk to, but how can we protect our privacy yet keep "rights-violators" from open access to weapons. William Kone "I have trained over a thousand young men to eat, sleep, and shoot with their weapon. But, I still get worried the first time I give them the rifels." I disagree with your premise that there is any need to keep "rights-violators" from open access to weapons. The Brady Bill will have no effect on crime. It is a pathetic band-aid solution that does nothing to address the real causes of crime. It will only result in more potential abuses of the rights of law-abiding citizens. 1. Criminals don't always buy weapons from liscensed dealers, and after the bill passes and the system is in place, they won't at all. But this will not keep even one criminal from getting a weapon. You can get weapons easily and cheaply on the street. 2. The waiting period will have no effect other than deny law-abiding citizens in imminent danger the right to defend themselves. When someone threatens to kill you, they are not going to wait seven days before they do it. This is especially urgent for people who are being stalked. The waiting period will not keep even one potential murderer from getting a weapon, but will result in anyone who is in danger being a sitting duck for seven days. 3. Any reason other than prior convictions as grounds for denial would be unconstitutional. Alleging mental illness in order to deny civil rights was a favorite tactic of the former Soviet Union, and has been used in this country not so long ago to deny civil rights to homosexuals. People with behavior patterns that don't fit the white bread norm do not forfeit their right to self defense. c.f. Szasz, "The Myth of Mental Illness". 4. Convicted murderers belong in jail. If we didn't let them out, we wouldn't need to check their backgrounds. The way to keep "rights-violators" from open access to weapons is to keep them in jail. In order for this to happen prisons need to be privately held profit-making entities. I don't think there is any need for either a backround check or a waiting period. Curiously, a police officer in Cambridge told me recently that there is a law still on the books in Massachussetts that it is unlawful for a head of household to be in public *without* a firearm on Sundays, the rationale being that the head of household is responsible for the defense of the family. I wonder if he is correct. Andy
Andy Wilson writes:
...open access to weapons...The Brady Bill...
Let me just accelerate things here: The Brady Bill is just a gun-grabber Creationist plot to foil Nazi Abortionists who don't realize that Libertarinaism is the only true way to distinguish saffron from turmeric. And the new Star Trek *is* better than the old one. Nyaaa. -- Mike McNally
participants (4)
-
Andy Wilson -
kone＠COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU -
m5＠vail.tivoli.com -
Patrick M. Fitzgerald