Imprisoned for Not Having a Gun?
At 5:35 PM 8/8/96, talon57@well.com wrote:
Jonathon <grafolog@netcom.com> wrote:
Said ordinance being passed, as a protest against Elk Grove, IL passing an orinance, banning handguns. Anybody know when Elk Grove revoked their ordinance? Crime went down for six months there [ Elk Grove ] after the ban was passed, then it went up far surpassing previous crime levels, for all types of crime.
Pardon me Jonathon, but I believe you are confusing Morton Grove with Elk Grove. I do not have the statistics for the crime rates there, but several friends who have moved from there insist the crime rate has continued upwards as you mentioned. Also there are a couple of other interesting facts.
Regarding that town nearby that passed a _requirement_ that all households have a gun: "Ma'm, I'm Deputy Uptite, of the Dork's Grove Sheriff's Department. I'm here to check on reports that you haven't obtained a gun, as required by law. Could I come in and take a look around?" "But I don't like guns, and I don't want one in my house." "I'm sorry, ma'm, but it's the law. According to the People's Self-Protection Act of 1997, you _must_ have a gun. Now what I'm going to do is give you a break. Think of this as a "fix-it ticket." Take this down to my cousin's gun store, right off of Main and 10th, and he'll get you set up with a Glock 23 or maybe a nice little Beretta. Shouldn't cost you more than $400, and it'll save you a 6-month stretch at the work farm. Have a nice day. Oh, and be sure to spend at least an hour at the week at the range...that's part of the law, too." --- Pro-gun fascism is just as bad a anti-gun fascism. I do recall that the "you must have a gun" town had some exemptions for folks opposed to guns, blah blah, but it still is intensely revolting to me that any town could ever pass such a law. Much as I think being armed is useful and all that, allowing such a law to go unchallenged feeds into the same approach that tries to ban guns...if guns can be required, they can be banned. What part of the Second Amendment did they not understand? (Legal quibblers will perhaps say the Second applies to _Congress_ (as in "Congress shall make no law"), and not to states and communities. I disagree. Can a town restrict free speech just because it is not the Congress?) --Tim May Boycott "Big Brother Inside" software! We got computers, we're tapping phone lines, we know that that ain't allowed. ---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, tcmay@got.net 408-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. "National borders aren't even speed bumps on the information superhighway."
Tim: On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Pardon me Jonathon, but I believe you are confusing Morton Grove with Elk Grove. I do not have the statistics for the crime rates
Mea culpa. Morton Grove is right.
Regarding that town nearby that passed a _requirement_ that all households have a gun:
In the case of Kennesaw, if you had a personal objection to having a handgun -- or any other weapon --- in your home, you were automatically exempt. If federal, or state law prohibited you from owning a weapon, you were also exempt. Also note that the official city policy was to not enforce that specific law. It was a purely symbolic thing, which did have some interesting side-effects. xan jonathon grafolog@netcom.com VapourWare is like the Tao, Looked for it cannot be found, Reached for it cannot be touched, Waited for not even FedX can deliver; <Paid for it will not be refunded>
Tim, THe "must have a gun" was a political-art statement; a rhetorical device. I realize that you didn't recognize it as such, because there is never any inflammatory or posturing rhetoric on this list.....
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ SANDY SANDFORT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . C'punks, On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Regarding that town nearby that passed a _requirement_ that all households have a gun: ... Pro-gun fascism is just as bad a anti-gun fascism.
I do recall that the "you must have a gun" town had some exemptions for folks opposed to guns, blah blah, but it still is intensely revolting to me that any town could ever pass such a law...
I can't find the exact quote, but Will Rogers quipped that every time Congress made a law, it was a joke. And every time Congress made a joke it was a law. The town near Morton Grove was not making a real requirement that every household have a gun, they were just making a joke at Morton Grove's expense. In addition to the "exceptions," there was no penalty for violation of the law, thus making sure it was unenforceable. It was not a case of "pro-gun fascism" but of rough American political humor. At the very least it kept the city council out of more serious mischief. S a n d y ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Sandy Sandfort wrote:
I can't find the exact quote, but Will Rogers quipped that every time Congress made a law, it was a joke. And every time Congress made a joke it was a law. The town near Morton Grove was not making a real requirement that every household have a gun, they were just making a joke at Morton Grove's expense. In addition to the "exceptions," there was no penalty for violation of the law, thus making sure it was unenforceable. It was not a case of "pro-gun fascism" but of rough American political humor. At the very least it kept the city council out of more serious mischief.
This is very similiar to the law (federal I believe) which states that you must report any 'computer crimes' to the authorities. There are no punishments and it was obviously crafted to be more of a means of counting the crimes than solving them. If anyone is interetes, I will get the specifics. ________________________________ [ Bruce M. - Feist Systems, Inc. ] ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ "Official estimates show that more than 120 countries have or are developing [information warfare] capabilities." -GAO/AIMD-96-84 So, what is your excuse now?
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- On Thu, 8 Aug 1996, Timothy C. May wrote:
Pro-gun fascism is just as bad a anti-gun fascism.
I do recall that the "you must have a gun" town had some exemptions for folks opposed to guns, blah blah, but it still is intensely revolting to me that any town could ever pass such a law. Much as I think being armed is useful and all that, allowing such a law to go unchallenged feeds into the same approach that tries to ban guns...if guns can be required, they can be banned. What part of the Second Amendment did they not understand? (Legal quibblers will perhaps say the Second applies to _Congress_ (as in "Congress shall make no law"), and not to states and communities. I disagree. Can a town restrict free speech just because it is not the Congress?)
--Tim May
I agree with you. I don't have anything against guns, but either requiring them or disallowing them is just plain dumb. It should be noted that the Supreme Court's interpretaion of "Congress shall make no law" is basicly "no lawmaking body that holds any jurisdiction shall make no law"... --Deviant There are four kinds of homicide: felonious, excusable, justifiable, and praiseworthy ... -- Ambrose Bierce, "The Devil's Dictionary" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: 2.6.2 iQEVAwUBMgrhejAJap8fyDMVAQEl1gf8C06PaoBEoOB971MpYa/4DejUinTxvpCS 9Q8/AgPSnbIlMhbwGcFkbjM+kuORfsWTJmlczMRxRXIApyK4qIYoG9HEx1lYWJ+b bZ7X5FpiSKm3fIZ52eK8R2jCdcxGlq/5Fm3DrGemvPBb5swKMR8y3WWs/ETuwzOM vTBXskonzAqRoMPysKyDUc2BY5n6+k5M22JAalIyAD8HQVyTgxcPv4E8qTWsgW60 qgNy+mv3nJ0sERCDas8WWCPWJ4FuIKg+KgL8bFELkri1CU7f5DdKCxa5bFfMM9kN njd6mXMZ3qVbNtkMG59xOVIoOIx918jzXZcnXyoThbBCvIyTOFPnHQ== =aSan -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
participants (6)
-
Alan Horowitz -
Bruce M. -
jonathon -
Sandy Sandfort -
tcmay＠got.net -
The Deviant