Instant check system

[Andy Wilson <ajw@Think.COM>]

   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