Re: capicity for violence = less violence? [was Re: Security]

Joe E. Dees (
Mon, 31 May 1999 13:56:31 -0500

Date sent:      	Mon, 31 May 1999 07:57:31 -0500
From:           	Chuck Kuecker <>
Subject:        	Re: capicity for violence = less violence? [was Re: Security]
Send reply to:

> At 09:59 PM 5/30/99 -0500, Joe Dees wrote:
> >
> >The names of those who do not meet
> >the criteria of responsibility (who have been convicted of violent
> >criminal offences, spouse and/or child abuse, or judged mentally
> >unfit by a legitimate psychiatric review) should be kept in a national
> >purchase-prohibited registry, AND NO OTHER NAMES. If you can
> >prove (say, with your birth certificate) that you are of age (18
> >seems reasonable to me) and your name does not appear on the
> >registry, your purchase should go through. These registries should
> >apply to, and be accessible by, gun dealers, gun shows, pawn
> >shop owners, flea market owners, and any other place where
> >weapons may be reasonably expected to be purchased by people
> >unknown to the seller. Those who knowingly sell a firearm or firearms to
> >someone on the prohibited registry should be prosecuted for the
> >sale, and held legally liable for any gun-related crime the buyer
> >subsequently commits with the purchased weapon(s). Those
> >who have these matters pending or
> >proceeding in court should have their names provisionally added to
> >the registry, to be removed upon acquittal or judgment of mental
> >fitness. All decisions should be appealable, but the names should
> >remain on the list until the appeals are decided. Trigger locks
> >should be required to be sold with every firearm, and if a shooting
> >subsequently occurs where the shooter has taken the weapon from
> >the owner without consent and the lock was not installed, the
> >owner should be held liable for neglect. If the trigger lock was in
> >place but subsequently picked or broken off, the owner should not
> >be held liable.
> >
> Sounds like a rework of the Brady Bill and recent Illinois legislation. Why
> would anyone object to this?
> The Brady bills' original three day waiting (cooloff) period seems to be
> just an annoyance to legitimate purchasers, and will probably result in
> injury or death to people who otherwise may have been able to defend
> themselves. Lawmakers are pressing to reinstate it even in the presence of
> the electronic registry.
I see no reason to have this provision in the law in an age where the registry can be checked in nanoseconds.
> I especially would like to see the liability waiver for trigger locks added
> to present legislation - how the courts can apply negligence penalties to
> someone who obviously took care to secure a dangerous item is beyond me.
> How do you feel about proposed limits on quantity purchases? I don't like
> the idea of govt. telling me how many of an item I can buy - but again
> can't see any legitimate reason for someone to need to buy more than one
> gun at a time. A truly rabid collector who just came into lots of money,
> maybe?
If a collector wishes to collect many guns, and even trade and barter them for other weapons with other collectors, fine; but this should not be used as a cover for illicit gun dealing. If a collector sells some of his weapons, the sales should come under the same registry umbrella as any other sales.
> Chuck Kuecker