Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!harpo!seismo!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk From: kfk@ccieng2.UUCP Newsgroups: net.flame Subject: Re: The ACTUAL handgun control bill Message-ID: <182@ccieng5.UUCP> Date: Mon, 24-Oct-83 17:29:12 EDT Article-I.D.: ccieng5.182 Posted: Mon Oct 24 17:29:12 1983 Date-Received: Tue, 25-Oct-83 05:50:55 EDT Lines: 84 I didn't expect to be submitting anything else on this subject, and I hope this will be my last. WRT the announcement by someone on what Handgun Control, Inc's bill "really says": *Halt the manufacture and sale of "Saturday Night Specials," that favorite weapon of the criminal and the assassin. ---------- 1. Define "Saturday Night Special." (The author went on to question whether this can be done. It can't without including a massive majority of all handguns.) 2. The bona fide assassin is a. not going to be bothered by making illegal or less available any one particular type of weapon. Ditto for the average criminal. b. not going to be prevented from his work since the average assassin (if such a thing exists) doesn't use a handgun anyway. They tend to use rifles. ---------- *Make tracing handgun ownership as quick and easy as auto- mobile ownership. ---------- 1. Since when is automobile tracing "easy?" If it were so easy, why is there still such a huge market for stolen cars? 2. When Reagan was shot in 1980, the original seller, owner, and (I think) the second owner of Hinckley's gun were known by the FBI and Secret Service within 2 hours. How is HCI's law going to improve on that? (I'm not even denying it would; but how?) Offhand, it looks like tracing a handgun is at least as easy as a car. ---------- *Check out handgun purchasers to make sure they don't have a criminal record or history of mental illness. ---------- 1. The Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms already does this. Again, how will HCI's bill improve on the situation? 2. The BATF has been known to use what might euphemistically be called improper procedures in raids to recover illegal weapons. If you're going to stop the BATF from this, I would almost support that aspect of it, except that I am convinced that whichever bureaucracy replaced it would be just as bad. (Worst case example: the BATF made a lit- tle mistake and raided the wrong home on one occasion; the homeowner thought he was being raided by hoodlums, attempted to defend himself *without* a firearm, and was shot and crippled by BATF agents. This is the gov't that will tell *me* whether or not I may own a handgun?) ---------- *Tighten control over the 170,000 handgun dealerships in America, and get pawnshops out of the business of selling handguns. ---------- I have very little argument with getting pawnshops out of this business. However, what do you mean by "tighten control?" Is this to be read, "tax out of existence?" Maybe "intimidate into submission?" It is possible that certain types of "control tightening" could be acceptable, but I will need a great deal of convincing that such controls would be severely limited (no "ballooning jurisdiction," an interesting phrase I heard recently) since most governments tend to abuse their powers. ---------- *Put behind bars anyone who uses a handgun in a crime. ---------- YES! YES! Count my vote in FAVOR of such things. I would very much welcome minimum sentences of, say, 25 years with no chance of parole in cases where a firearm is used in the commission of a crime. But, FIRST, convince the ACLU and the defense attorneys of the U.S. that a person who commits such a crime should not have charges dropped due to techni- calities. The average city police officer is doing his job very consci- entiously; he shouldn't be penalized if he errs once along the way. (Note: generally, average city police officer != BATF agent.) Also, convince these same people that a sentence of 25 years (or 7, or 15, or whatever) isn't "cruel and unusual punishment." ---------- These seem quite reasonable to me, although a bit vague... ---------- Exactly the problem. Is there anyone anywhere who would argue with putting criminals who use firearms in the commission of their crimes behind bars, generally for long periods of time? Is there anyone who wants some jerk to be able to knock over the neighborhood liquor store? Of course not. The vagueness is the major problem. It's just fine to say that you want to get rid of dangerous/poorly made/crime-prone handguns; so do I, and I'm on the other side of the debate. But how are you going to do it? What will the cost be to the rest of us who are most definitely not criminals? Karl Kleinpaste ...![seismo or allegra]!rochester!ritcv!ccieng5!ccieng2!kfk