[Vision2020] Firearms - Dangerous or Useful?

[Kai Eiselein, editor]

With half a kazzillion gun laws already on the books, a little enforcement- 
and common sense- would go a long ways. Unfortunately, neither is used much.
For instance, when someone is convicted of domestic assault, he/she is 
automatically banned from owning a weapon. Fair enough, so why isn't a 
search warrant automatically issued to confiscate any weapons in the 
offender's home?
Those weapons could be taken to a registered gun dealer and sold, with a 
percentage of the sale going to the gun dealer, and the rest going to cover 
any fines/court costs incured by the offender. Any remaining monies would be 
given back to the offender.
Its a win-win idea the guns are taken away from people who shouldn't own 
them, they are put into the legal sales pipeline and they could help offset 
costs.
Wait, that makes too much sense for lawyers and lawmakers to comprehend.
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Joe Campbell" <joekc at adelphia.net>
To: <vision2020 at moscow.com>
Sent: Saturday, July 28, 2007 11:06 AM
Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Firearms - Dangerous or Useful?


> Dan,
>
> I never said Hamilton had any 'full-automatic' weapons. I used the term 
> 'automatic,'
> which I intended to cover either semi- or full-automatic weapons. Given 
> your response,
> though, I suppose this is not standard usage.
>
> Any way, as reported by the Spokesman Review: "Investigators said they 
> found two
> semi-automatic weapons -- one an AK-47 beside Hamilton in the church and 
> in the
> parking lot a M1A rifle." Here is the website:
>
> http://www.spokesman.com/breaking/story.asp?ID=9959
>
> So just insert the phrase 'semi-' in my paragraph if it makes the point 
> clearer.
>
> Also, Hamilton's psychological background was far from 'alleged.' It was 
> pretty well
> known, as the Spokesman article and others have pointed out. In fact, 
> "Because Hamilton
> had been found guilty of domestic battery, it was illegal for him to own 
> firearms." (See
> above article.) Certainly I think you'll agree that in this case the 
> courts had the right to say.
>
> No doubt that is a separate issue, for whether or not they had the right, 
> they did say. It is
> just that their decision was not carried out. And the real issue is, Could 
> they have, should they have said something before he purchased the 
> firearms? This is indeed a sticky issue
> but it is precisely the kind of sticky issue with which lawmakers should 
> begin to engage.
>
> Best, Joe
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>