Instant check system

Jim Miller asked about the "Brady Bill" instant check system.  In the House
version no deadline is set for the nation wide system.  As for fingerprints,
it is one of the ways the bill authorizes to check back grounds.
 
My over payed earrend boy, Congressman Hinchy, got a copy of the bill for me
and two of my Cornell pre-law friends looked it over.  We still don't know
what they want in the end. (not counting the total ban.)  The bill did refer
to an "individual number" a lot.  It is not clear if the "individual number"
is your SS number or the serial number of the weapon.
 
I personly like the idea of instant check, if my privacy can be preserved.
The last thing I want is either a convicted "rights-violator" with a weapon or
someone keeping track on what I buy or don't buy.  I have been trying to keep
my life out of as many records as possable, and am a bit worried by the vage
instant check program. (is visiting a srink for depresion a sign of mental
instablity?)
 
Ther should be a way for individuals to check on their own record, as often as
they want, yet not alowing for others to check.  i.e. the sellor types in your
number (public key) and the confuser says OK or NOT OK.  You type in your
private key and see your arest record and such.
 
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."

kone@COURIER1.SHA.CORNELL.EDU writes:
> 
> Jim Miller asked about the "Brady Bill" instant check system.  In
> the House version no deadline is set for the nation wide system.

An amendment was passed before voting that sunsets the Brady Bill to
five years.  So, effectively, there is a five-year deadline in the
House version.  This ignores the fact that the Feds have admitted that
they cannot *force* states to perform the instant check.  The Brady
Bill only *suggests* that states implement an instant check.

> I personly like the idea of instant check, if my privacy can be
> preserved.  The last thing I want is either a convicted
> "rights-violator" with a weapon [...]

Instant check will initially have some effect on criminals getting
guns, but certainly won't stop them.  From memory, I think the FBI
estimates that over 80% of criminals get their guns from places other
than gun shops (for example, from theft, private sale).  And as the
instant check is implemented, I imagine that the black market will
grow further.  But this doesn't belong on cypherpunks, so I'll shut
up.

> There should be a way for individuals to check on their own record,
> as often as they want, yet not alowing for others to check. [...]

I agree, this is important.  In the Virginia instant-check system,
which is a de-facto registration (since they also have a stupid
"one gun a month" law), you cannot check your status unless you
actually try to buy a gun.

Recently, a law-abiding citizen mistakenly tried to purchase a gun
after only 28 days.  He failed the instant check.  After a couple
weeks, troopers showed up at his house and tried to arrest him.  Seems
that he had "made a false statement" on his paperwork, which is a
felony.  Luckily, he did some fast talking and they later decided to
drop all charges.

This whole business make me sick.
--
Patrick M. Fitzgerald, pmfitzge@ingr.com             ______
                                                    / ___  )
  [The United States] can't be so fixed on our     / __)/ /__
  desire to preserve the rights of ordinary       (_/it(_____)
  Americans ...  - President William Clinton,
  March 1, 1993, during a press  conference in Piscataway, NJ, as
  reported by "The Boston  Globe", 3/2/93, pg 3

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

Andy Wilson writes:
 > ...open access to weapons...The Brady Bill...

Let me just accelerate things here:

	The Brady Bill is just a gun-grabber Creationist plot to foil
Nazi Abortionists who don't realize that Libertarinaism is the only
true way to distinguish saffron from turmeric.  And the new Star Trek
*is* better than the old one.  Nyaaa.

--
Mike McNally