Let's leave this issue alone for a while 

Sent from my iPhone
Daniel J Herron


On Dec 17, 2012, at 7:40 PM, "Joyce Barrett" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

> I have several ideas that I'd like to hear the group chew on.  They would be 
> viewed as draconian in some circles.
> (1) Outlaw private sale of guns.  You can only buy guns from the government. 
> Our members from Pennsylvania (where I grew up) may wish to comment inasmuch 
> as the sale of alcohol in Pa. for years was through government run liquor 
> stores we called in Philadelphia, State Stores.
> 2) A reduced version of #1.  Only the government can sell automatic weapons.
> 3) Require all manufacturers to imbed a signal device, maybe on the lines of 
> anti theft devices on goods in stores.  Police could use sensors that would 
> detect when a person is carrying a gun.  It doesn't limit the right to own a 
> gun but does allow the police to stop people to see if they guns are 
> properly registered.
> These would certainly cause an up snort
> 
> Joyce
> Joyce Barrett, Law. Dept. Baruch College
> 
> -----Original Message----- 
> From: Maurer,Virginia G
> Sent: Monday, December 17, 2012 2:56 PM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Newtown
> 
> Well, we're lawyers here. What kind of solution protects both the 2nd 
> amendment and the security and welfare of our people? I can think of lots of 
> proposals, but here is one I have not heard (although undoubtedly I am the 
> 20,000th person to think of this since there really are not any new ideas in 
> the world): Criminalize failure to secure firearms from known incompetents 
> who use them to kill people without justification. Make them accessories to 
> murder. Let them rot in prison.
> 
> Now, of course, none of that would punish Mrs. Lanza, whose illusion that 
> owning such weapons would protect her life actually caused her death. But 
> she knew she had these weapons in her house. She knew she had a 
> schizophrenic 20 year old living in the house. If she could envision the 
> personal consequences to herself of going to prison for not effectively 
> securing those weapons, would she have taken action that probably would have 
> saved her life?
> 
> Well, we know that the use of the criminal sanction to deter behavior is 
> only imperfectly effective, but criminalization might cause most people to 
> think more deeply about how they secure their weapons and also notice the 
> social approbation attached to irresponsible behavior. And, as with many 
> other crimes, most responsible people would already have taken the action 
> the law was designed to promote.
> 
> In short, make the gun owners take personal responsibility for their 
> behavior or negligence.
> 
> Next argument: What about knives? Well, there are paring knives and there 
> are Samarai swords. Yes, leaving a collection of Samarai swords on the walls 
> in reach of small children or the insane is similarly negligent and people 
> should take responsibility for that decision, too. That is, the standard of 
> behavior should be commensurate with the risk of injury as a reasonable 
> person would assess it. I guess that is criminalizing gross negligence.
> 
> Oh, and of course civil damages.
> 
> Anybody have thoughts on that? It secures the right to bear arms and makes 
> people take responsibility for their own behavior.
> 
> Most likely, however, it is not enough.
> 
> Ginny