I guess filling out bile’s Firearm Reference Form for the second time inspired me call over to Nutley’s Police Department to inquire about my own ID. It’s been about nine months (Sep 19, my birthday) since I dropped off the paperwork and got fingerprinted. In those nine months I’ve seen bile, bosco, and ramuh get their ID’s and make their purchases. Ridiculous, I know. I suppose I could put a little blame on myself for not being overly persistent or aggressive, but I had little faith in my abilities to make anyone in the police department move any faster than they were currently going.

My experience throughout this process was that police officers and detectives have notably different attitudes about firearm possession. The police officers in my town always sounded “put-off” with any phone call I made–this includes my inquires about when I would be able to come down to process my fingerprints. They changed the times and dates on a weekly basis–to which I found out later were incorrect, thanks many to the detectives (who rolled their eyes when I explained how I was misled). The detectives were more than happy to answer any questions, go over my paperwork for accuracy, and fingerprint me twice (during the first round of printing, the computer froze and my prints were lost). They’re also very open about airing out their disgust of the system. They’ve critiqued the FBI’s ability to review prints in a timely basis and how the NJ Freeholder’s dragged their feet when they should have been verifying my mental background check. I was told that I should receive a phone call relatively soon:

I asked him what the phone call was for. He said, “Um, well, so you can pick up your ID; the nature of this conversation.” He sounded like he was holding back a laugh to avoid embarrassing me.

Being a stickler for following procedure, I had to ask, “But you guys never sent out the reference letters. Aren’t you planning on doing that?”

This time he laughed, “No.”

A little confused and interested, I explained what the procedure was (to my knowledge) and asked him why they weren’t going to bother with the references.

He replied, “We aren’t issuing the reference letters because it’s your Second Amendment right to own a firearm. Plain and simple.” He said that so clearly, as if his intention was to ensure that I never confused that right with anything else anyone would or could have said to me to skew it. For a moment I was speechless, due to half-expecting some run-around, asinine reply. Attempting to regain some ground in the conversation I stammered, “Well, yea. Exactly!” I could have just as easily said, “well duh,” and it would have been the same effect.

Still surprised, I continued the conversation further, “You know, in Fort Lee, they wouldn’t take that for an answer when I filled out the reference letter for my boyfriend. They called me up, told me they didn’t really want my opinion on gun control, and asked me to fill out another form if I was seriously interested about being a reference.”

He laughed, “Well, let’s be reasonable. If I am your worst enemy, are you really going to make me your reference? References don’t mean anything.”

We talked a little about gun politics and how if a criminal wants a gun, they’re going to get it through illegal means anyway, and how all these references and background checks really don’t do much.

It was a pretty refreshing conversation, I’m not going to lie.

It’s totally possible that my file has been sitting on their counter for months, and the only reason I have a pick-up date is because I called in today. Since the detectives have consistently kept positive, down-to-earth attitudes towards me, I’ll give them the benefit of the doubt this time and shelf my cynicism… at least until next Wednesday.

I receive a phone call from a number I didn’t recognize around noon today.
I usually don’t answer unknowns, as they tend to end with me struggling to explain to Spanish-speaking Texans that they’ve dialed the wrong number.
This was my conversation, to the best of my memory:

Me: Hello?

Caller: Um, yes. Is this Laurie Par-a-vati?

Me: Speaking.

Caller: Yes, hi. This is Officer (inaudible) from the Fort Lee Police Dept.

Me: Oh, hi. (I immediately try to remember if I missed paying a parking ticket or something)

Officer: Yes, you submitted a reference letter for an (real name omitted) bile. Did I pronounce that correctly?

Me: Close enough, and yes I did.

Officer: For a fire arm permit.

Me: On, yes! (possibly a little too eager)

Officer: (long pause) I’m not sure if you completely understood what you were supposed to write on the reference form.

Me: What do you mean?

Officer: Well, (sympathetic pause) in the section where you’re supposed to explain why you think bile should get a fire arm, you wrote ‘because he wants one’ and ‘it’s his 2nd Amendment Right’.

Me: Yeah. Is there someth–

Officer: I always say these papers aren’t clear enough.

Me: …

Officer: Well, (pause) we aren’t really concerned with your opinion on gun control. I mean, if you look at the news, just giving someone a gun because they want one really hasn’t worked out well.

Me: (I opt to bite my tongue instead of getting into a blog of bile discussion) Oh, yea, I watch the news. I mean…

Officer: What this is suppose to serve is (pause), a moment to sort of vouch for Mr. bile. Tell us briefly why you think he should get a firearm. I figured you probably didn’t understand the intention of that section.

Me: I see. Because I figured, since Fort Lee already issued him a firearm.

Officer: (pause) Yes, well, you know. If you look at the news, just giving someone a gun because they want one really doesn’t work out well. If you watch the news (nervous laugh) you’ll see this.

Me: Oh, okay. Right.

Officer: Well, if you are serious about being his point of contact…

Me: Can you send me another one then?

Officer: We’ll send you another form, and just briefly explain if you think he is capable of owning a firearm.

Me: No problem. Thank you.

Officer: Have a nice day.

I want to throw this out there: the officer was not being a jerk. He stuttered, was really trying to be polite, and almost sounded like he was expecting me to get confrontational with him.

So am I surprised that my comments got me a phone call? Yes and no. I knew what they wanted to read was most definitely not what I wrote, that’s for damn sure. But the fact that they actually took the bait, wasted the time to call me, have this conversation, and to resend the reference letter annoys me a bit. Sure, now I have blog of bile subject matter to post about, but at the expense of bile’s firearm license waiting period. I guess the new game is seeing how long it will take them to mail out the blank form again.

Moral of the story? The 2nd Amendment is not a good enough reason for wanting a firearm.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/…

Mayor Richard Daley said Saturday Chicago police officers will he armed with high-powered assault rifles when they’re on the streets fighting gangs and other criminals.

“Many times they’re outgunned, to be very frank,” Daley said at an event in the Englewood neighborhood. “When they come to a scene, someone has a semi fully-automatic weapon and you have a little pistol, uh, good luck.”

The city’s police officers carry pistols, and Daley suggested they will start carrying “M4 rifles.”

Police spokeswoman Monique Bond said the department still is working out details about the M4 carbines.

“It’s very preliminary. It’s really under review. It is something being reviewed. As far as all of the logistics, the training component, might be premature to discuss it at this point,” Bond said.

Daley pointed out that the Illinois State Police, Chicago SWAT units and other police departments around the country already carry high-powered assault weapons. He said the weapons will better match the Chicago police officers against criminals with sophisticated weapons, such as high-powered assault rifles.

“We’re finding out that the weapons of criminals are getting bigger and bigger, AK47s, all types of different weapons, because they can carry assault weapons, it’s not a violation of federal law, and that is a concern for all of us,” he said.

You mean to tell me that Chicago’s strong gun laws aren’t reducing gun crimes? That part about not a violation of federal law is bullshit. Any fully automatic weapon is considered a machine gun and a 70 year old federal law prohibits the public from owning them. A semi-automatic “assult rifle” is no more dangerous than any other semi-auto weapon. Why don’t they loosen gun laws so that individuals can carry and repeal all the drug prohibitions that create the high risk black market which the gangs happily work in? No illegal substances with high demand, no high risk black market, no need to have AK-47’s for self defense, no more reasons to put police in harms way, no more reasons to restrict the rights of innocent individuals.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/…

Gun rights advocates and the National Rifle Association won a victory today with the Florida House’s passage of a contentious bill that would allow employees to bring their guns to work.

The measure (HB 503) is a watered-down version of what the NRA had hoped for but is seen as a compromise that the Senate is also expected to sign off on.

Under the proposal, employees and visitors who have state-issued concealed weapons licenses would be able to bring their weapons to work and leave them locked in their vehicles.

The measure would exempt certain businesses from having to allow the guns, including schools, prisons, nuclear power plants, defense-related businesses and those that deal with explosive materials.

Also exempted would be company-owned or leased cars.

The business community, including the Florida Chamber of Commerce, has vigorously objected to the measure, saying it pits the property rights of employers against the Second Amendment rights permitting guns.

Thing is… gun rights are a subset of property rights. An individual can set whatever rules they wish for their property. If the employer doesn’t want employees to carry guns they don’t carry guns else they have no right to be on the property. There is no such thing as “Second Amendment rights.” The second Amendment says: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” What part of that delegates rights? It assumes a preexisting right to keep and bear arms and indicates the federal government may not infringe that right. They don’t permit guns… they disallow Congress from not permitting guns.

This is the problem with the NRA. They aren’t disciplined. They agree to all sorts of gun control laws and then pull this kind of crap.

Gun Owners of America is a much better organization.

http://www.nytimes.com/…

A majority of the Supreme Court appeared ready on Tuesday to embrace, for the first time in the country’s history, an interpretation of the Second Amendment that protects the right to own a gun for personal use.

That may be the easy part.

The harder question in the case challenging the District of Columbia’s handgun ban is determining what kind of restrictions the government could constitutionally place, in the name of public safety, on the newly recognized right. The answer to that question, on which the outcome of the case will turn, was less clear.

The argument was lively and intense, running 22 minutes over its allotted hour and 15 minutes. Despite “starting afresh,” as Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. put it, on a subject the court had not addressed since 1939, the justices appeared at least as well informed as the lawyers on minute details of English and American legal history.

Sounds like a fun time. Even if they rule against freedom I don’t see how it’s going to change anything. Freer gun states will do their thing and fascist states will do theirs. People like myself will only put up with the states crap for so long. At some point we will just stop even trying to play nice and follow the rules.

One thing about the old Massachusetts law… DC is under federal jurisdiction not state. The 2nd Amendment has not been incorporated so it could be an argument if this were about a state law but it’s not. I also don’t see how not having loaded weapons is in anyway the same has not have any.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/…

D.C. police are so eager to get guns out of the city that they’re offering amnesty to people who allow officers to come into their homes and get the weapons. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty and Police Chief Cathy L. Lanier announced yesterday the Safe Homes Initiative, aimed at parents and guardians who know or suspect that their children or other relatives have guns. Under the deal, police target areas hit by violence and seek adults who let them search their homes for guns, with no risk of arrest. The offer also applies to drugs that turn up during the searches, police said.

The program is scheduled to start March 24 in the Washington Highlands area of Southeast Washington. Officers will go door-to-door seeking permission to search homes for weapons. Police later plan to visit other areas, including sections of Columbia Heights in Northwest and Eckington in Northeast.

“If we come across illegal contraband, we will confiscate it,” Lanier said. “But amnesty means amnesty. We’re trying to get guns and drugs off the street.”

Fenty (D) and Lanier announced the plan as part of a new strategy to deal with the prevalence of firearms in a city that has one of the strictest gun control laws in the nation. The Supreme Court will hear arguments next week in a case challenging the constitutionality of the D.C. law.

Residents who agree to the searches will be asked to sign consent forms. If guns are found, they will be tested to determine whether they were used in crimes. If the results are positive, police will launch investigations, which could lead to charges.

Boston police are embarking on a similar program this month. Police in that city have been meeting with residents before the door-to-door effort begins. Philadelphia police are considering such an initiative.

Ronald Hampton, executive director of the National Black Police Association, questioned the Washington effort. As a lifelong D.C. resident and a former police officer, he said, he would not consent to his house being searched.

“They haven’t earned that level of access or respect from the community,” Hampton said. “I just can’t believe they’re trying to do that. I’ve never heard of anything like that in my life.”

Arthur B. Spitzer, legal director of the Washington office of the American Civil Liberties Union, said the program is “a very bad idea.” He said officers might act so aggressively that residents feel coerced into letting them in.

“It sends the message to the public that the police ought to be able to search your house anytime for any reason,” Spitzer said. “People will be intimidated. That cheapens civil liberties and privacy for everyone.”

At a news conference, Fenty and Lanier also said police will host monthly meetings with other law enforcement agencies to identify trends in gun-related crimes and to facilitate information sharing. The goal is to identify repeat offenders and find new ways to stop them, Lanier said.

“It should give us a much clearer picture of how to coordinate our efforts,” she said.

Police also announced the creation of an anonymous hotline for people to call with information about crimes. The line, 888-919-CRIME, is staffed by detectives. In the coming weeks, the department is planning to set up a system through which the public can send tips as text messages.

“We want to make sure the community has every means necessary to get in touch with us,” Lanier said.

How long till that amnesty goes away? What will they do if they lose the upcoming case in the Supreme Court? How is it that an adult with partial ownership of a property can give permission to search another’s property? There have been court cases thrown out where a wife or girlfriend let cops search private rooms. Sounds like a really bad idea to me.