Armed robber killed by C&C permit holder when he tried to rob an AA meeting.

[greguganus]

http://www.thestate.com/local/story/747998.html

Robbing an AA meeting? That's a first. Robber was killed by 61-year-old attorney attending the AA meeting. Quicker on the draw.

[Wickerman]

1. again?

Either an old story or not a first.

[guardian]

6. I wonder what "step" this falls under? n/t

[Nailzberg]

50. article is dated april.

I heard this one already, still never gets old.

[imdjh]

2. CCW - the blessings of sobriety.

[monmouth]

3. Amen. I would add those "Lunch" meetings are sometimes brutal...LOL...n/t

[imdjh]

14. Old AA rule, "Going from suicidal to homicidal is progress." nt

[zazen]

4. serenity includes the "courage to change the things I can"

There's a weird Ayn Randian strain in AA, interwoven with the Eastern philosophy.

Some AA sponsors are almost as brutal to their sponsorees. I knew of one (dumbass) who handed a loaded gun to a suicidal alcoholic psychiatrist in CH in the late 80s whom he was sponsoring saying, okay, stop threatening to kill yourself and either do it or get off your "pitypot," and the psychiatrist blew his own brains out right in front of him.

Some of these folks are really into tough love.

[Wickerman]

5. lol

I tried a similar approach once with someone who was constantly threatening. Decided then that counseling really wasn't for me. :hide:

[imdjh]

11. I modified it a bit , "The courage to change the things I cannot accept." nt

[iverglas]

18. the best one

"God grant me the authority to change the things I cannot accept."

Google finds it in a reference to the party convention where I bought my button. ;)

[iverglas]

7. y'know

Somehow the idea of being surrounded by people carrying firearms at an AA meeting wouldn't really thrill me.

Interesting. Isn't addiction a bar to acquiring a firearm in the US?

I guess that guy had his 10-year chip or some such thing.

I dunno. Seems that other drug abuse is a bar, but not alcohol.

http://www.ocshooters.com/Gen/Form-4473/ATF-Form-4473.htm

Great.

[Deadric Damodred]

9. Congragulations

Reading between the lines, it would seem you would want someone's right to own firearms revoked for their attending AA meetings. Congragulations, now nobody who is addicted to alcohol would be stupid enough to admit they have a problem and attend join an AA group because they know the consequence of getting help for their problem would be loss of their 2nd Amendment rights. Just like any soldier who comes back with mental problems would plum dumb to go seek help for them, because their 2nd Amendment rights would be stripped from them.

You see how that works? When you set it up so people that are going to AA will have their 2nd Amendment rights taken from them, or returning soldiers who are getting mental health therapy will have their 2nd Amendment rights taken from them, or anyone for that matter who has severe mental health issues and willing goes to the doctor to get diagnosed with it will end up losing their 2nd Amendment rights, then you make it so nobody seeks help for anything or allows themselves to get evaluated and diagnosed for anything because they know the consequence for doing that is loss of their 2nd Amendment rights.

[iverglas]

10. reading honestly

Reading between the lines, it would seem you would want someone's right to own firearms revoked for their attending AA meetings

it would seem like no such fucking thing.

But you go ahead and portray yourself as the kind of dim and/or deceitful person who would say that.


Congragulations, now nobody who is addicted to alcohol would be stupid enough to admit they have a problem and attend join an AA group because they know the consequence of getting help for their problem would be loss of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Awwww. And they're obviously such public-spirited and responsible people they they are just exactly who should have all the guns they want.

Just like any soldier who comes back with mental problems would plum dumb to go seek help for them, because their 2nd Amendment rights would be stripped from them.

Lather, rinse, repeat.


then you make it so nobody seeks help for anything or allows themselves to get evaluated and diagnosed for anything because they know the consequence for doing that is loss of their 2nd Amendment rights.

Moi? How do I do these magical things??

I'm quite familiar with the theory of harm reduction strategies, thankee very much.

There is, however, a point at which the potential harm of not doing something, even though what is done might exacerbate some other harm, really just is paramount.

Active alcoholics and addicts and people suffering from severe forms of disorders like PTSD just are not good candidates for firearms possession. Really. And the consequences of them having firearms are just foreseeably worse than the consequences of them not getting treatment.

[Deadric Damodred]

16. Maybe so, but you can't force them to get help.

"Active alcoholics and addicts and people suffering from severe forms of disorders like PTSD just are not good candidates for firearms possession. Really. And the consequences of them having firearms are just foreseeably worse than the consequences of them not getting treatment."

That may be so, but there is on constitutional way you can force someone to go and get diagnosed with being an alcoholic or having PTSD; which would then of course result in loss of 2nd Amendment rights. If someone is an alcoholic, but wants to keep their rights, they're just going to keep it to themselves and refuse treatement, just as someone with PTSD would do. After all, you can't take their rights away if they haven't been officially diagnosed with being an addict or having PTSD. And you can't force someone to go and get a diagnosis without violating their constitutional rights. And even if they were forced, they could just fake it during the session of diagnosis.

[iverglas]

17. well thank you for letting me know that

Maybe so, but you can't force them to get help.

Gosh. What news! I never would have suspected that to be the case, would I??

Who was talking about forcing anybody to get anything? Not I. So what is your point?


If someone is an alcoholic, but wants to keep their rights, they're just going to keep it to themselves and refuse treatement, just as someone with PTSD would do.

Yuppers. But if some slightly more public-minded person knows that the person is ineligible for firearms possession for one of these reasons (non-alcohol substance addiction being the only actual one here, I think, since most people with PTSD aren't involuntarily committed for treatment), then that person might report to some appropriate authority that the person in question has obtained a firearm illegally.

If you think I give a crap about an alcoholic / addict / person with a severe disorder of the PTSD variety keeping their rights guns, you really are mistaken.

Since you have no guarantees to offer that permitting people with those problems to possess firearms is going to result in them getting treatment that would render them good risks for firearms possession, I'm not seeing much here.

[Deadric Damodred]

20. You missed the point entirely.

"Yuppers. But if some slightly more public-minded person knows that the person is ineligible for firearms possession for one of these reasons (non-alcohol substance addiction being the only actual one here, I think, since most people with PTSD aren't involuntarily committed for treatment), then that person might report to some appropriate authority that the person in question has obtained a firearm illegally."

Someone who does illegal drugs, but has not been charged AND convicted of doing so, is not keeping firearms illegally. And reporting that person to the police is not enough to get a search warrant. If that were the case, then anyone with a grudge against anyone, could just start making up shit about those they don't like, just to get the police to harrass them. And police who knock on your door and ask to come in, don't have a warrant; if they did have a warrant, they wouldn't ask. And if they don't have a warrant, that means they ain't got shit to get one.

I know you don't give a shit about people's gun rights, luckily for me, I don't give a shit about the arguements of people who try to take those gun rights away.


Edit: Also, there are probably lots of people out there with severe mental problems and addictions, but they stay out of legal trouble; which means you can't do shit about them having firearms.

[iverglas]

23. I surely did

Could be because there wasn't one.

Someone who does illegal drugs, but has not been charged AND convicted of doing so, is not keeping firearms illegally.

Ah. They have just acquired them illegally. I see the difference. I mean, if I squint and stand on my head.

Because this is actually what form 4473 asks:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

I think alcohol qualifies as a depressant drug, actually, but whatever.

And reporting that person to the police is not enough to get a search warrant.

Goodness. Someone must have said it was.

Perhaps it was moi. Moi, a law graduate with a decade plus of law practice now otherwise engaged in a law-type occupation, who was just reviewing some search warrant applications on Monday ... Yes. That's exactly the sort of thing I would say.

If that were the case, then anyone with a grudge against anyone, could just start making up shit about those they don't like, just to get the police to harrass them.

Yes, they surely could. And someone who didn't have a law degree and a lot of years of law practice and constant exposure to things like Supreme Court of Canada opinions on constitutional rights might just think that's how it works.

Fortunately, I don't, and I didn't say it was.

However, if someone does report to the police that an individual who is ineligible to possess firearms is in possession of firearms, and the police determine, after whatever investigation they consider appropriate, that the report is CREDIBLE, then my goodness, maybe they'd convince a judge of same.

I know you don't give a shit about people's gun rights, luckily for me, I don't give a shit about the arguements of people who try to take those gun rights away.

And I give seriously less of a shit about people who do nothing but spew nonsense.


Also, there are probably lots of people out there with severe mental problems and addictions, but they stay out of legal trouble; which means you can't do shit about them having firearms.

Maybe you can't, friend. But I sure as hell can.

And I like it that way. ;)

[X_Digger]

25. Keeping != purchasing..

.. alcohol addiction is not in and of itself a disqualification to possess a firearm, just to purchase one.

But I'm sure you knew that, and were just trying to make a point, right? Unless you assume they were born addicted, and didn't have a firearm when they became addicted.. who knows?

[iverglas]

27. a point?

Yeah.

How utterly moronic a system would have to be to bar an addict from purchasing a firearm, but not from possessing one.

All addicts must receive their firearms as gifts, or steal them. Once they've got 'em, however they do it, they're cool.

You do realize how stupid this looks, right?

[X_Digger]

29. Yes, very stupid to assume that a person bought a firearm _after_ becoming an addict.. n/t

[Deadric Damodred]

30. You sure as hell can't.

"Also, there are probably lots of people out there with severe mental problems and addictions, but they stay out of legal trouble; which means you can't do shit about them having firearms."

"Maybe you can't, friend. But I sure as hell can."

No you can't. If someone drinks a bottle of liquor per day (I think we can agree that's addiction), but they never go out drunk, they never drive drunk, all they do (when they are drunk) is stay in their house, and they own fireams, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it. First and formost, you'd need to be aware of this peron's addiction, which would be kind of hard if they aren't doing it in public. Then you'd actually need some sort of proof....you know, the kind of proof that gives probable cause? Not-to-menion that I doubt you have the creds to make the legally binding determination that someone is or isn't an addict. So no, you can't do shit about it.

[Scout]

35. "probably cause" :rofl: n/t

[Deadric Damodred]

36. Ok, you better make sure to type perfectly for now on...

...otherwise I'm going to catch it and show you to be a hypocrite.

[Scout]

37. "type perfectly for now on" :rofl: even better n/t

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[X_Digger]

40. Don't sweat it..

.. that's about the limit of the intelligence she shows on this subject. Grammar & spelling police. Wheee!

[iverglas]

39. my dear fellow, how would you like to stop telling me

edited to insert omitted word

what I can and can't do?

No you can't. If someone drinks a bottle of liquor per day (I think we can agree that's addiction), but they never go out drunk, they never drive drunk, all they do (when they are drunk) is stay in their house, and they own fireams, there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.

You see, this is a flat-out fabrication and false statement.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/cont/report_signaler-eng.htm
(emphases mine)

Reporting Public Safety Concerns
Canadian Firearms Program

If your concern is urgent or life threatening, call 911 or your local Police emergency number.

If you have a public safety concern related to firearms that is not urgent or immediately life threatening, call our toll-free number: 1 800 731-4000.

Please note: This is not an emergency line, calls received on this line are only answered during Chief Firearm Officer’s regular business hours, and calling this number will not dispatch police assistance.
Public safety calls are routed to provincial Chief Firearms Officers, who will take appropriate action. For example, you can call this number if you believe a person who owns firearms could be dangerous to himself or herself or to others. You can also call this number if you know of an individual who has a firearms licence or who has applied for a firearms licence and have a valid reason why this person should not have such a licence.

And you can bet your bippy I would call the CFC and call the local police immediately if I had any such apprehension or reason, and that would include any situation in which I knew that an active alcoholic was in possession of a firearm.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/form-formulaire/pdfs/921-eng.pdf

If you answer YES to any of the questions in this section, you MUST provide details on a separate page. Add your name at the top of each page you attach. If details are not provided, your application cannot be processed.
A YES answer does not mean your application will be refused but it may lead to further examination.

... d) During the past five (5) years, have you threatened or attempted suicide, or have you suffered from or been diagnosed or treated by a medical practitioner for: depression; alcohol, drug or substance abuse; behavioural problems; or emotional problems?

Now, if someone became an alcohol abuser after being issued a firearms licence (hmmmmmm), then sure enough, there would have been no lying on the form.

If the person acknowledged being an alcohol abuser on the form, well, I guess it's conceivable s/he might have got the licence anyhow. I really don't know. I'm thinking I doubt it.

In any event, my expression of concern about an alcohol abuser in possession of firearms would be received by the appropriate authorities and investigated. And if the investigation (which would include my report, obviously) led to the conclusion that

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/sc-1995-c-39/latest/sc-1995-c-39.html

it is desirable, in the interests of the safety of that or any other person,
that the person not possess a firearm

then

70. (1) A chief firearms officer may revoke a licence ... for any good and
sufficient reason including, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(a) where the holder of the licence or authorization
(i) is no longer or never was eligible to hold the licence or authorization, ...

and the individual would be perfectly free to

refer the matter to a provincial court judge in the territorial division
in which the applicant or holder resides.

to challenge any revocation.

So you really can just stop telling me what I can and can't do. 'K?

And anyone interested can read this as a tale of what they could do if they lived somewhere that took public safety and the public interest and other people's rights seriously.

[Deadric Damodred]

42. Again....

...it's kind of hard for you to report a "public safety concern" when you don't know about it. If the drunk is rabidly choking down liquor, but they are doing it inside their house, and they never leave the house except when they are sober you're not going to have a report to make, unless you have a little magical elf that's telling you all about it.

[iverglas]

44. sweet jesus

it's kind of hard for you to report a "public safety concern" when you don't know about it.

Well fuckety fucking DUH de duh duh DUH.

Man, that about takes tonight's cake.

You really want someone to believe that I have claimed I can cause an investigation to be conducted into SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW ABOUT.


unless you have a little magical elf that's telling you all about it.

Yeah. The one that lives inside your head making you say this nonsense, I guess.

But I work my magic - causing investigations to be conducted into SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW ABOUT -- by osmosis. Ssh. It's a secret.

[Deadric Damodred]

34. Not-to-mention...

...no, a person who is an alcoholic and goes to purchase a firearm, is not committing a crime. Why are they not committing a crime? Because in order for you to be disqualified from purchasing a firearm, you actually have to be put on the disqualfying list. You actually have to be charged, tried, and convicted of a disqualifying crime, and/or you actually have to be legally pronounced an addict. Someone may drink liquor like a fish, but if they've never been legally branded an alcoholic, then they are not committing a crime by purchasing a firearm.

[iverglas]

41. Uh huh

It isn't an offence to lie on the Form 4473. Okay.

Because in order for you to be disqualified from purchasing a firearm, you actually have to be put on the disqualfying list.

Yeah? They why do they bother asking all those dumb questions about substance abuse?


if they've never been legally branded an alcoholic

That's an interesting one. Can you tell me how it's done?

No, really, I'm not rolling around guffawing at the idea of someone having a (scarlet?) "A" tattooed on their forehead.

I'm wondering where the hell you get a "legal" determination of someone's alcoholism (or other addiction). Not something I was aware courts did, myself.

[Deadric Damodred]

45. I'd like to see how you...

...are going to prove they lied on the form. If they drink like a fish, purchase a fiream, and then later on down the road they commit their first intoxication crime (such as public drunkeness or DWI), and it's found out they own a firearm, you still can't prove they were a drunk before they filled out that form. Not-to-mention, I am not aware of any law, at least in the states, that brands you an alcoholic and bars you from owning firearms, for one public intoxication charge.

[iverglas]

48. what is wrong with you?

Let's start at the beginning.

I'd like to see how you...
...are going to prove they lied on the form.

I am not going to prove ANYTHING. I have nothing whatsoever to do with drunks with guns IN THE U.S.

If they drink like a fish, purchase a fiream, and then later on down the road they commit their first intoxication crime (such as public drunkeness or DWI), and it's found out they own a firearm, you still can't prove they were a drunk before they filled out that form.

So what? They are NOW obviously alcoholics, so they get to keep their guns because they didn't lie on the form??

You have not the first clue about the concept of "proof", and my job here is not to educate you. I just get to ignore the ramblings of people who don't have clues.

Not-to-mention, I am not aware of any law, at least in the states, that brands you an alcoholic and bars you from owning firearms, for one public intoxication charge.

Pick a horse and sit on it for two seconds while we're crossing this stream, will you?

The issue is whether someone was eligible to purchase a firearm, and whether it is an offence to conceal information that establishes ineligibility by lying on the form, as I recall.

The question on the form, once again, is:

Are you an unlawful user of, or addicted to, marijuana, or any depressant, stimulant or narcotic drug, or any other controlled substance?

Or, oh lord, are we talking about the New Jersey state law?? I'm too hot for this. You're spinning fast enough to create your own breeze, but I can't keep up. Of course, trying to would be pointless anyway.

[Deadric Damodred]

46. You're easily misunderstood...

...but I believe someone has already pointed out to you, that you being misleading, and then being smug about, does not make you clever.

[iverglas]

49. seems to be another reply to the wrong post

because there's certainly nothing there that relates to the post of mine you "replied" to.

And I'm tired of trying to figure out the sequence of your random peckings, I'm afraid.

But if you're actually claiming to have "misunderstood" this:

what a shame ...
<quotation>However, I also assume that once you're considered to no longer be addicted, then it's not a problem.
... that AA itself, the outfit with the stranglehold on this issue, says: once an addict, always an addict.
:evilgrin:

then you can have my pity or my disgust, your choice.

Or hey, both, if you like.

[imdjh]

12. NRAAA , "And now, a gun for the alcoholic who is still suffering." nt

[zazen]

19. is that like a 30-day chip? I think you're onto something here . . . n/t

[TheWraith]

21. Addiction is a grounds for being turned down, yes.

Specifically including "any depressant, stimulant, or narcotic drug," so I assume that alcohol would count. However, I also assume that once you're considered to no longer be addicted, then it's not a problem. I'm afraid I don't know where that line is, since I barely even drink.

[Deadric Damodred]

22. Yes, but the point I was trying to get across to her...

...was that you actually have to be proven to be an alcoholic to get your rights revoked. Just going to the police and saying "I think he/she drinks too much and has a problem", isn't even close to good enough. Their alcohol addiction is going to actually have to cause them to do something illegal, like getting a couple of DWIs or a few public intoxication charges....and not just one, but a few. Either that or they could lose their rights because they are stupid enough to go to an AA meeting and say they are an addict, in which case their honesty would be awarded with lose of gun rights.

[iverglas]

26. okay, twice is really enough

Just going to the police and saying "I think he/she drinks too much and has a problem", isn't even close to good enough.

Nobody, least of all me, said it was, or should be.

Clear now?


Their alcohol addiction is going to actually have to cause them to do something illegal, like getting a couple of DWIs or a few public intoxication charges....and not just one, but a few.

Yeah?

Your local mileage may vary ...

http://www.state.nj.us/njsp/info/pdf/firearms/062408_title13ch54.pdf

N.J.A.C. 13:54-1.5 Prerequisites for a permit to purchase handgun or a firearms purchaser
identification card

(a) A permit to purchase a handgun, or a firearm purchaser identification card, shall not be issued
to any person:

... 2. To any drug dependent person as defined in section 2 of P.L. 1970, c. 226 (, to any person who is confined for a mental disorder to a hospital, mental institution or sanitarium, or to any person who is presently a habitual drunkard;

3. To any person who suffers from a physical defect or disease which would make it unsafe for him or her to handle firearms, to any person who has ever been confined for a mental disorder, or to any alcoholic unless any of the foregoing persons produces a certificate of a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed in New Jersey, or other satisfactory proof, that he or she is no longer suffering from that particular disability in such a manner that would interfere with or handicap him
or her in the handling of firearms; to any person who knowingly falsifies any information on the application form for a handgun purchase permit or firearms purchaser identification card; ...

N.J.A.C. 13:54-1.6 Exception for physical disability, mental disorder or alcoholism

A permit or identification card may be issued to a person who had previously suffered from a physical defect or disease, or mental disorder, or was an alcoholic if the applicant provides a certificate of a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed in New Jersey, or other satisfactory proof that he or she is no longer suffering from that particular disability in such a manner that it would interfere with or handicap him or her in the handling of firearms

Which is particularly interesting, of course, given:

http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/541400

Firearm suicide and homicide rates associated with level of Background Checks at Time of Firearm Purchase

States that perform local-level background checks for firearms purchases are more effective in reducing firearm suicide and homicide rates than states that rely only on a federal-level background check, according to a new study by researchers at the Medical College of Wisconsin in Milwaukee.

... Local-level background checks were found to be associated with a 27 percent-lower firearm suicide rate and a 22 percent-lower homicide rate in adults aged 21 years or older.

The retrospective study observed the association between the Department of Justice classification of agencies conducting firearm background checks for each state from 2002 to 2004, and firearm suicide and homicide rates for the same years from the National Center for Injury Prevention and Control.

... States that performed state-level or local-level checks were found to have substantially lower rates of firearm suicides, at 8.45 and 5.74 per 100,000, respectively. A similar trend was observed with firearm homicide rates, with 4.28 per 100,000 for federal checks; 4.02 per 100,000 for state checks; and 2.81 per 100,000 for local checks.

But hey, if your state wants to be awash in drunks with guns, your choice!

[X_Digger]

28. Does it hurt, talking out both sides of your mouth in the same thread?

"unless any of the foregoing persons produces a certificate of a medical doctor or psychiatrist licensed in New Jersey, or other satisfactory proof, that he or she is no longer suffering from that particular disability"

"that AA itself, the outfit with the stranglehold on this issue, says: once an addict, always an addict."

[iverglas]

32. not nearly as much as you pretending to have read and replied to my post

in four minutes flat.

Er, no. What? Ah, I see. You replied to the wrong post.


You quote me:

that AA itself, the outfit with the stranglehold on this issue, says: once an addict, always an addict.

Funny how you didn't copy and paste the evil grin that followed it. I mean, there were only two things in that post. The statement you quoted, and the evil grin. Did you imagine they were wholly unrelated?

Have you mistaken me for AA??

I am deeply insulted. Deeply, I tell you. I think AA is a stinking pile of garbage operated by a load of petty fascists.

When I quote AA, you can be very sure, unless I specify otherwise, that I do NOT do so with approval. Even if I forget the evil grin.


So, just to be absolutely sure that you're absolutely clear:

The state of New Jersey issues the licences in question to people who produce
satisfactory proof that they are no longer suffering from an alcohol-related disability.

Alcoholics Anonymous says that once one is an addict, one is always an addict.

I DID NOT SAY
EITHER OF THOSE THINGS.

If it really still isn't clear to you, I can try Fedexing some Windex.

[X_Digger]

33. Awww, *sniff*

I'd hate for you to be misunderstood.

:evilgrin:

[Deadric Damodred]

31. Again...

...if someone is a habitual drunkard, but doesn't cause any trouble....like public drunkeness or getting DWIs, you aren't going to know that they are a rabid raging drunk.

[iverglas]

43. how in the fucking fuck

if someone is a habitual drunkard, but doesn't cause any trouble....like public drunkeness or getting DWIs, you aren't going to know that they are a rabid raging drunk.

do YOU know what I know?

And exactly who are you to tell me what I know??

The crystal ball must be working overtime tonight.

Gimme your address, and I'll Fedex that Windex.

[Deadric Damodred]

47. Right now I have a pretty good idea what you know...

...and the glass is half empty.

(And yes, that is pun intended at you and the entire thread topic.)

[iverglas]

24. what a shame ...

However, I also assume that once you're considered to no longer be addicted, then it's not a problem.

... that AA itself, the outfit with the stranglehold on this issue, says: once an addict, always an addict.

:evilgrin:

[slackmaster]

8. He probably just wanted a slice of someone's cake

:D

[imdjh]

13. Cake? They got cake?

They used to joke that the AA meetings in West Hollywood were catered and had valet parking.

[X_Digger]

15. Latest update..

SC man who shot robber at AA center gets gun back

http://www.thestate.com/statewire/story/837309.html

[proteus_lives]

51. Robbing an AA meeting?

That's a new one. Jeesh, weird.

[SteveM]

52. In Austin, TX, it's pretty slim pickins' (nt)