Barrington residents Robert and Diane Nichols want to open gun shop in Warren
WARREN/BARRINGTON — Warren Zoning Board members unanimously voted to deny an application for a special use permit filed by Barrington residents Robert and Diane Nichols to operate a gun shop on a 7-acre site on Child Street.
Board members denied the application on grounds that boxes of shells stored together would be considered “bulk explosives,” and therefore were prohibited in the town charter. There is no definition as to what “bulk” means but members felt that grouped shells, even if stored properly, constituted as bulk explosives.
If the gun shop was approved, it would have been operated out of a 2,000-square-foot building located at 249 Child St. and called “American Guns and Ammo.” Mr. and Mrs. Nichols own R&D Construction, also located on Child Street.
According to Mr. Nichols, about 100 to 150 long guns, like rifles, and 12 to 24 handguns would have been kept in stock and shipped to the store via trucks. The long guns would be assembled in three parts. The small guns would have been fully assembled excluding the magazine or clip.
Warren residents filled the meeting and cited concerns over the potential danger a gun shop would bring to neighborhoods surrounding the site. Common concerns were a drop in property values, whether guns would be tested on the premises, and how visibly the gun shop would be advertised.
Illegal transactions that allow felons to obtain guns through another buyer with a clean record who would pass a background check, also known as “straw purchases,” was also a fear for some residents.
Warren resident Jerry Belair said a gun shop, even if legal and regulated by the federal government, would bring in illegal activity to town, especially since the Tiahrt Amendment passed by the Bush Administration requires weapon stores to destroy background checks of gun purchasers within 24 hours.
“You may not see it, but people will be selling guns to convicted felons for a profit,” said Mr. Belair. “It’s a quick $50.”
Mr. Nichols told the board that the store would be safe since background checks are required from every client. Moreover, he could refuse to sell a firearm to any client regardless of the reason.
“If someone comes in, and they are whispering to a friend, and they want to get a gun, I don’t have to sell it to them,” said Mr. Nichols.
He also said he would comply with every federal and town regulation.
Warren Police Chief Thomas Gordon and Fire Chief Al Galinelli told zoning board members that security cameras and an advanced fire alarm system would be required of the shop before it could open, however, the store would be regulated by the federal government with its own licensing regulations separate from the town. They told members that they would work with the town to enforce necessary regulations, but their area of expertise did not concern federal gun store regulations; though Chief Gordon did tell the board that a gun store in Middletown has not had any problems with break-ins.
When board member Ben Ferrazzano expressed concern over the ability for shells to explode while being stored together, Chief Galinelli told the board that there needs to be an ignition for a fire to start. Without the ignition, the shells would remain intact.
Without speaking, Mr. Ferrazzano lined up four types of bullets along the table during the middle of the meeting.
Currently there are no stores that sell and assemble firearms in Warren. There hasn’t been a store in Warren that sells guns since Jamiel’s House of a Million Items sold a limited amount of firearms decades ago.
Residents’ concerns
Karen Ouellette, a Warren resident, told members she would have never bought her home if she knew a gun shop would be operating directly across from it. She said children frequent the streets and that while it may not be common, armed break-ins do happen. She felt a gun shop locates nearby would make the chances of break-ins increase.
“I know that it’s rare but the threat is there,” said Ms. Ouellette.
Resident Kathleen Sullivan asked Mr. Nichols if children would be allowed in the store. He said yes, as long as an adult was with the child.
Ultimately, after about 45 minutes of discussion, the zoning board decided to deny the request.
“From the information presented, I think it’s a clear decision,” said Mr. Ferrazzano.
Mr. Nichols would not comment on the decision while leaving the meeting.
I believe the date in regard to House of a Million Items must be 1978, not 1987.
And why did Mr Ferrazzano line up 4 types of bullets? Story doesn't say what his purpose was or what he was trying to illustrate.
Well they should kick out all the liquor stores, fast food restaurants, convienience stores and all other places in Warren where shady people hang out. These stores are the primary targets of thieves. How about that pizza place where anyone could go any buy coccaine? Is that still in Warren? And people are worried about a gun shop?
Bravo!! Every resident I spoke with about the proposed gun shop was 100% against it. It's not just the comments listed in the above article, but people fear that the shop will atrract criminals, gang members, and others who want guns for illegal activities. Warren doesn't need to attract that type of person to town. Lord knows there are plenty of places to buy guns, so Warren doesn't need to be another location. Perhaps Mr. & Mrs. Nichols should try to open the gun shop in their own hometown, but we all know Barrington would NEVER allow it either.
Ignorance has won a temporary battle, but this is a clear miscarriage of the town's authority and an abuse of the Zoning Board's power.
I suggest that every person who spoke out against the shop post a yard sign declaring their home a "Gun-Free Zone".
If a serious crime problem ever comes to Warren (and it could happen as the economy continues to worsen), how many of these anti-gun extremists would crowd into the door of the nearest gun shop?
sad day for freedom. What a bunch of lemmings i live amongst.
Hey commonsense38:
Why don't you try and use some of that 'sense'? The reason the Nichols were trying to open the shop in Warren is because they ALREADY OWN A HUGE BUILDING AND CHUNK OF LAND THERE!
As for all the people so worried about the neighborhood. They never seemed to care EVER when the previous owners were there before the Nichols. That place was a junk yard and a place for drunks to pass out after going to that pit of a bar next door and thieves to try and steal and scrap metal they could.
You do not know the Nichols. They are amazing people. Get to know them first before you try to slur them.
Nothing wrong with owning guns. It is one of the very few rights we still have left.
Itsalrightwithme – why on earth would you write “get to know the Nichols before you try to slur them?” I didn’t slur them at all. I’m sure they are fine upstanding citizens, and there was absolutely no slur intended toward them on my part. I don’t care if Mr. & Mrs. Jones, or Mr. & Mrs. Smith, or Mr. & Mrs. Whomever wanted to open the shop, I’d still be against it. It has nothing to do with the Nichols PERSONALLY – I simply don’t think a gun shop in the tiny suburban town of Warren in the middle of Child Street near a residential area and so close to schools is the best place for such a shop.
And your comment about “nothing wrong with owning guns” – I couldn’t agree more. I believe firmly that every American has a right to bear arms. I’m about the most far right wing, conservative person you’ll ever come across (on just about every issue, including guns). My stance on the gun shop has nothing to do with gun ownership – again, I just simply don’t think the proposed location is the best place for such a shop.
And Constitutionalist – just because people may not want the shop in Warren doesn’t mean they’re anti-gun extremists. Why would you think that? As I stated, I’m the furthest thing from being anti-gun, -- but that shop doesn’t belong on Child Street.
And Morskie – what exactly is a “lemming?”
I will only say this...we cannot buy gun's in Warren...but how many of their Gas Station's are selling pipe's and bong's to smoke pot?
commonsense38, It is the comment made by you (see below)
Perhaps Mr. & Mrs. Nichols should try to open the gun shop in their own hometown, but we all know Barrington would NEVER allow it either.
That was a cheap shot trying to be made by you. The reason the Nichols didn't try to open a shop in Barrington is because they do not own an operating business in Barrington like they do in Warren.
Also, I'm not sure if you were aware or all the police and fire officals whom were VERY for this. One of the fire officals even said that he would much rather run into a gun shop and KNOW what sorts or weapons and ammunition in there compared to other fires where
they have no clue what is in there.
Also this comment made me sensitive to you (see below)
It's not just the comments listed in the above article, but people fear that the shop will atrract criminals, gang members, and others who want guns for illegal activities
Again, if you knew Mr. Nichols you wouldn't in a million years believe that. Perhaps you two should meet up them for coffee and talk or maybe meet them at one of the many missions they go to.
Gang members frequent gun shops? Since when? Since never. Gang members buy their guns from illegally operating gunsmiths or from fences selling stolen guns (stolen from homes, not from gun shops) - only a very small percentage of "gang members" get their guns through legal means, such as a gun shop, even though straw buyers. the cost is just too high. $300+ for a traditional handgun. why pay that when you can buy a MAC-9 shipped from an illegal gunsmith in Boston for about $50?
The story did not mention if the Nichols would appeal the decison.Most of the reasons given for not allowing the shop mean nothing.The main reason was that the town does not allow bulk storage of explosives.I believe that would be the reason for an appeal to the courts.If the ordinance does not list ammunition, the shop would win the right to open.I have not seen the ordinance, so I do not know how this will play out.I get a kick out of Jerry Belair, clueless to the end.If any one has read the ordinance please relay that info.I would bet it deals with high explosive used to break rock in quarries, or demolition of buildings.
Are these actually grown adults quoted in the story? I agree, Constitutionalist; everyone that is terrified by the scary guns need to put up a large sign in their yards, legible from the street, "This is a Gun Free Home".
‘‘Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense? ... If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?’’
— Patrick Henry
‘‘You need only reflect that one of the best ways to get yourself a reputation as a dangerous citizen these days is to go about repeating the very phrases which our founding fathers used in the struggle for independence.’’ — Charles A. Beard
Nobody knows Mr. & Mrs. Nichols more than I do. They are great people. They are the kind of people who take a person into there home if that person had no where to go!! They would never let someone live on the streets. I will tell you one thing, Mr. Nichols is the one person who would be the best person to own a gun shop. He would never sell a gun to any one who even looked like a shatty cat. Let me tell you one thing!! If you were to look at Mr. Nichols the wrong way he would probably tell you to get the hell out of his store. There a criminals every where!! WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFEE!!You probably just lived a shettlered life!! Get to know the Nichols before you talk S*** about them!!
JoeSousa - You said "I get a kick out of Jerry Belair, clueless to the end." Please expand because I am clueless as to what your comment means. As for the definition of explosives, the fire chief did testify than ammunition was defined under the fire code as explosives. The zoning code prohibits storage of explosives. That was the primary basis for the denial of the special permit. You can pull up the zoning ordinance from the town website so you really don't have to rely on anyone else to provide you with the information. But Joe, you make your "off the cuff" comments without the benefit of attending the meeting or researching the facts and attacking those who have. This isn't about the Nichols, it is about the fact that the ATF&E has been handcuffed in their ability to enforce the laws that they are entrusted to enforce. Congressman Tiahart attached Amendments to appropriation bills that require background check information to be destroyed in 24 hours, that allow the ATF&E to investigate gun shops no more that once per year and prohibit law enforcement agencies from sharing gun crime trace data with other law enforcement agencies and the public. In other words Joe, if someone wanted to make a little money in Warren, they could buy a Jennings (piece of junk) for a hundred bucks and sell it to a buddy who is a felon or is mentally ill for a hundred and fifty, pocket his profit and move on. Anyone in Warren you think might be willing to do that? The gun gets used in a crime, police recover it and trace it back to the Nichols shop. Guess what, Dead End. So what it comes down to Joe, is every gun shop has this going on and its going on not because of the Nichols or any other gun shop owner, its going on because your buddys at the NRA want to make sure criminals, the mentally ill and terrorists get as many guns as they want so their funders in the gun manufacturing industry keep their profits rolling in. So, Joe, I have a clue but I doubt that you do.
I am so sick of hearing how a gun shop would bring riff raff to warren , how OMG my kids will be able to see the sign to a gun shop . What about the two bars on that road and the drug deals that go on in the cumberland farms parking lot on market street . Or the scumbags and heroin heads who hang out in front of dunkin donuts ? Hey Belair , if Mr Nichols sells a freakin gun to someone who is not a felon and goes thru all the legal avenues and then that person sells that gun to a felon it isn't Mr Nichols doing the wrong , I guess you could say it was your neighbors , or towns people that are . As for why he doesn't open it up in barrington , He owns property in WARREN , pays taxes in WARREN , turned that scum hole into something decent . I hated warren before , but hate it even more now , close minded people , all high and mighty , you would think it was a town like barrington LOL what a joke ........I smell a lawsuit ...........
Almost forgot , the Nichols are the most amazing people you could ever know ........give you the shirt off their backs
If you want things like this to change, then stop electing Liberals! There wouldn't be as many "thugs" to sell weapons too, if the judges in this state would do their jobs and give maximum punishments instead of community service or parole. I will say it again. This is the absolute best state to commit a crime in and get away with it. The compassion always falls to the criminal, not the victim. I still can't get over the story I read a few months ago about a judge who put an adult who is a mildly retarded child sex offender into a foster home full of children. I don't need to tell you what he did to some of those children while there. There is no common sense with the judicial system in this state at all. Just a bunch of lazy judges and politicians.
Jerry how about putting the part of the town ordinance that deals with explosives and ammo on the blog.Enlighten us with this info, I am on my way to work I will read it tonight.Mikenbarb and Jenn100p, good comments you show that you are level headed.
Joe can't you do your own homework. You seem to have plenty of time for tcc spamming. As you know if you want something done do it yourself.
It is beyond ridiculous to posit that a legal purchaser would take the risk of buying a gun and flipping it to a criminal for a small profit. The penalty for that is YEARS in jail. I can't imagine anyone willing to take that risk.
Those at the hearing and posting comments here who claim that gun shops bring "undesirable" people to the town need to back up that claim with facts - but they can't because there are none. There is absolutely no evidence to support their claim. Therefore I will posit that Jerry B. and the ignorant, squeamish antis are lying. It's a shame that nobody at the hearing called them out on their false statements. What I really think of people like him is not appropriate for a family newspaper.
Perhaps it's time to give Jerry a taste of his own medicine and organize more protests against his Tourister building project. The last thing Warren needs is another residential real estate project bringing in people who cost the town more than they pay in taxes and depressing home values by making our oversupply worse. Warren needs businesses and jobs for those who already live here. Like Mr. Nichols's shop.
After all, how do we know that the purchasers of units in his building aren't getting subprime mortgages on which they will default, causing more credit losses to the banks and unpaid tax debts to the town? How do we know Jerry won't sell condos to drug dealers or Ponzi-scheme operators? How do we know he won't violate building codes or do a shoddy construction job? How do we know it won't cause litter or pollution along the waterfront? Certainly more people in that building will make the traffic problem at the north end of Main St. worse that it is now - who will compensate the town's citizens for all that trouble?
A Lemming is a rodent reproduces quickly and over populates, causing them to migrate in large groups often following each other over cliffs. The anti-shop folk are "lemmings", IMO, because they have this bad feeling about this gun shop in their town, they don't know why and can't back it up with hard evidence, but they find others like them and throw themselves over the proverbial cliff. (disclaimer: i'm not calling anyone a literal rodent ;-) )
Bottom line is the argument against such a business is unfounded. The zoning board denied them on a technicality. And i can't really say it any better than Constitutionalist did above... a legal purchaser would never sell a gun illegally to a criminal. I put the onus the antis to produce cases where this has happened.
The section of child st. in question is mixed commercial industrial as it is. There is no better place in town to have such a business. And as others have said, its not going to bring riff raff to that area that isn't already there. This is just another case of "people do bad things with guns, so guns must be bad".
Rastibri we have missed your antagonist remarks, how have you been.I am trying to find the ordinance on the web site, no luck yet.I was hoping that Jerry B. could show us where, I guess he is busy.I believe I will find what I stated earlier,High explosives, not ammo.The search continues?
Constitutionalist. I'm having trouble following your argument. More than 340 mayors and more than 200 police chiefs, as well as 2 past directors and several bureau chiefs of the Burear of Alcholol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF&E) claim that the ATF&E cannot perform the functions for which they have been empowered. That is simply because Congress has kow-towed to the gun lobby whose goal is to placate the gun industry and allow criminals, terrorists and mentally ill individuals access to guns. Gotta protect that profit line. Hunters and responsible gun owners, like myself, do not want gun sales without background checks. Obviously, you disagree. I'll go with the 340 mayors, the 200 police chiefs and the directors and bureau chief of the ATF&E for now, but I'm all ears. As for your discussion on the Tourister, I'm not clear on the relevance but I am clear that you are not familiar with the subject or the issues. Maybe you can clarrify the relationship between straw gun purchases and development of the Tourister because, I'll admit to not being the brightest guy around but I just am having trouble connecting your dots.
connecting what dots Jerry? RI has a background check system in place.... you have to obtain a license before purchase and then wait 7 days to get your gun....
Thanks Jerry, for going to bat on this. This type of business could have sent the town in the wrong direction.
It puzzles me though how many people still continue to confuse the proposal to open a gun shop with the right to bear arms issue.Its as if denying the ability to open a gun shop somehow means guns will be confiscated from those who own them and in some form limit their strong need to feel they need to defend themselves, from what I'm not completely sure.
To insinuate that patrons of gun shops are all angels and ONLY use them for hunting or means of defending themselves is either naive or
just ignorant of the facts that have been previously mentioned.It is entirely plausible that it could have, and more that likely would have, attracted sketchy people.
Constitutionalist , for someone who has arrogantly scolded others for "going off topic" on the blog of the originally published story, you sure ran amuck with your last post. Not only are do you come off as vindictive but your arguments,if one were to entertain your rant, simply don't make any sense.
Peter, explain to me how it DOES NOT apply as a right to bear arms issue? Especially in you sentence: "To insinuate that patrons of gun shops are all angels and ONLY use them for hunting or means of defending themselves is either naive..."
Well, how do you get from "not a right to bear arms issue" to "some of them are bad people"? Are you now the judge of who should and should not own firearms? If someone has a license to purchase, then the government has cleared them to purchase. Yes, not all of them are fine upstanding citizens like you and Jerry, but then again, most of them are. and what "facts" have previously been mentioned? There are no facts relating to gun shops and gangs, or gun shops and a rise in gun crime. the facts are, the average gun avalable from a gun shop is too expensive for most people, especially those who wish to perpetrate crimes. Criminals, as I have stated many times, yet you and Jerry both choose to ignore, use stolen or illegally imported/manufactured guns. None of the guns sold in this gun shop would be placed into criminal hands, directly or indirectly.
METALDOC you can say without a doubt that none of the guns sold from this shop will ever indirectly be put into the hands of criminals. What a bold prediction. Are you able to tell me the powerball numbers as well?
Jerry,
What exactly do you mean when you say "ATF&E cannot perform the functions for which they have been empowered"? That statement out of context could mean anything; without explanation it is irrelevant to the issue here. For all I know those mayors could have been complaining about underage drinking or untaxed cigarette sales.
Jerry, and peterpan, my comments on Jerry's ill-conceived real estate project are exactly on point. Jerry made specious, hysterical accusations about Mr. Nichols's project. I merely listed a few similar claims that could be made about his - a taste of his own medicine.
Jerry, in order for me, and anyone else who thinks clearly, to take you seriously at all you must provide evidence about your "straw purchase" accusation. Even when you tried to entrap dealers into making such a sale every one refused and you had to tell lies about the dealer who finally, legally sold a gun to your brother which you have written is still in your brother's legal possession. That fact is itself a rebuttal to your claims. Put up or shut up, Jerry, and be careful lest your continued lying become libel or slander.
How does BS taste, Jerry? I just made up those points about your project to make the point. But as I think more about it, I do believe your condo development is bad for the town for those and other reasons, and perhaps should be prevented.
As to peterpan's statement: "To insinuate that patrons of gun shops are all angels and ONLY use them for hunting or means of defending themselves is either naive or just ignorant of the facts that have been previously mentioned. It is entirely plausible that it could have, and more that likely would have, attracted sketchy people. " What kind of pseudo-elitist BS is that? What is your definition of "sketchy" people? And if you can't support your "more than likely would have..." insinuation with some evidence that bad people are attracted to gun shops in RI, then your claim has no merit, no weight, and no validity in this argument. I say once again, if you have any facts as to the type of people who are customers of gun shops, disclose them here; else, stop lying and if all you have to offer are lies and insinuations, please shut up. There are adults trying to have a reasoned debate on this issue. Lying and fear-mongering are not legitimate debating tactics.
And peterpan, your namesake is of course the boy who refused to grow up - a perfect description of the modern sissified, emotionally addled, immature American liberal.
Metaldoc. My comment about connecting the dots had to do with Con. introducing the Tourister development into the argument. Sorry, I still am having trouble understanding that relationship. True, RI has a requirement for background checks - it is a Federal requirement of all states. My concerns, as I have repeatedly said, are "straw purchases" by qualified individuals who then sell the firearm to an unqualified individual (a felon, mentally ill individual etc.) for a profit. This isn't about Mr. Nichols or about the 2nd Amendment, its about Congress passing laws which handcuff the ATF&E - the Tiahrt Amendments which make it virtually impossible to trace straw purchases. In effect, the Federal Government is licensing an inherently dangerous activity, empowering an agency to oversee the activity (the ATF&E) and disempowering their ability to perform their job. In effect, the Federal Government is forcing Towns and Cities to accept a business which will cause harm to the community and does almost nothing to mitigate that harm. I don't feel that that is a fair burden for any community to endure and only ask that the Tiahart Amendments be repealed so that the Bureau can do its job. And by the way, Federal law has an exemption to background checks for private sales. 17 States have passed laws prohibiting this but 33 States allow these sales, many at gun shows. A study released last week showed that 90% of the assault weapons recovered from Mexican Drug gangs came from the U.S. Many of the 30,000 deaths and 300,000 gun injuries a year also come from guns bought in gun shows or by straw purchases. Why would we not require background checks on all gun sales and why would we require the FBI to destroy background check information within 24 hours, only allow the ATF&E to go to a gun store a maximum of one time a year and not allow law enforcement to share crime gun trace data. Simple answer, the gun industry wants to sell as many guns as they can and the NRA is their conduit to that goal.
Jerry: why would a criminal purchase a gun for $350 (assuming a $50 profit for the "straw" purchaser) when they can much more easily get a gun off the street for less than $50? That makes no sense. Straw purchasing is pretty much a bogus claim. It is rare to ever find straw purchasing. More likely that a gun shop itself would be a straw, than an individual. and still, the penalties far outweigh any profit. Possession of an illegal weapon is only 6 months in jail, straw buying is 5 years (for both parties). Makes no sense.
You are never going to legislate bad things from happening. Nobody can guarantee that a firearm sold at Shop X will never ever end up in the hands of Criminal Y. But that's no reason to not have a shop that sells firearms and ammunition. The only source for negative connotations of having a gun shop in town is ignorance. Period.
I'm not going to trap myself saying that statistics say this or that. You can make statistics say anything you want. As stated, this really isn't about 2nd amendment or gun control. Its about a business that would be opened in a town that needs more business. And given that the Nichols' other business probably isn't doing all that hot right now in this economy, we may really be losing 2 business in town... when we desperately need to retain and attract businesses.
With the background checks, registration and licensing currently in place (and Warren WILL NOT issue concealed carry licenses anyway) i don't see why having an honest reputable business in town is such a bad thing. I hope they appeal and win.
Constitutionalist - Once again, I am having trouble following your arguments. You restate my comment that "ATF&E" cannot perform functions for which they have been empowered. Then you state "That statement out of context could mean anything;...For all I know, those mayors could have been complaining about underage drinking or untaxed cigarett sales." I am somewhat perplexed as to your confusion here as I have repeatedly stated, in multiple posts to which you replied that the ATF&E is restricted by the Tiahrt Amendments. And so that you don't get confused by issues of underage drinking or untaxed cigarettes, let me cite the Mayors and Police Chiefs own comments. In the Miami Herald, titled "Law makes it easier to sell weapons illegally". By 8 Mayors of Florida in the OpEds. "The safety and stability of our communities is intrinsic in our responsibilities to the public, and it is time for elected officials throughout Florida to stand together in the face of the rising violence in our state."..."That's why we've joined with leaders across the nation in opposition of the Tiahrt Amendments as they have been previously attached to federal spending bills. We, along with a bipartisan coalition of 340 mayors and 200 police chiefs, urge President Barack Obama and our congressional leaders to take a common sense stand against illegal gun trafficking and reform these public-safety restrictions. The Tiahrt Amendments are provisions that make it harder for law-enforcement officials to pursue criminals who buy and sell illegal guns"..."These restrictive amendments tie the hands of law enforcement in three ways. First, the Tiahrt restrictions prevent cities and states from accessing federal crime gun trace data that shows which gun buyers and gun dealers are the sources of guns recovered over and over again in crimes... Second, the Tiahrt Amendments prevent the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF) from requiring dealers to provide an annual inventory. In 2007, ATF discovered 30,000 guns missing from gun-dealer inventories based on inspections of just 10 percent of the nation's gun dealers. Finally, the Tiahrt Amendments require ATF to destroy FBI background-check records within 24 hours. During the Clinton administration, such records were preserved for 180 days and could help identify so-called "straw purchasers" who illegally buy guns on behalf of criminals."
And in a press release titled Close the Gun Show Loophole & Repeal the Tiahrt Amendments, Mayors Against Illegal Guns in April of 2009 states "The Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition hails the re-introduction of legislation to close the loophole in background checks that enables criminals to buy guns from unlicensed gun dealers. Mayors Against Illegal guns also re-launched the ProtectPolice.org campaign to urge Congress to repeal the Tiahrt amendments that hide critical data about illegal gun trafficking from law enforcement." You might also enjoy the blip on their website that says "The Mayors Against Illegal Guns coalition highlights newly released FBI data that documents 230 occasions in 2006 where persons on the violent gang and terrorist watch list were able to purchase guns because of gaps in the gun background check system."
So Con, I hope this helps unmuddle any "out of context" perceptions you may have, as for your other "red herrings", irrelevent musings and disinformation meant to muddle. By the way, libel and slander are two different things, one is verbal the other written. Of course, I am not guilty of any of those but you only said that as a false means of discrediting, didn't you? In any event, Con, you have my name and I am certainly available to accept service of any law suit you would like to entertain. Anyone interested in these issues should go to www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.org.
Jerry, I asked you a specific question that requires a specific answer but all you do is change the subject. And you have the gall to accuse me of red herrings and disinformation?
Once again: Provide evidence to support your assertion that gun shops in Rhode Island cause straw purchases and other crime problems. If you can't do this, then get out of the debate - you have no credibility.
If they really cared about public safety, they would repeal the stiff gun control laws. Florida is a great anti-gun-control example. The more you clamp down on private ownership, the higher the crime rate. Of course the BATFE is going to publish reports that give them more power and a bigger budget, just like every other bloated federal regulatory agency. Governments won't be happy until they completely abolish private gun ownership... and guess what the crime rate will be, even then? I'll go with much higher. Criminals are cowards and they're going to prey on the defenseless. And they will always get guns illegally, much to the profit of black market gun dealers. And the wheel keeps turning...
Unfettered municipal enforcement access to the BATFE database would pose more of a threat to liberty of law abiding citizens, with security risks to private data abounding, and the potential for harassment of law abiding private gun owners. Under the Tiahrt Amendment, law enforcement agencies and prosecutors can access the BATFE database only in connection with a criminal investigation. There is no hiding of information. Just have to have probable cause and a warrant, just like anything else.
Metaldoc. Let me reply with a case that just came across my desk yesterday from the United States District Court, District of Maine. It is quite long so I will cite some relevant sections and would be happy to give you a copy of the document should you have any interest.
United States of America v. Durrell Williams a/k/a "D-Block" and Joshua Hebert a/k/a/ "Jedi". Section 10, count 2 "Williams recruited Straw Purchasers and directed them to Red Wheel enterprises to pose as the true purchasers of the firearms listed in Counts Four through Eight of this Superseding Indictment." Count 4 "Williams knowingly induced and procured Straw Purchaser #1 to claim falsely on ATF Forms 4473 that she was the actual buyer of the following firearms:" Cobra Enterprises, model CB 9, 9 millimeter pistol...Cobra enterprises, model CA32, .32 caliber pistol...Cobra enterprises, model Patriot 45, .45 caliber pistol..." "Williams knowingly induced and procured Straw Purchaser #2 to claim falsely on an ATF Form 4473 that he was the actual buyer of the following firearms: Hi-Point firearms, model JCP, .40 caliber pistol... and Hi-Point Firearms, model JHP, .45 caliber pistol...Hi-Point Firearms, model JHP, .45 caliber pistol and Cobra enterprises, model Patriot, .45 caliber pistol, Cobra Enterprises, model Patriot, 9 mm pistol and Cobra Enterprises, model FS 380, .380 caliber pistol. These guns, by the way, were being purchased for transport to Massachusetts where the enterprising individual was selling them for a profit motive. Metal - You don't get guns on the street for $50. This example is just one of many transaction going on every day at gun stores across the U.S. It really is simple, the easier it is for criminals, the mentally ill and terrorist to access guns, the more will have them. Common sense guns laws work - they certainly aren't going to stop all gun crime, but they will stop some - and that should be the goal.
Ah, Con I've been in the debate for more than 15 years. I'll choose when and if to get in or out. Nice dance though.
Morskie - Florida has some of the weakest gun laws in the country. They also have a gun fatality of over 11/100,000 Compare that to Massachusetts with strong guns laws and a gun fatality rate of around 3/100,000. Its almost 4 to 1. I guess by your argument we will need to destroy motor vehicle licensing and registrations databases within 24 hours for fear of data breaches. Sorry, the background check information was kept for 180 days prior to the Bush administration. Can you point to any data breaches?
JerryBelair said: "(ATF&E) claim that the ATF&E cannot perform the functions for which they have been empowered." Perhaps you don't realize this Jerry, but the BATF&E is a law ENFORCEMENT agency, not a law MAKING body. If their claim as you state, is that they cannot do their job, they should be replaced. Who in their right mind would create new laws at the behest of an agency employed to enforce? Does not work in a Republic.
Jerry also said: "That is simply because Congress has kow-towed to the gun lobby whose goal is to placate the gun industry and allow criminals, terrorists and mentally ill individuals access to guns."
Um...Are you referring to events on the planet called Earth? If so...
1. America has a document called the Constitution. It is the foundation and source of the legal authority underlying the existence of the United States. Contained therein are 27 additions called Amendments. The second of those amendments guarantees the right of individuals to possess firearms. (See District of Columbia v. Heller.) The first 10 are known as the Bill of RIGHTS. RIGHTS, Jerry. Do you know why there is a Bill of RIGHTS, Jerry? Do you know why a constitution was drafted and ratified? Do you know why the federal government was created?
Here's where we get to destroy your hollow rhetoric and unfounded, unbalanced, fear of guns, and reiterate the necessity of citizen ownership.
Under the Articles of the Confederation state governments had the majority of the power. When Daniel Shays raised a militia and started burning court houses, the state of Massachusetts lacked the necessary man power to put down any resistance. The federal government's hands were tied. They did not have the authority to go in and do anything about it. The militia began to spread and the state was crippled. After the rebellion the government recognized the need for a stronger federal government. Many people, including George Washington himself, were actually distressed by the need for the Constitution. They themselves had fought in the Revolutionary War and were reluctant to hand over that much power to the federal government after what they had been through to get out of that situation with England. However, after Shays' Rebellion they understood that it had to be done. Interestingly enough, Thomas Jefferson wrote in a letter to James Madison regarding the rebellion, "I hold it, that a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing, and as necessary in the political world as storms in the physical. Unsuccessful rebellions, indeed, generally establish the encroachments on the rights of the people, which have produced them. An observation of this truth should render honest republican governors so mild in their punishment of rebellions, as not to discourage them too much. It is a medicine necessary for the sound health of government."
Undoubtedly, the creation of a centralized government was originally to enable the collection of taxes to finance a standing army in order to put down any further rebellion. Despite this, through the Massachusetts Compromise, the groundwork was laid to ensure that a Bill of Rights would be drafted, which would provide constitutional guarantees against encroachment by the government of certain rights. Near the top of the list is the RIGHT to bear arms. To resist tyranny.
There was need for more power, but so much as to become what they had just gotten rid of through the Revolution.
The bottom line is that the possession of firearms by the people is simply the most necessary means to check tyranny. This is fact. Read the book.
2. "Congress...allow(s) criminals, terrorists and mentally ill individuals access to guns." An outright LIE, Jerry. You do hold a law degree, do you not Jerry? You have undoubtedly read the decision in D.C. v. Heller, have you not? Of course you have.
For the benefit of those who have not, the court in it's decision said in pertinent part, "However, "[l]ike most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose." The Court's opinion, although refraining from an exhaustive analysis of the full scope of the right, "should not be taken to cast doubt on LONGSTANDING PROHIBITIONS on the possession of firearms by FELONS and the MENTALLY ILL..."
3. You say you are a hunter and responsible gun owner? A classic tactic of radical activists to attempt to show some commonality with the opposition, ala, 'see, we're on the same side'. OR, and you a 'Diane Feinstein'/Nancy Pelosi'? (Notorious gun opponents, but both have permits to carry concealed.) Typical liberal hypocrisy.
peterpan said: "This type of business could have sent the town in the wrong direction."
What? You mean as opposed to a gay bath house, porn store, or chemical batching plant? Grab Jerry by the hand and skip back to Never-Never Land, please. Your non-arguments are simply regurgitated gun-grabber rhetoric.
Malo periculosam libertatem quam quietam servitutem. [I prefer a dangerous freedom to a contented slavery.]
Jerry, you're a loudmouth but you have no facts to back up your statements, so I will conclude that they are false. As noted in my last post, I asked you a direct question and you have failed to provide a direct answer but tried to change the subject.
It will be up to the other users of this site to decide which of us is more credible.
DanGordon - Dan, you've changed the subject from Tiahrt, Amendments attached to Federal spending bill to weaken the ATF&E's oversight of the laws it was created to enforce and an argument against banning guns, Heller, as you know, is a gun ban case. Then, once you've changed the argument to one you attribute to me you then argue against me on the argument I never made. Can't say I'm not used to it, it is classic NRA "camel's nose in the tent" dribble. A few percent of gun owners are members of the NRA. The NRA speaks for them not for gun owners. And, Dan, I've been a gun owner for more than 40 years so can the rhetoric based on false assumptions doesn't benefit the discussion. You and Con can disparage the postings I made above, but they are from the mouths of 340 Mayors and 200 Police Chiefs. I choose to give them more credibility than you or your friends in the NRA.
Jerry,
Gun Death Rate and Gun Violent Crime rate are very different statistics. We're talking crime here. Of course, the death rate stats are very easy to find since they aim to support stiff gun control. There are many factors that go into calculating the Gun Death Rate, many of which are not associated with violent crime. So you are off topic with this one, but i'll bite:
Homicide rate w/ Gun:
Florida 3.15/100,000
Mass 1.53/100,000
% of Homicides with a gun: Florida 62.0%, Mass 58.1%
this is not surprising considering some demographic information that comes into effect, not the least of which being the entirety of Dade County and the increased instances of natural disasters. I believe this is 2006 data. Your numbers seemed to be from 2002 and painted a little more bleak a picture.
As i said before, stats can be made to say anything. Common sense and reason rule this debate.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/polsby.fpgc.html
its a long read, it should keep you busy for a little bit. I hope you read it for the sake of intellectual honesty.
Con - I painstakingly supplied you with the information you requested but you claim its not there. The facts are provided by 340 mayors and 200 police chiefs - if you wish to conclude they a false, have at it. The ostrich who buries his head in the sand to avoid the lion does so at its peril, but he does so of his own free will.
Morskie - My figures are from 2006 from the CDC and are the gun fatality rates of the 50 states. These include homicides, suicides and accidents. My comments agreed with you that Florida has a very high gun fatality rate, where we didn't agree was your statement that if Florida repealed its restrictive gun laws there would be less gun crime. I was simply noting that Florida has weak gun laws and as seen throughout the country, with few exceptions, the weakest gun law states have the highest gun fatality rate. The gun homicide rate in Florida being two times Massachusetts is also consistant with that theory. Thanks for not calling me a loud mouth or whatever DanGordon was calling me.
Jerry: I didn't call you names. What are you talking about?
Sorry, DanGordon. I must have misconstrued Liar, radical activists, liberal hypocrit and whatever you meant by why don't you grab Jerry by the hand and skip back to never never land as name calling. My bad.
At any rate, I was perhaps a bit snotty in my posting. Apologies are due, but please understand that I am passionate regarding gun ownership as I prefer freedom.
NRA...no thanks. I am a member of Gun Owners of America.
Plain and simple, Jerry, anyone that would seek to restrict our freedoms is an enemy. You wouldn't call someone who stole your wallet, 'friend', would you? It is what it is. No tap dancing around it.
I do not understand why you attempt to align the BATFE and the police chiefs with your agenda, when both have SUPPORTED the Tiahrt Amendment.
BATFE Statement: http://www.scrippsnews.com/node/22041
Fraternal Of Police Statement: http://www.fop.net/servlet/display/news_article?id=411&XSL=xsl_pages%2fpublic_news_individual.xsl
No problem Dan, we choose to disagree on some aspects of the issue. I am not aligning anybody with Tiahrt, they aligned themselves with the issue, www.mayorsaginstillegalguns.org. I simply read what they wrote and gave it the credibility that I feel it deserves. People can look at the arguments and choose positions based on that. I would also note that sometimes we have to give up a little freedom in order to protect the greater good. I don't have a problem with knowing where crime guns originate and I believe that we can do better that 30,000 gun deaths a year. I believe that there should be background checks on all gun sales and that the ATF&E should be encouraged to find the bad dealers (1% of gun stores supply about 57% of crime guns). As with anything, the bad apples are in the vast minority but in this particular business, they can cause a lot of damage. Reducing gun violence will have a beneficial effect on gun ownership rights because it is gun violence that is the primary fuel for calls on gun bans. So we can civilly disagree on the methods of getting there. Check out American Hunters and Shooters, I disagree with a couple of their positions but find them to be a much more moderate group of gun owners and I very much like their activities to protect public lands. Backcountry Hunters and Anglers is also a great group promoting public roadless areas. Finally, Dan, I support freedom too, and life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Sometimes, we have to give a bit to get a lot.
Jerry, i understand your point. Again, i want to state that we are talking gun crimes, not gun accidents or willful pain inflicted upon oneself. You'll notice that the % of homicides committed with a gun in FL and MA are quite similar despite gun control laws in place. the per-capita stats do not reside in a vacuum of state by state gun control laws alone. Please do read the link i referenced above.
http://www.firearmsandliberty.com/polsby.fpgc.html
People willing to trade their freedom for temporary security deserve neither and will lose both. - Benjamin Franklin
You can not legislate away bad things from happening. Gun deaths are unfortunate. Gun CRIMES will generally increase in the presence of strict gun control laws.
An armed man is a citizen. An unarmed man is a subject.
Jerry just knows every freakin thing about everything , your amazing jerry LMFAO !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Warren is in for a big surprise when and if the nichols decide to appeal . There was absolutely no grounds for the denial
As far as I can tell everyone on here , myself included seems to know everything about everything. Mikeandbarbie know that the appeal will win and also know that the Nichols are salt of the earth awesome shirt off your back saints LMFAO
mikenbarb - Sorry, I'm not very good at these internet acronyms so I try to put common words to them to see if I can decifer them. Does LMFAO mean "love making faces at owls"? Are you guys ornithologists?
With all the facts being thrown around I expected to see the ordinance that restricts explosive storage.I could not find it on the town web site, have looked several times.One thing is for sure, all the laws in the world will not stop people from owning guns.The laws will make people like me a law breaker because I will not obey them.Tell the goverment to go to hell and all the liberals to follow them.Stand up for your rights or they will disappear.People like Jerry were around in the 1700's ,they were the ones who turned in the patriots to the British,Tar and feathers to all you Tories.
Joe. On the website, is the Town Zoning Ordinance. That is where you will find the prohibition of bulk storage of explosives. I know you used the adjective "high" explosives but the prohibition is "bulk". Then go to the Fire code. This is a state statute. The fire chief testified that ammunition is defined as explosives in the fire code. So, the definition of ammunition falls under explosives in the fire code, the zoning ordinanance prohibits the storage of explosives, and the zoning commission found that the prohibition applies to ammunition. As best I can determine from being at the meeting is that this was the primary factor that the Commission hung their hat on in the denial for a special permit. Sorry I'm not commenting on the 1700's Torry thing - I'm not the smartest guy in the world and I'm having trouble getting my head around it. Must be residual damage left over from the 60's.
Right! let's not let anyone create jobs here. We're swimming in money.
Jerry,Let me be clear I found the part in the ordinance you refer to on bulk storage.I do not see mention of fire arms or ammo.If you quote state statute that is fine, I do not believe it applies.The assembley of fire arms is not prohibitive so they could do that to day,with out zoning approval.They might not be able to store large amounts of black powder but bullets are not explosives,so if they are not reloading they may be in compliance.I would fight the town on this,I cant believe the zoning boards decision.Fight for your rights or loose them.The court should hear this case, I hope they fight it.
Jerry you should no the lingo online , your always here freakin spouting off BS .........................back up the crap your pushing here , you can't every time someone ask to see the facts you just repeat your same old garbage , I think everyone should just ignore jerry , jerry hooooooooo hooooooo , btw jerry thats what owls do !!!!
I know liberals hate guns but our forefathers, Federal, State and Local adopted the 2'nd amendment to the US Constitution. Game playing with undefined words like 'bulk' only serve to diminish our constitutional rights. Liberals, you will never be able to nullify the second amendment any more than conservatives will end abortion... so stop trying! Someday the voters will have an epiphany and realize this is a one party system with two heads. I'm betting that Warren will experience property tax demonstrations by 2011 or by 2012 at the latest. Warren officials must understand that they cannot continue to cut services, raise taxes and their own salaries and expect the townspeople to unquestioningly accept this outrage for very much longer.
Dear Mr. Nichols, Please be kind enough when spouting out alleged facts and figures to cite the source of said facts and figures least you look and sound like or worse yet, be judged a foolish talking head. By citing a source for your arguments it lends credibility to what otherwise sounds like gibberish to the untrained ear. Actually it just sounds like gibberish and nonsense to everybody.
Dear Mr. Belair the only thing worse than Mr. Nicols inability to document his claims are your ludicrous, outlandish anti second amendment rights grated to all Americans by our forefathers. I suspect you have absolutely no idea who from RI signed the US Constitution let alone the meaning of bulk. I suggest you too bulk up on the facts and cite sources for you arguments lest you be judged the town's joker.
Constitutionalist, poor logic and debate skills are just the opening issues here. I have contacted the NRA and have a representative meeting with me and several other concerned citizens with this town's total disregard of the Constitution. This town and its liberal bias will soon be confronting NRA lawyers in Providence courtrooms and lots of expensive legal fees. No governmental body within the United States other than Congress with the US Supreme Court's okay can overturn the second amendment. And that in itself is highly unlikely and open to much debate by constitutional experts!
Nancy , I am a little confused , did Mr nichols spout off these facts or lack of here ? Because , I am pretty sure I haven't read any comments posted by him , in fact I KNOW he hasn't .Again not trying to ruffle your feathers just confused , please set me straight , thanks ........
Hey Rastabri I didn't say they were saints , please don't put words in my mouth , I simply said they are the type of people who would give you the shirt off their backs . I don't know everything about everything , but I do know the Nichols and if there were anyone to have that type of shop , Mr. Nichols would be the man to do it. I don't know that if they appeal they will win , but I do know this they were denied for the wrong reasons . The chief of police and the fire chief support Mr Nichols , it's only a handful of close minded people like yourself that are against this and again for ALL the wrong reasons , you people need to open your eyes .
MIKEENBARB OR barbandmike which ever one of you is writing, I am the farthest thing from a close minded person and really don't give two shits about the gun shop in Warren. If it meets all the legal criteria then go for it. You stated above that you don't know if the appeal would win but previously stated that the town was in for a big surprise if they appeal. Those two statements seem to contradict each other.So since you are such sticklers for the facts please show me anywhere on here where I have been against the gun shop. What are the facts in this case that the two of you keep quoting. You have no facts either. Except your admiration for the owner you have not offered any compelling arguments about this case.
Joe. The issue of whether ammunition is defined as an explosive was asked of the Fire Chief at the hearing. The chief testified that under the fire code, it is. Based on that, the Commission determined that if the code defined ammunition as explosives and if the zoning ordinance prohibited bulk storage of explosives then it would be prohibited.
Dear Nancy - Apparently you have not bothered to read what was posted as you suggest that I cite sources. I posted all of that information above. I also gave the website www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.com where you may verify the concerns about the Tiahrt Amendments and other NRA bills, like the gun show loophole, that allow terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill to get guns. Nancy, that would be an organization of 340 mayors and 200 police chiefs who have issued those statements. It is their facts and I have sourced them. As for you arguments about the Constitution, where in the RI Constitution is there a right for felons, terrorists and mentally ill to possess guns?
Jerry you assume the cheif is right I do not and would challenge it.The courts will decide if they appeal.
mikenbarb. Actually, I do know what the lingo meant. Its just that you speak as friends of the Nichols who you identify as salt of the earth types and you know the old saying that a person can be judged by his friends. So, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I don't think that calling people vile names advances your arguments but you certainly have the right to disagree. As for your complaint regarding my postings not providing supporting facts, please note my reply to Nancy above. No one on this thread has posted more sourced material than I. Of course, you can choose to deny it but that won't make it disappear. LOL (lots of love, not laughing out loud).
Joe, I'm not assuming anything. I didn't comment on that issue at all. I am simply reporting the chief's testimony and the Commission's statement in that regard. I'm concerned about the ability of the ATF&E to regulate and investigate gun sales based on the prohibitions contained in the Tiahrt Amendments. I've been pretty consistant on that. Again, for those who complain that I haven't sourced my comments www.mayorsagainstillegalguns.com
Jerry, Claims of the BATFE and Mayors Against Illegal Guns only show your proclivity to read sources biased towards your own opinions.
Did you read that link i posted?
Here's one of your Mayors ... Cedric Glover from Shreveport, LA
http://www.lewrockwell.com/grigg/grigg-w99.1.html
in action. Forgive me if i don't hold their goals in the highest regard, since they care not for their cash cow subjects. They just want to exercise power over free people.
OPINIONS do nobody any good, just like the chief stating his opinion that small arms ammunition was classified as an explosive.
here is a link to the section of the RI State Fire Code.
http://www.fsc.ri.gov/statutes/28_28.php
23-28.28-2. Permit required.
No person shall manufacture or deal in explosives, and no person shall possess or have under his or her control explosives other than empty cartridge shells (primed), percussion caps, small arms ammunition, small arm primers, and smokeless powder for small arms or black powder in excess of five (5) pounds unless he or she has obtained a permit therefore pursuant to the provisions of §§ 23-28.28-3 - 23-28.28-5.
23-28.28-3. Manufacturing permit.
(a) Application for a permit to manufacture explosives shall be made to the state fire marshal in such form as the state fire marshal shall prescribe; and shall state, among other things:
(1) The name and address of the applicant;
(2) The reason for desiring to manufacture explosives;
(3) The applicant's citizenship, if the applicant is an individual;
(4) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and addresses of the partners and their citizenship; and
(5) If the applicant is an association or corporation, the names and addresses of the officers and directors thereof and their citizenship.
(b) The state fire marshal shall issue the permit applied for unless he or she finds that either the applicant or the officers, agents, or employees of the applicant has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude, or a felony, or is disloyal to the United States, or otherwise does not qualify under rules and regulations as promulgated by the state fire marshal.
23-28.28-4. Dealers' permits.
(a) Application for permits to engage in the business of dealing in explosives other than empty cartridge shells (primed), percussion caps, small arms ammunition, small arms primers, smokeless powder, and black powder for small arms shall be made to the state fire marshal in such form as the state fire marshal shall prescribe and shall state among other things:
(1) The name and address of the applicant;
(2) The reason for desiring to engage in the business of dealing in explosives;
(3) Citizenship, if an individual application;
(4) If a partnership, the names and addresses of the partners and their citizenship; and
(5) If an association or corporation, the names and addresses of the officers and directors thereof, and their citizenship.
(b) The state fire marshal shall issue the permit applied for only to businesses for use at their place of business unless he or she finds that either the applicant or the officer, agents, or employees of the applicant have been convicted of a felony or crime involving moral turpitude, or are disloyal to the United States, or otherwise do not qualify under rules and regulations as promulgated by the state fire marshal.
23-28.28-5. Permit to possess explosives.
(a) Application for a permit to possess explosives, other than empty cartridge shells (primed), percussion caps, small arms ammunition, small arms primers and smokeless powder for small arms, or black powder in excess of five (5) pounds shall be made in writing to the state fire marshal in such form as the state fire marshal shall prescribe and shall state among other things:
(1) The name and address of the applicant;
(2) The reason for desiring the permit to possess explosives;
(3) The applicant's citizenship, if the applicant is an individual;
(4) If the applicant is a partnership, the names and addresses of the partners and their citizenship; and
(5) If the applicant is a corporation or other business entity, the names and addresses of the officers thereof and their citizenship.
(b) The state fire marshal shall issue the permit applied for unless he or she finds that either the applicant or the officers, agents, or employees of the applicant have been convicted of a felony or a crime involving moral turpitude, or is disloyal to the United States, and, provided, further, that no permit shall be issued to any person under the age of twenty-one (21) years of age.
(c) Provided, however, that if the applicant holds a valid permit from the bureau of alcohol, tobacco, and firearms of the department of treasury, then the state fire marshal may issue a permit to possess explosives.
Wherever "small arms ammunition" is mentioned, it is as an exception to the term "explosives". For example:
"Application for permits to engage in the business of dealing in explosives other than empty cartridge shells (primed), percussion caps, small arms ammunition, small arms primers, smokeless powder, and black powder for small arms shall be made to the state fire marshal in such form as the state fire marshal shall prescribe"
So according to State Code, the Nichols don't even need a permit to deal small arms ammunition, or black powder, etc...
Still trying to find Warren Fire Code, but on a state level, there's a valid gripe against the Chief's claim and the Board's denail.
Morskie - Their may or may not be a valid gripe against the Chief's claim that ammunition is classified as an explosive. I only heard his testimony and he further testified that he had no problem with the storage. That is not, as I am sure you know, my issue. I have a problem with easy access to guns by prohibited persons. The gun show loophole and the Tiahrt Amendments make that easier. I have been legislative chair for Stop Handgun Violence (operative word is violence) for 15 years and have intimate knowledge of hundreds of instances of prohibited persons gaining access to all types of firearms through private sales at gun shows, from kitchen dealers and even yard sales and through "Straw" purchasers at gun stores and pawn shops. My position has been consistant. Because Congress has weakened the ATF&E's ability to enforce and regulate by allowing private sales of firearms without background checks and because the ATF&E's ability to investigate an FFL has been weakened by the Tiahrt Amendments, I am of the opinion that an FFL brings a risk of dangerous, illegal activity to a community with insufficient enforcement capability to mitigate that risk. Repeal Tiahrt, close the gun show loophole and require background checks on ALL gun sales and open the store. My position is simple, a community should not have to accept an activity from which it is preempted by the Feds from regulating when the regulating is insufficient to ensure the safety of the community. The Zoning Commission, took a different stance but got to the same result.
Morskie - There not "Their". Inattention.
Jerry, The Nichols are not applying to run a gun show... where does that loophole apply here? (serious question, is the "gun show part a euphemism? does it actually apply to a local firearm shop?) Every patron would be subject to a background check at their shop in this town. And once again, there's that Orwellian Newspeak term "gun violence"...
"Consider the propagandistic term, "gun violence," popularized by gun control advocates. This is a form of reification by which inanimate objects are imbued with the ability to act and to commit violence. Guns, of course, cannot be violent in themselves. Violence comes from people who use guns and a variety of other weapons, including fists, to commit violence."
source: http://www.lewrockwell.com/roberts/roberts269.html
read that too, please. I don't even subscribe to NRA propaganda because the NRA is no friend to the 2nd amendment and the rights of a free people. My sources are concerned with the Constitution and Liberty. Yours are concerned only with oppression and totalitarian laws. Have you read any of the information i have posted here for you to read? Yes or No? You haven't offered rebuttal or any indication that you are willing to educate yourself on the other side of your biased position.
You underestimate, my friend. I have read many, many sides of the issues from the NRA to your own favorite, Gun Owners' of America. Also Goal, AHSA, 2nd Amendment Sisters and many militia type pronouncements. I know that the gun show loophole does not apply to a gun store. I included it to explain the breath of my concerns with all of the avenues by which terrorists, criminals and the mentally ill have and will continue to get guns. Gun violence is not a propagandist term. 30,000 people in American die annually from guns. Some by suicide, some by accident and some by homicide. You know that Constitutional Rights may be restriced by a balance of a weight of the restriction and the benefit therefrom as compared to the effect of the restriction on the right. The most commonly cited is the restriction on the 1st Amendment of prohibiting the yelling of "Fire" in a crowded theater. Likewise, as you know, Heller specifically stated that its decision should not be construed as to limit prohibitions on the denial of guns to criminals or mentally ill. I support those restrictions and oppose anything done by Congress that limits those restrictions. Mayorsagainstillegalguns make a much more compelling case to my way of thinking than does the Liberty can have no individual restrictions even if it results in protecting Life, Liberty and Pursuit of Happiness for the majority of Scociety. Your's is a Libertarian view, one which I respect and even some of with I agree. It is just not, on its whole, a philosophy that I find comfort in.
Con (Constitutionalist) but Con will fit just fine. Your statement:
"What kind of pseudo-elitist BS is that? What is your definition of "sketchy" people? And if you can't support your "more than likely would have..." insinuation with some evidence that bad people are attracted to gun shops in RI, then your claim has no merit, no weight, and no validity in this argument. I say once again, if you have any facts as to the type of people who are customers of gun shops, disclose them here; else, stop lying and if all you have to offer are lies and insinuations, please shut up."
Not only are your debating skills poor but you sound like a child in a sandbox not getting his way. My reasons for saying what I did is A. I have a relative who is with the ATF, investigating gun shops as well as explosive manufacturers. I trust his opinion when he tells me they (gun shops) do attract a certain percentage of "shady"individuals. My own common sense tells me that as well. How do I prove it? Don't know and won't waste my time trying. However, the same question could be presented to you- prove they do not attract a percentage of shady individuals. I think you will find you will not come up empty handed.
As far as what you conceive as the definition of my screen name, I could care less what you think. Yours seems to have taken on the same persona as the gone but not forgotten Iustutia, same crudeness in tone and level of arrogance.
I'm just glad a gun shop will not open in Warren. And yes, I am gloating.....
Peterpan - Did you notice that Constitutionalist damanded that if I did not adhere to his debate structure that I get out of the debate? Every Constitutionalist I have met embraced the 1st Amendment often using words like "I don't agree with you but I will defend to the death your right to say it". Maybe he/she should change his screen name to disingenuist. I am glad this issue came up for discussion, except for a few questionable posters it was a good debate and what these forums should be about. Even the responsible opposing debaters, I believe, recognize the inappropriateness of the incivility of a few. I always appreciate the name calling, vile language (even when couched in internet acronyms) and personal attacks because once they resort to those, it is all they have left with which to debate.
Well, if the anti-gun propagandists want to blather on they are certainly free to do so. I couldn't stop them even if I wanted to. If only they gave the entire Bill of Rights the same respect as they demand for the First Amendment.
I maintain that the zoning board made a capricious decision that was not based on any statute or ordinance that they have the power to enforce, and their position is wrong. "Small arms ammunition" is specifically excepted from the definition of bulk explosives in the statute. I don't know whether the applicant plans to fight it, but if he does I wish him success. I further maintain that Jerry has provided not a single item of factual evidence to support his claims - the website link he posted does not address the simple question that I asked him.
The problem with debating in this forum is that there is no audience to decide the winner - so if Jerry and his childlike ally want to claim victory, who can gainsay them? As to the claim of having a shadowy "relative" in the ATF, frankly I don't believe it.
There has been a lot of dialog on this issue, but my concern regarding the Zoning Boards decision is that the members just went through the motions and had already decided the outcome. The word "bulk" was just a convenient phrase to deny the permit. This wasn’t about bulk storage, but about gun ownership. Mr. Ferrazanno showed his bias in a previous article in the Warren Times. His “display of bullets along the table during the middle of the meeting” was an obvious show of bias against the issuing of the permit. So much for open mindedness and fair decision making.
I think Mr. Nicholas should appeal the board’s decision.
Constitutionalist. Your're looking for a "winner" in this debate? Jesus Christ man, this issue has been debated at least since the Supreme Court visited it in 1939. Even the most recent decision on Heller was a 5-4 decision. Even if you disagree with the decision, the reality is that 4 brilliant jurists, highly experienced and well respected, agree with you. This issue doesn't get "won" in your or my lifetime. It will debate still when our bones are nothing more than dust. If you're looking to "win" find a pick-up game of some sport that you're good at.
"so if Jerry and his childlike ally want to claim victory, who can gainsay them? As to the claim of having a shadowy "relative" in the ATF, frankly I don't believe it."
Actually there is an audience. At over 1850 views as of now the posters on here are not the only readers.There is an "audience". As for my relative, I'm not broadcasting his name because he frequently goes undercover and stating his name means nothing to a bunch strangers.I will not do this just to appease you.Besides what kind of person would I be to blab his name out without his knowledge after he has trusted me with the info he gave me??He would not like it.
Debate works best when the subject is adhered to and respect is given your opponent. You blew it early on with name calling and your sandbox tantrums.
Yea, I'm childlike.....keep throwing sand, Con.
Regards
The gun shop may or may not open in Warren, but the fact remains that there are guns in Warren, lots of them, and 99% of the people owning them are law abiding citizens. They just happen to have given the tax money to another town.
I am not going to comment on the case Jerry mentioned, because I have no knowledge of that case, and cannot find anything about it in any news source I have perused, not through searches. so it is either classified, or kept under wraps. But "straw" buying by hardened criminals, is still a very very small percentage of gun sales, again, because it DOES NOT MAKE ANY SENSE! If there was such a thing going on it is gun entusiasts buying them because of crazily restrictive state laws. Criminals like stolen guns and illegally manufactured guns. It is much easier to buy a gun like that, and cheaper, than it is to go through the painful straw buying process.
Also: explain how more restrictive gun laws actually cut down on crime? Europe and the UK, all of which have overly restrictive gun laws (IE: you cant have one), have crime rates, including murder rates, comparable, if not greater than, ours. The ONLY difference is the percentage of gun crime. The total crime, including murder, is not less at all, and in many cases, it is greater than ours. You can look at DC and Chicago and see the obvious facts there. They rank number one and number two in murders and both cities have (or had) zero tolerance gun laws, like Europe, you just cant own one. And The Supreme Court ruled that the DC law was unconstitutional. DC had a gun murder rate of 30 in 10,000 people. by contrast, New York City in 2005, with 11 million people, had a TOTAL murder rate of less than 7 per 10,000 people. Last year, New york had only 523 murders, which breaks down to less than 5 per 10,000. And NY has more restrictive gun laws than RI, which is among the lowest in the country in murders, yet one of the weakest in gun control.
sorry, all figures in the above post should be of 100,000 not 10,000, I consistenly forgot a zero, no idea why.
So Jerry and peterpan, I'm curious. What incident so traumatized you that you think guns are so evil that peaceable, law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to sell or purchase them legally in our town?
As to Jerry's special-interest lobbying group, I've never seen a violent handgun, just as I've never seen a violent hammer, knife or automobile. There are violent people out there who would be pleased to violate my rights and to damage to my person and property in order to take by violence what is not theirs by right. As other countries with draconian gun control laws (the UK, for example) prove, these people will commit violent crime with whatever weapon gives them an advantage over victims. One of the reasons for our Second Amendment is the fact that those violent people will be strongly deterred if they know there is a high likelihood that their potential victims or bystanders are armed and able to defend themselves effectively.
Gun control is the theory that a 100-pound woman has the right to fistfight a 200-pound rapist.
Gun control is the theory that a raped and murdered woman is somehow morally superior to a woman holding a smoking gun with a dead rapist at her feet.
Jerry, your position is not merely indefensible. It is immoral.
As to "winning" the debate, there have been 17 people participating on this article who have expressed an opinion about the gun shop. Of these, 14 are in favor and three are against. Jerry, you may be loud, you may be disingenuous, you certainly are quick to go ad hominem, but you, commonsense38 and peterpan are a very small minority. Democratically, buddy, you lose.
metaldoc. All I can do is give you the stuff. You said that criminals would not buy guns in straw purchases, they buy guns on the street for under $50. In response, I gave you a trafficing case in Maine to Massachusetts and listed the guns in the case. I believe among them were .32 cal, .40 cal, .38 cal and .45 cal. to name a few. You can't find the case because under the Tiahrt Amendments the ATF&E is NOT ALLOWED to share crime-gun trace data. I offered to give you the entire case and I am happy to pay for the copying. This case just happened to come across my desk when you made your comment but you still claim it can't be. CASE: Lou's Loans - FFL finally revoked by ATF&E for 239 violations including straw purchasers. One of Lou's guns killed Lauretha Vaird and Philadelphia policeman and another was even linked to a co-conspirator of the 1993 World Trade Center bombing. Remember the two guards killed by Mustafa Ali? The gun was made in a straw purchase at C&C Sports Center by one Jason Lighty who transferred it to a co-worker at Enterprise Rent-a-car. At the same time that those arrests were made the DA announced 10 additional arrests of straw purchasers. By the way, since you mention NJ, 28% of crime guns in NJ were bought "legally" within 2 to 3 years of the crime committed. They weren't stolen or manufactured, the majority were purchases made by qualified individuals which somehow made their way into criminal hands. CASE: 76 guns were illegally transferred to Double II Bloods Street Gang through straw buyers - all students at Wilberforce University a few miles from Hole in the Wall Gun Store in Xenia, Ohio. 16 firearms were sold to one straw buyer and another 15 firearms to another straw buyer on the same day. Five days earlier, 25 firearms were sold to one of the same straw buyers. I don't want to play statistics games because I'm not sure your point - You and Con seem to want to move the argument to the Second Amendment Right to Bear Arms. I have never suggested the contrary, I have simply stated consistantly and unequivocally, the ATF&E must have the ability to investigate and regulate and the Tiahrt Amendment restric them from that. Until Tiahrt is repealed no community should be willing to accecpt and inherently dangerous business made more dangerous by Congress willingness to carry the NRA's water. (I do believe, however, that the homocide rate in the UK is about 1/3rd the U.S.)
Jerry: it still makes NO SENSE to buy a gun for $300 (about the cheapest model of handgun available) and then sell it on the street for $50. Would you buy a car for $10,000 and t6hen sell it to a chop shop for $1000? No, same with guns. So therefore I profess that your statistics, no matter how they are gathered, are a load of crap. They have to be, because the numbers dont add up.
Con - What is it that causes you to create fantasy arguments in your head, attribute them to others and then argue against the fantasy. You just spent multiple paragraphs arguing against a gun ban which I have never suggested. Either you are incapable of reading what is actually written and if that involves dyslexia or some other ailment, I'll sympathize or you are simply a dishonest debator. My guess, from your kneejerk responses and your constant introductions of "red herrings" into the discussion, that the later is the case. In any event, let me say it one more time: I SUPPORT BACKGROUND CHECKS ON ALL GUN SALES, I SUPPORT REPEAL OF THE TIAHRT AMENDMENT WHICH RESTRICTS LAW ENFORCEMENT FROM SHARING CRIME GUN INFORMATION, WHICH REQUIRES THE F.B.I. TO DESTROY BACKGROUND CHECKS WITHIN 24 HOURS AND WHICH PROHIBITS THE ATF&E FROM INSPECTING GUN FEDERAL FIREARMS' DEALERS MORE THAN ONE TIME PER YEAR. So, take you condescending, "afraid of big, bad guns" crap, NRA talking points and other childish remarks and cram them or use them in an argument of relevent topic.
Lend me your ears, those of you that are familiar with history, embrace freedom, and know the truth.
Although our arguments are well intended in forums such as these, they do little other than to perhaps cause one that swallowed the liberal bait of a promise of a fairy tale Utopia, to momentarily ponder the folly of the hollow rhetoric, at best.
That being said I do not discourage those of us with the courage to speak, but laud you, as our words also encourage those of us that are aware, that we are not alone.
The mistake we are making is enjoying the comfort of posting behind pseudonyms, from within the confines of our homes.
We see the opposition turn out in numbers for meetings, writing, calling and petitioning our elected representatives, while we collectively shake our heads in despair, and commiserate among ourselves online.
I plead 'guilty', as well. I confess that I do not participate nearly enough in the 'forums' that are of more substance, than these. Today, I pledge real 'change'; Change in my participation in the battle by the People, for the People.
I urge you to do so as well, in the never ending struggle for real freedom against those that would seek to steal it from us. That to include the willfully ignorant that enjoy refuge in the hollow words of their masters.
The statistical data that attempts to lay a number on the amount of the populous in the Revolutionary Period that took up arms, or supported the Revolution, greatly vary. However, the common denominator is that the minority with heart and conviction, won the war. We have for enjoyed the fruits of the sacrifice of our forefathers for better than 200 hundred years, now. It's again under direct attack, and we have ignored the warnings of the necessity of maintaining eternal vigilance.
If we TRULY care; if we TRULY enjoy Freedom; if we TRULY relish independence from those that would have us mollified into complacency, then ACT!
Do it NOW! State and Federal governments has already branded 'gun rights advocates', 'constitutionalists', 'people that believe in God', etc, as low-level terrorists.
The shackles are being slapped on and some of us don't even know it.
SHOW up at the meetings and SPEAK!
Jerry, if your motives were as pure as you claim, this discussion would have been easier and less rancorous. There is a glaring inconsistency between your professed positions as stated in your most recent post and your behavior in trying to prevent Mr. Nichols from opening a legal business in the town.
When faced with such an apparent contradiction, I find that the truth is not in the man's words, but in his actions.
That's funny! Ah, Con, I bow to the Master of debates - you are just too good. You win, Con. Take a ride up to Andy Arruda's place off of Child Street and get yourself on of those trophies he sells and tell Andy to bill me. Your superior skills have overpowered my humble comments and your extrordinary knowledge of the issue, not to mention your ability to focus on the subject matter makes me look amaturish. Please call the trophy anything you feel appropriate. The first annual Constitutionalist debating champion might be nice or maybe some forum readers have some thoughts. Now, I'm going to go lock up my gun, go for a nice relaxing paddle and lick my wounds. You ROCK!
"What incident so traumatized you that you think guns are so evil that peaceable, law-abiding citizens should not be allowed to sell or purchase them legally in our town?"
Con, not sure why you feel I've been traumatized or think guns are evil. In past posts when the story originally ran I stated that I owned two rifles, two handguns and briefly owned an AK-47 before trading it. I think your trying to paint a picture that doesn't fit with my past statements. I've not said anything close to what you are suggesting.
Sure,peaceable, law-abiding citizens should be allowed to sell or purchase them legally-just not in my town.
I'm looking at this from a big picture standpoint. Warren is plagued with an image problem. Adding a gun store, which whether you choose to admit it or not, carries a negative stigma. Warren doesn't need any more negative stigmas. From a real estate perspective I believe it would have a negative impact on the surrounding area. Gambling with this possibility of it not is not worth the risk. If I wanted to open a business, retail , restaurant or what not, I wouldn't want to do it near gun shop. I wouldn't want my patrons to feel uncomfortable, whether their reasons be real or imagined. A gun shop would not , in my opinion , compliment the town.
Shoot me for wanting only trendy boutiques, great restaurants, art galleries and some sophistication in Warren. Somehow that gun shop doesn't quite fit to my ideal picture.
Peter, I agree with you completely. I am not against gun ownership but you need to improve the image of your town and a gun shop will not help on your task.
I am a Cypriot living in the UK with my American wife and contemplating on moving to RI. I am also a hunter and former soldier.
I have the pleasure to visit your fair state twice a year and I stay in Bristol so I know the area quite well.
One of the towns we considered as a place to move is Warren. Unfortunately we will have to reconsider if there is a chance of gun shop opening in your town.
Open more good restaurants, cafes, independent small businesses like butchers, bakers, and a fruit market. Enough with dodgy bars, fast food outlets and gun shops that destroy the image of your town.
As I stated above I am a hunter and also in favour of gun ownership.
And now the stats: 90% of Cypriot males from 18 to 60 are reservists and own a gun (Popu. 1million). Active troops per thousand citizens:12.80 unlike the US which is only 4.76. Also Cypriots are renowned hunters (we almost killed every living thing on the island). Gun crime Almost ZERO. And why? Because when you purchase a gun, after vigorous checks, it is registered on you name as long as you own it. If you want to sell it or someone stole it from you, you are legally responsible to inform the registry office immediately. If you don’t and the next person commits a crime you are liable since is still in your name. And also I promise, registering your gun does not infringe your civil rights. It only protects the rest of the community.
Finally dear metaldoc please do not make great statements about Europe with its “overly restrictive gun laws (IE: you cant have one)” which “have crime rates, including murder rates, comparable, if not greater than, ours.. Europeans have lots of guns (check Switzerland France and Finland) but very little crime.
Registration Registration Registration. I think I am moving to Barrington!
France under Chiroc set out on a course to eleminate handguns (not rifles) and as he did that, crime started to increase (he also increase dthe number of African and Middle eastern immigrants by 400%). The crime rate in France, now, is comparable to the US, unlike Germany which has a near complete zero gun policy and has one of the highest murder rates in Europe, even as the population, despite vigorous immigration, continues to shrink. the EU, as a whole, has some of teh strictest gun polcies in the world. A small number of countries make buck the trend, but by and large, out of the 20 something members, most of them, including the UK and Ireland, ban handguns and have low gun crime, but higher crime rates in nearly every other category. The UK is especially psychotic about safety issues, not just limited to guns, either. they have banned certain video games, and even COFFEE (kava kava). And Ireland is not far behind them.
Metal I recently traveled to London and
Dublin and was able to enjoy coffee in both places. When did London ban the dangerous liquid .
Rastabri: when your students write papers, do you read them? Or do you just pick one word out and ignore the rest?
Did I miss something, you said they have banned coffee in England and I asked you about that. I doubt you want all of your statements run through the bullometer. Don't worry about how I grade papers just try to be more intellectually honest and stop with the falsehoods( two hour teacher work day, Block Island school system and Tiverton being the same size.) Also it appears that you are trying to relate the increase in African and Middle Eastern immigrants to an increase in European crime rates.
no, see, you only half read, and then infer things which were unsaid, because you are about as intellectually honest as a potato. I said they banned coffee and then, since you cant read past what you feel to be bull, there was two words in parens after that "(kava kava)" - dont apologize, i could care less, you are just a typical union-socialist liberal wingnut and nothing you can say will change my extremely low opinion of you. And to think, you started out sounding sane.
metaldoc - It is your figures that don't add up. First of all, guns don't sell for $50 on the street. Have you forgotton that $50 was a figure you fabricated in an earlier post. If a gun doesn't have a body on it, it sells for a tidy price. See, drug dealers have plenty of dough and their are plenty of people willing to trade some of it for a gun. Your $300 figure was also fabricated, last I looked you could get a Jennings for around $89. I gave you four cases. They all are available on the internet if you would like to look. There are also a lot more. Try Googling. Once you read them, if you still think "straw sales" don't happen, well "you can lead a horse to water.........." And why do you keep fabricating figures on just about every issue you comment on. Real figures are available in cyberspace, making stuff up just hurts your credibility.
As far as Middle Eastern immigration spiking crime rates, yes, it did. Ask anyone who knows anything about Europe and you will find it. As with any "hardship" immigration, the less educated and poorer class makes up the bulk of the immigrants, and in France's case, they restricted many of them to living in what amounts to shantytowns on the outskirts of Paris. This area has frequent riots and is often ignored by the police, so crime is rampant. That alone could cause an increase in teh crime rate, but Chirac's crusade against firearms probably affected it more than anything. Because, when all is said and done, once you ban firearms for lawful citizens, the only people left who have them are criminals.
LondonGeorge - Don't give up too easily on Warren. Sure, the Barrington schools have a better reputation (not sure its deserved), but doesn't sound like you have school age kids. You can get more house for your money in Warren and the taxes are much less. Warren is certainly more walkable, funky and eccentric. Think Coffee Depot v Starbucks. Remember, if you live in Barrington, its a long drive to Bristol and vice versa. If you live in Warren, its a short ways to both. May the fourth be with you!
Metal, did you say that coffee was bring banned in England? Did you compare the school on Block Island to the Tiverton system. The answer to the question is yes you did. So where is my dishonesty and socialist wing nut attitude. I would like you to show me these socialist statements of mine even if they are off topic. The bottom line is that the gun shop did not get approval for reasons previously stated. The good news is that you can continue to write your fiction on here on every topic that you are an expert in(to many to list). Keep teh jokes coming we liberal Socialist pantywaiste love it
LondonGeorge - We seem to be doing as much as possible to drive all business out of Warren, not just gun shops.
We recently drove a restaurant out of town because the "Planning Board" decided the building they were going to build looked too much like a train station. The proposed building was down on Water Street and somehow an 1800's style train station (assuming you actually believe it looked like a train station) doesn't fit in the 1700-1800's style???
We denied a liquor license to one of the largest businesses in town because they didn't have a fence around the area they wanted to serve in and the Police Chief said that DUI is on the rise.
The overall anti-business attitude in Warren Town Government shows that we will probably not be getting new businesses in Warren. We can only hope the ones we have stay.
LondonGeorge - We seem to be doing as much as possible to drive all business out of Warren, not just gun shops.
We recently drove a restaurant out of town because the "Planning Board" decided the building they were going to build looked too much like a train station. The proposed building was down on Water Street and somehow an 1800's style train station (assuming you actually believe it looked like a train station) doesn't fit in the 1700-1800's style???
We denied a liquor license to one of the largest businesses in town because they didn't have a fence around the area they wanted to serve in and the Police Chief said that DUI is on the rise.
The overall anti-business attitude in Warren Town Government shows that we will probably not be getting new businesses in Warren. We can only hope the ones we have stay.
Yes, I said Coffee was banned in England and then cited teh specific type. As a teacher, you should be aware of the English language, so you must not really be a teacher, or are a very bad one. And yes, I did compare Block Island to Tiverton, but on a cost-per-student basis, not a population basis, another nuance you failed to realize. Your kids must love having a teacher that does not understand proper English.
LondonGeorge, you may want to also consider Touisset in your search for a home. Although it is technically Warren, it is not located in Warren proper (around downtown area) but is a community located on a peninsula on the easterly side of town.R.I. Monthly ranked it one of the top 10 neighborhoods in R.I. and it is considered a more affluent area. It is the most beautiful part of Warren, in my opinion.
I love how all these gun owners don't want a gun shop in town.You people are full of bull $()!+, I don't believe you for a minute.You only say that because your not able to defend your self if a crook comes in your home.Be careful all those gang members who wanted to buy guns at this shop are mad. I drove through that area of warren today all the empty store fronts tell the real story.People hunt not just for sport, it is a source of meat.In tuff times people eat a lot more wild game.I love venison and have ate it all of my life. Hunting is relaxing and back to nature, some thing I enjoy and will continue to enjoy.Gun registration is just another name for TAX, along with the registration will be a fee.That fee will increase every year,as they always do.The last thing we need, is more goverment and more taxes.
Metaldoc sorry I missed your highly nuanced point about coffee being banned in England. As usual you were correct in all of your statements like the time you said only rich kids play lacrosse and only a few dozen of them anyway. And you did compare Tiverton in size to Block Island, telling me I would be surprised at how large the Block has become. Your right though, the schools system are only seperated by about 700 kids.then you had the highly nuanced statement claiming Tiverton had about 800 teachers when in truth is less than half that number. Your nuance must have escaped me as I was wading through your knee deep manure pile of "the facts as read by MetalDoc.
and still... you missed it in lacrosse because you said in portsmouth, and then proceeded to use statewide numbers, and list off only schools in well off neighborhoods. I still challenge you to know "hundreds" who play in Portmouth. And yes, Tiverton has roughly 800 teachers and aides. How else could it cost 19 million dollars a year? Block Islands schools have 700 less, whoopdie do. thats a lot isn't it? No, not really, except that Block Island pays half the cost per student and has the lowest taxes in the state and produces nothing but college ready students. Wow, I guess paying more DOES NOT mean better educated kids. Now start your summer planning for the next kindergarten class you are teaching. fingerpainting is a very nuanced class. Better get those plans ready!
Metaldoc instead of spending your time Europe bashing, giving us unnecessary information about coffee, video games and Middle Eastern people in France, why don’t you go out and take a look at your town.
If I was you I would spend my time campaigning to my local council for creation of better policies which would attract more business to the area.
I have been reading all your comments and from what I understand you are all pro gun. Gun ownership is not the issue here.
A gun shop in your town will surely add to the negative image of your town. How are you going to convince people like me and my family to move to your town? And what will I say to my wife to persuade her to come and live there? : “Oh darling lets choose Warren to move rather than Bristol or Barrington, since we can take a short stroll and buy guns and booze for our children”.
You should be trying to create business which will attract new people to your town (boutiques, galleries, baker, butcher). Do not let your high street die.
Do not let your town die Take action now before is too late
-JerryBellair do not worry. Warren is still on the run. Your town has some great places like that breakfast place on the water, antique shops and even bowling for the kiddies.
I love Warren and this love for the place is what makes me want it to improve. It has been treated as the lame brother of Barrington for long enough. Taxes are lower, schools are decent. Now let us work on improving the high street
-Mark Smiley thank you for all background info for your town. I think sometimes government can be overbearing. I am a historian and work in conservation so I know all the pitfalls of planning law. My advice to you for changing the system is maybe working from within. Have you thought of running as a local councillor? Or maybe campaigning for a pro business candidate in the next local election, no matter of their affiliation. I think the more involved you are the more likely to see change.
-PeterPan I have heard lots of good things about Touisset. I have never been but I will make sure I visit next time I travel to the US.
Joe Sousa I know that with gun registration will come another fee or tax as you call it. To tell you the truth I would not mind paying it if it meant that streets would be safer and gun crime would fall. If that happens people may even stop screaming for more strict gun controls. Please see the positive side.
When you register a car is for your protection if it is stolen and for other people if you run them over and abandon the scene. Look at this issue the same way. By putting a name on every gun, crime will fall because you could trace it to its original owner. If the gun was used by him you arrest him, or if it was stolen you at least have a clue of where to start your investigation.
I hope everything makes sense. Take care all
Yea we see how well the goverment has done in getting crime to end and drugs of the street.Don,t waste my time, this is a tax and more gov. jobs.Big goverment is a failure 14 trillion in debt and climing.The kids today are screwed, the best thing we can do is fight expansion of gov. programs. The registration of cars in RI is a revenue sourse for the state.That is what gun registration will be another way to pick my pocket.I do not buy the lie, america is free today because of guns and guts, not liberals and controll.Stay in europe, you will be safer there King George.
LondonGeorge - Well said. Three Rivers is no longer there. Nancy wanted to move to a new location but ran into an issue with the locals and the Planning Board. They didn't feel that it was a water dependent use in the first case, so refused to allow it and in a second location, they didn't like the design of the building - said it looked like a train station and I guess they didn't like that. There is another restaurant which has replaced it but I haven't been yet so can't vouch for it. Warren, will be fine, I'm sure but we do have to get some business of the types you suggest and some tax base to do what needs to be done to make it a walkable, smartgrowth community. Time will tell.
Joe Sousa I apologise if I offended you in any way. Unfortunately I will never drop to your level and start the name calling.
I was just trying to bring something positive to the conversation but I think I will hold my tongue from now on. And maybe I will stay Europe, if everybody is as welcoming as you.
Joe Sousa
Bitter, party of one, your table is ready........
I simply cannot fathom the rationale behind you people that favor greater restrictions on firearm ownership. Are we that far removed from recent history that we just don't know any better?
Are our minds so malleable that we are willing to accept, even promote, any feel good propaganda, no matter how absurd?
Or are we simply the next generation must be beaten down and subjugated to absolute tyranny, whether it be from a common criminal or a pseudo-aristocrat in our plutocracy, before we collectively slap our foreheads in hindsight?
There will always be bad people. There will always be another Hitler, Stalin, or Hussein to take the last one's place. It's a blood thirsty breed that seems to know no end. And no end to what they will do to other people for their own perverse gratification.
And if you don't think that there are members of that breed in positions of leadership in this country that would do the same thing to you if left unbridled, then you are truly naive.
Please take a moment to read these two brief articles:
http://www.stephenhalbrook.com/registration_article/registration.html
http://usa-the-republic.com/jurisprudentia/firearms_1.html
London George, my level is from watching this once great country, turn in to a third world country.It is a slow creep but it is happening.People like me who pay attention see this and have no tolerence for those who would lead us down the path of distruction.If I insulted you sorry, I have lost my trust in people and goverment.
Dan, let me ask a couple of questions.
(1). Are you opposed to background checks on anyone wishing to purchase a firearm?
(2). Do you feel that a government agency should be able to investigate a gun store if that store's inventory was found to have a disproprotionate number of its firearms involved in crimes?
(3). Do you feel any citizen should have the right to possess fully automatic weaponry?
(4). Do you believe that any citizen should have the right to possess a Barrett .50 Cal?
(5). Do you believe that their can be restrictions placed on Rights enumerated in the Constitution?
Jerry:
(1). No, as long as the spirit of the law is followed.
(2). Yes, as long as there is 'civilian' oversight.
(3). Yes. Refer to question (1).
(4). Yes.
(5), Yes.
I would be happy to debate, in public, specificities.
Of course to answer your questions succinctly, would require a voluminous post. I am not interested in legal debate, or politically correct rhetoric. It would end up being an endless argument, with a multitude of cites, ending in non-fruition of truth; the purported purpose of argument.
Jerry: Interested in public debate on the issue?
DanGordan - My reasons for asking weren't for reasons of debate but to see where you stood on the issues I've noted as my concern, eg. Tiahrt and Sales without background checks (both which lead to guns used in crime. Your comments were focused on the 2nd Amendment and banning guns so I couldn't tell if you felt that any regulation on firearms was inappropriate. I note that some of your positions are not in conformity with the gun lobby, eg. (1) and (2). As you know, the gun lobby opposed background checks with a vengence and Tiahrt restricts inspections of gun stores. You support civilian ownership of fully automatic, which is legal now but heavily restricted, both by registration and tax consistant with the Miller Supreme Court Decision from 1939. So from your answer (5) in where you support some restrictions and your answer (1) on background checks, it appears you are comfortable with the status quo. I happen to disagree on civilian ownership of fully automatic machine guns and on weapons like the Barrett .50 cal. Since it can take out an armored vehicle at nearly 2 miles and it has no legitimate civilian use that would outweigh the potential damage it can cause. Tripoding one outside the chain link fence at TF Green could cause a lot of deaths with a single shot. So, out of 5 issues we agree on 3 and disagree on 2. It would be hard for anyone to review all of our posts on this thread and draw that conclusion. I am sure you know that I have debated this issue many times over the last 15 years - with the NRA on national spots, on local TV in Boston and W. Mass., even with the Gun Owners' Action League on Dan Yorke when he was a radio host in Springfield, MA. I am always happy to debate and advocate for sane, common sense gun policy that keeps guns out of the hands of criminals, terriorists, mentally ill and kids.
one of the reasons for the right to bear arms was, originally, so that the government was not more powerful than it's citizenry. Now, the balance will never be able to be restored back to civil war era, so we need smart laws which do not infringe upon the basic right of individuals as afforded by the constitution. And that includes the right to private militia. Once, we had that in the form of the national guard, but the guard was usurped from the states during the beginning of the Vietnam war and the fed has made it very difficult for teh states to say "no" when requesting guard units. So far, only Governor Arnold has had the balls to say no to the fed. so, since the guard has been usurped, it falls to the people the right to a militia, and if that means buying a battleship, and the militia has the means to purchase, they should be able to do so. this is a right afforded by the Constitution, not some fly by night idea.
Now, I would not feel safer if some private militia setup a base, in say, Little Compton. I dont feel that it is nessecary, but the US Constitution was setup to allow it, therefore we either rewrite it, or live with it.
Metaldoc - Sounds like a plan. Buy a nice piece of land in Little Compton, a battleship and rent a militia recruitment office. Put the recruitment office in Warren, maybe on Child Street.
I agree that ignorance has deffinatly prevailed here. It not only shows that the people of Warren are ignorant, nor do they realize what a dump of a town that they live in and any source of revinue generated in the town would be a good thing. In no way is there on intelligant point in this article, just a bunch of usless nonsense. I support Robert and Diane and should their business become established. There will be plenty of law abiding citizens, not criminals that would frequent the shop. Considering that the closest gun shop is in Pawtucket, then i see a needed supply of the services that they have to offer. With the East Warren Rod and Gun, Sommerset Sportsman Club and the Riverside Pistol Club. They would have some serious customers indeed.
Michaelv
I take it you are one of those ignorant Warren residents. What other reason would there be for the excessive number of spelling and gramatical errors in your post. Or perhaps not - If the Town is such a dump, clearly an individual with such a superior intellect would not want to live here. So - if you don't live here, why don't you invite your good friends Robert and Diane to establish their business in YOUR backyard. Do us all a favor - keep your stupid and uneducated comments to yourself.
Warren sucks, gun nuts would do best living elsewhere. Near gunshops. Hint hint.
Metaldoc (and others who claim straw buying doesn't occur or that background checks are necessary) here is an update of the Jenkins case (that you claim, Metaldoc, you can't find anywhere). http://pressherald.mainetoday.com/story.php?id=264533&ac=PHnws
Metaldoc - note that Mr. Jenkins paid $200-$300 for guns in Maine and resold them to gang members in Boston for $500 and sometimes $1000.00. Kind of blows your argument, wouldn't you say?
not really, because ihe was not selling them to gang members, not a chance... why, in your right mind, would a person buy a gun for $500 illegally when you can get one for $50 or $100 illegally? that makes no sense. I can certainly understand paying more to legally own the gun, but illegally? nope. thats just stupid.
and I never said Jerry, that background checks were unnessecary. I believe they are.
and if you read that article, he did NOT buy gun from a gun shop. He bought them from a private seller.
Metaldoc has never ever been wrong
Read the freaking article Rastimoron.
metaldoc - don't breath in, the sand from the hole in the ground your head is in is hell on the lungs.
I read the article and it does little to change the fact that you are consistently wrong and seem to just make up facts as you go along.
Oh, and Metaldoc, did you happen to read the other 4 cases I gave you? I believe one was straw buyers at a gun shop that put 76 firearms into the criminal stream. Reality is sometimes a bit tougher to envision when fantasy comes so easily.
76 guns out of how many sold? Did you post those figures? Was it out of 100? 1000? 1 million?
I have no dog in this fight...I will admit that I am not educated about the laws on gun control well enough to even give my opinion.......But Jerry & Rastabri - no matter what you show, prove, list, explain....even if you had video proof of everything you have substantiated in your argument, Metaldoc will never change his mind. Your facts are too specific.... he prefers information that is much more vague and clouded. ( like his own )......
In the end all the laws do are make it hard for honest citizens to own guns for there protection.The criminals will allways have access to guns, or explosives, even poison gas.Be not be fooled by statements like {Hi i'm from the goverment i'm here to help}Regulation is a scam nothing more.Power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolute, That is goverment unchecked. Beware of people who only want to close a loop hole,It's that slow creep.Freedom needs to be protected, and fought for, or you loose it.
bogie - I have finally reached the same conclusion. Very bizarre.
see, this is where you idiots really havent got a clue.
I hate guns, dont own one, and dont think they should be legal. But they are. It is written into the constitution. And regardless of my feelings on the matter, the facts speak for themselves. Less feterred gun control helps reduce crime, in all of it's forms. In a perfect world, there would be no guns at all. But this world is far from perfect and gun are out there. and most of them are legal. A few idiots who break the law should not have the law changed for everyone. It is like DUI. Because a few idiot drink and drive, the state should restrict driving to only those who pass rigorous background checks and make them wait a week before buying a car? And then limit the places they can drive, what type of car they are allowed to own, and then any time a car dealer wants to open a shop, people complain of all those hoodlums who will be hanging around the dealership. Give me a break.
People can quote statistics, website numbers, polls, etc, but that does nothing to PROVE anything.
It's no secret that special interest groups skew numbers, ask loaded poll questions, and fabricate 'facts'.
As for me and my family, we'll exercise common sense and protect ourselves, regardless. As the head of my household, it is my duty, and no 'rule' trumps that.
Hey Dan, you challanged me to a debate and then poof.
Metaldoc - You have to register a car - don't have to register a gun. Maybe gun ownership should have at least the same licening and registration requirement that car ownership has. What do ya think? By the way, you made comments that no one would make a straw purchase of a gun because guns in stores cost $200-$300 dollars and on the street are just $50 dollars. I gave you four cases, one where 2 straw purchasers (college students) bouth 76 guns in three purchases and sold them to a drug gang. I also gave you a case (Jenkins) where 20 or so guns were bought in private sales without the need for a background check for $200 to $300 and sold (according to the testimony of the defendane) for between $500 and $1000 to drug gangs in Boston. You still claim that it doesn't happen and that there should not be a background check requirement for all gun purchases and a repeal of the Tiahrt Amendments so that the ATF&E can investigate gun dealers who are supplying straw purchasers? Try and get your head around this - we aren't talking about banning guns, we are talking about controling who can buy them. Step back a minute, avoid the kneejerk reaction and really think about sensible solutions to keep criminal, terrorists and the mentally ill from easy access to guns.
since when do you not have to register a gun? You most ceertainly do. Only single shot rifles need not be registered. And thats the same as farm tractors.
Metal doc Who do you register guns with,I have never heard that? I have lived in several states and never had to register any of my guns.When I got a hunting licence, they never asked.If it is an automatic weapond, or you carry concealed, you need a licence.In amerca you can carry a gun if it is in clear view.Security guards do it all the time,no licence needed.
Really Joe? you can carry a gun around if it is in clear view? Go ahead and try it, walk into Walmart tomorrow with a gun in clear view and see what happens. Of walk in downtown Providence over by the bus terminal and see what happens. If you do not get shot by a police officer, consider yourself lucky. I will even visit you in jail if you would like.
When you purchase the gun, the serial number, your name, address and purchasing license number are sent to the state. If thats not registering, then what do you call it?
I have no reason to wear my gun in to wallmart.If I am carrying large amounts of cash, after I collect rents, I can carry it to protect my self.I ware it to the bank, but I do not bring it in. I purchased most of my guns from my brother who is a dealer, never registered them. When I go to Daves Guns in warwick then I show my blue card to purchase ammo.I see what you mean I guess there is some form of registration if you buy from a store.I do not hold a licence and never was asked for one.
then Joe, I suppose you illegal own these weapons. If I were you, I would think twice about wearing them in public from now on. RI law states that in order to trasport a weapon, you must have the ammunition and the unloaded weapon in seperate compartments of the vehicle. I would say, at this juncture, you are very lucky not to have spent time in prison for a firearm violation.
Here are the gun laws in this state:
http://crime.about.com/od/gunlawsbystate/a/gunlaws_ri.htm
Although it says there is no registration, they send all your info to the state, the sellers must keep the records on file for 6 years and you have to have a background check and a waiting period for each gun you purchase. Although it does say, they do not keep a record of the serial number, which really bothers me.
Key statement here Joe: "It is unlawful to carry a handgun on or about one’s person or in any vehicle or conveyance without a license to carry."
The only way you are allowed to "carry" without a license is if it is unloaded and broken down (IE: the slide removed, or wheel removed in the case of a "six-shooter"). and only then you must carry it "openly" and not concealed.
Moral of this story? Leave the gun at home without a carry permit Joe, the life you take; might just be yours.
I still believe it is better to be judged by 12, then carried by 6, i'll take my chances.When I go hunting, I don't travel with loaded weaponds, that is the safe way.I guess it depends on the circumstances, RI law is over the top if it is as you say.As far as me shooting my self,49 years, no holes yet.I have taken gun safty classes,the first was in the army,the other two at my hunting club in VA.I payed attention, that is why I am safe.I,m not a cowboy and never brandish my arms.I also have never been a victim and never will be.
Joe, I was not saying you would shoot yorself, but if you are caught with a loaded weapon on your person, you face a minimum of 1 year in jail and a 10,000 dollar fine, and could face up to 10 years. And since you never "brandish" your arms, then you are in fact, carrying a concealed weapon, not the "open" arms you referred to before.
But again, you are still, regardless of your victimization status (which I call into question because you have clearly been the victim of the court system at least once), you are still breaking the law every time you leave the house with your gun. And that is EXACTLY why people fight against gun shops, even the so-called law-abiding citizens flaunt the gun laws.
PS: and who the heck are you renting to that you get paid in cash?
Leave the gun at home. bring nunchakus or large knifes. you get less time and they are very effective lol
Hey gun-grabbers! Try selling your rhetoric to the residents of Gaffney, SC that are being terrorized by a serial killer right now. The local stations down there are reporting record gun & ammo sales, as well as increased church attendance.
When the police and career politicians can't protect you, what else can you do, except allow your family to be slaughtered because you're 'principled'. (Be sure to put your "This is a gun-free home" sign in the yard)
Metaldoc, I have been vague in the reason I carry for good reason.Just understand that there are legitimate reasons for people to need protection.The state legislature can kiss my behind,I do not obey unjust laws.I will not be disarmed just because a bunch of panzy libs are afraid.The way to change law is to stand up and against them.I have been a student of history for many years.We are in a time of recession, soon to be a depression,crime will follow and the weak will be the prey.I hope i,m wrong,but if i'm right, I will be ready.The lord helps those who help them selves,see the world as it is.
well, Joe, regardless, you are breaking the law, and you will get caught, and i will have no sympathy for you. There are many valid reasons why an unlicensed person should not carry a gun in public, it is far from an unjust law.
I live in barrington, cmon now you live in the most heavily liberal state in america and the most liberal country too, barack obama is taxing every bullet sold in the state of florida for christ's sake, you guys are sitting all high and mighty on your cushy asses and talking about image, well how would you feel if you saw one of your loved ones shot in cold blood, then you might use the goddamned 2nd amendment you guys are too busy worried about legal gun ownership and honest citizens defending their loved ones that you fail to notice the increase of crime, oh what about the ALCOHOL related deaths in neighboring barrington it really sickens me how close minded people can be,
bgoldner1992 - Um, what?
