Purchase delayed in DE due to age and gender
Story here. The first level of permit review delayed it because she "too old and a woman." The explanation added that they'd run seven years of records to see if she already had a gun.
The problem with the seven years of records is, the records were supposed to have been destroyed within sixty days....
Hat tip to reader Jim Kindred....
How shall I sue thee? Let me count the ways. (With great apologies to Elizabeth Barrette Browning)
Posted by: Jerry in Detroit at October 29, 2008 08:19 AM
The question left unanswered in the news report is: will those 7 (or more) years of records finally be destroyed? What assurances have the people of Delaware?
Posted by: PolyKahr at October 29, 2008 09:04 AM
What I find so interesting is in admitting violating the old lady's civil rights they nonchalantly and with candor born of supreme righteousness admit to illegal record keeping. And when their crime is pointed out to them dismiss it with no harm no foul.
Two campaign sign vandals in the hospital one with minor gun shot wounds admit their ongoing criminal activities and remain free and uncharged while the man who stopped the crime spree is charged with felony assault. Progressives will realize these two men doing the right thing in the correct manner destroying Republican yard signs.
Posted by: Tom Gunn at October 29, 2008 09:40 AM
The police should have stopped her! But the proper reason was "You need more gun than a .22 if you want to stop your attacker!"
Posted by: Sebastian at October 29, 2008 10:03 AM
Don't worry, the officer will be reprimanded for mentioning that she hadn't legally purchased a firearm before.
Posted by: htom at October 29, 2008 01:01 PM
Living in NJ, I've really grown to love the fact that it has somehow become possible for government to force people to prove that they *deserve* rights protected by the Constitution. It seems the cancer has spread west.
Posted by: Mike Gray at October 29, 2008 01:22 PM
OK...story says "We've since purged that file in its entirety."
Since it WAS a crime, is that destruction of evidence? Were all computer backups also "purged"?
Can we tack that crime onto the growing list here please. Plus you could add conspiracy if there was "ass covering" involved and someone else did the deleting.
I was going to comment on the .22, but it's not the story really. Many possibilities here, using it to train for her husbands larger caliber pistols?
Posted by: Tom at October 29, 2008 01:33 PM
Perhaps it was the "file" of her attempted purchase that was purged (after the nightly backup.)
Posted by: htom at October 29, 2008 01:52 PM
'What I find so interesting is in admitting violating the old lady's civil rights they nonchalantly and with candor born of supreme righteousness admit to illegal record keeping. And when their crime is pointed out to them dismiss it with no harm no foul.'
I must politely disagree with the term 'extreme righteousness'. Their candor is born of the knowledge that they will never be called to account for their crimes.
Lord Acton got it wrong; it's not power that corrupts, it's immunity from the consequences of one's actions that corrupts.
Posted by: Lergnom at November 2, 2008 08:32 AM