On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 08:45:54 +0100, Thomas de Groot wrote:

> On 26-2-2016 2:29, Jim Henderson wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2016 14:27:47 +0000, scott wrote:
>>
>>>>>> In Utah, I remember there being an issue with someone from outside
>>>>>> the US (maybe it was someone from the UK) trying to buy alcohol
>>>>>> with their regular ID - which didn't include a photo.  Utah
>>>>>> requires (or at least required at one time) a photo ID for
>>>>>> purchase.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's easy to solve, you walk round the block, buy a gun, then go
>>>>> back and ask again for a drink :-)
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> hem... don't need the same ID to buy a gun? ;-)
>>>
>>> Nope, no mention in 2nd amendment about requiring photo ID to buy a
>>> gun ;-) Seriously though, it seems in Utah to buy from a "dealer" they
>>> need to run a criminal background check (which I assume means they'll
>>> want to see ID?), but private sales are legal and subject to no such
>>> requirement, so it shouldn't be too hard to come into possession of a
>>> gun without ID.
>>
>> Heh, that's certainly true.
>>
>>
> So, you have the interesting situation where it is easier to buy a gun
> than a bottle of booze; where there is a policeman standing inside the
> booze store but not in the gun store...
> 
> Weird country. Maybe a topic for the brothers Coen.

Yep.

But here where I live, weed is also legal, so I suspect we don't have 
high crime.  Or maybe we do, depending on the meaning of 'high' you 
apply. ;)

Jim



-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message