[YankeeFlyr]

What I mean is...we have 50 states...with varying gun laws.

Why not eliminate the firearms laws at the state level and just federalize it and make it uniform?

Here's why...

1) We live in a HIGHLY mobile society...with a world-beater interstate highway system, air transportation network, etc. Americans in the post-WWII era are more mobile than they could have dreamed would be the case for our first 170 years as a nation...it would ease a lot of travel/residency/moving headaches.

2) Philosophically, why would/should the laws of one state be different than for another; we are all one country, with one overall cultural identity/exchange...so...why would laws in one state be "good" for the people there but in another state require another set of laws to be "good" for the people in that region?


Yeah, I understand the Constitution...I know it has provisions for 'States' Rights'. I realize that, so I don't need to be schooled on it.

But think about it. Why should the need/benefit for a people of one state to be different than for another. It's just a hassle.

BTW, I support unified driving laws, too. "Right on red" here, but not there? Why? Are the lane layouts/driving considerations different in state X than in state Y?

C'mon...

Eliminate the hassles, folks.

It doesn't have to be that hard. :scrutiny:

[TurtlePhish]

Why not eliminate the firearms laws at the state level and just federalize it and make it uniform?


Only problem with this is "uniform"- uniform by what standards? Everyone gets Arizona's laws? Sure! I'm all for it. But if everyone gets stuck with California's?

You get the idea.

[MistWolf]

We have a unified firearm's law. It's the Second Amendment

[YankeeFlyr]

Yeah, but "which ones" is another subject...

Given the populations of the "several states" and all the diverse opinions...it wouldn't be CA's...or AZ's.

I could live with Oklahoma's, or Minnesota's, or Georgia's.

Or most of them, actually.

[TT]

The problem with unified firearms law is that dirtbag leftist states like California would have a say in it.

[YankeeFlyr]

We have a unified firearm's law. It's the Second Amendment

You'd think so, but apparently not.

(Besides, that's not a statute, strictly speaking.)

[YankeeFlyr]

The problem with unified firearms law is that dirtbag leftist states like California would have a say in it.

California wouldn't have much of a say in it, overall. And yes, I know they are a state with a large population/representation. Still...


BTW what is a "dirt bag leftist"?


Is that anyone who isn't a Right-Wing Fascist?

[Tim the student]

Not me.

[General Geoff]

You know, there was a time when this nation was known as "these united States," not "The United States." This topic confirms the erosion of state identity and sovereignty that's been happening since the Civil War.

[WardenWolf]

Here's the problem: you then get one set of people at the national level who can screw it up for everyone in the country much more readily than they can now. Unlike the system now where it gets tried in certain areas and people see what they do and don't like, and what does and doesn't work.

[YankeeFlyr]

You know, there was a time when this nation was known as "these united States," not "The United States." This topic confirms the erosion of state identity and sovereignty that's been happening since the Civil War.

Yeah, I know. Is there still a need for state identity and sovereign status? I mean, really...in the colonial times, the various colonies had markedly different interests; tobacco here, metal working there, shipping at the ports in Baltimore and Boston, New York, etc.

Now that it's a interstate economy, with daily trade across state borders and the electronic frontier, with UPS and FedEx...well, you get it.

Is there really any good reason to have all these variations in state laws? Like what questions are illegal on job applications? Like different tax exemptions for income? Like liquor import laws and all that? Really?

BTW, I left Georgia about 6 months ago. I lived there for a cumulative 7 or 8 years over different intervals since the late 70's. I also lived in Alabama. Seems like some states needed, historically, to have a little "identity" eroded in order to join the civilized world. Too bad it took federal troops to do it.

I wouldn't claim that as a good reason to have "States' Rights"; that's more of an excuse for "ah don't need no outside people tellin' me wut to do with mah Negros...".

I have heard this from college-educated men. Recently. I kid you not.

But that's kind of another discussion, isn't it? And one we won't have here, I suspect. And that's fine.

I asked the question primarily in regard to firearms laws.



Here's the problem: you then get one set of people at the national level who can screw it up for everyone in the country much more readily than they can now.

That is not an insurmountable problem. We are Americans.

[Twiki357]

As much as I would like to see some consistency in the laws from state to state, I don't want any part of the US Congress being the sole authority (Think Schumer, Boxer, Piloci, etc.) [Yes I know I probably misspelled their names but I don't care]. At the state level, there's some accountability for the scumbags, Oops, politicians to recognize the wishes of their constituents. Have you ever experienced a US senator or congressman paying much attention to the electorate once they get to DC?

At least at the state level there's recalls and, in most states, ballot initiatives by the people, one of the biggest Constitutional omissions by our founding fathers.

[ArfinGreebly]

What I mean is...we have 50 states...with varying gun laws.

Why not eliminate the firearms laws at the state level and just federalize it and make it uniform?

Because it's not a federal issue. That authority is not conveyed to the FedGov by the Constitution.

Their jurisdiction, for things like "who can carry what, and when" is confined to D.C., where, you'll be shocked to know, they effectively banned firearms for decades.

Here's why...

1) We live in a HIGHLY mobile society...with a world-beater interstate highway system, air transportation network, etc. Americans in the post-WWII era are more mobile than they could have dreamed would be the case for our first 170 years as a nation...it would ease a lot of travel/residency/moving headaches.

2) Philosophically, why would/should the laws of one state be different than for another; we are all one country, with one overall cultural identity/exchange...so...why would laws in one state be "good" for the people there but in another state require another set of laws to be "good" for the people in that region?

Sure. No problem. We've actually had something like this . . . oh, what . . . 200 years ago? I'm cool with going back to that.

On the other hand, if the Several States wanted to get together and hammer out some kind of uniform code and individually agree to adopt that, then that would be okay, too.

The "fact" that it's somehow "easier" for the Feds to do it, in that cool kind of "centralized command and control" way that they so love, is not what I would call a ringing endorsement for the idea.


Yeah, I understand the Constitution...I know it has provisions for 'States' Rights'. I realize that, so I don't need to be schooled on it.

Or maybe you do. You say "I know how it's supposed to be" and then you propose doing something that's proscribed by the document in question.

But think about it. Why should the need/benefit for a people of one state to be different than for another. It's just a hassle.

BTW, I support unified driving laws, too. "Right on red" here, but not there? Why? Are the lane layouts/driving considerations different in state X than in state Y?

C'mon...

Eliminate the hassles, folks.

It doesn't have to be that hard. :scrutiny:

You're right. It doesn't.

Just roll back all that infringing legislation to, oh, say, 1901 or so, and then hold an interstate conference on gun carry etiquette, adopt -- at the state level -- a template law agreed to by the Several States, to the effect that gun safety shall be taught in schools, practical gun handling shall be a requirement of graduation from high school, and each home shall have at least one firearm for each adult of gun bearing age.

Hell, I could write that myself. Nothing hard about it.

But in any case, the Feds don't get to play.

[Davek1977]

If it led to a liberalization of firearm laws nationally, I'd of course support the cause. However, I live in one of the "more free" states, that being South Dakota. I am comfortable with MY state's gun laws, but not those of say New Jersey, Illinois, or California, and is typical with ANY power grab by the government, I fear the trend would be towards stricter controls rather than weakened ones

[jason41987]

i want to see a conceal carry permit valid in all 50 states

[FROGO207]

As the above poster stated the 50 state CC provision.:scrutiny: Seems we can't even agree on what the states that DO allow for CC will end up with and adopt it with any uniformity yet.:banghead:

[CDW4ME]

Unified to the least restrictive.
It would be liberating for those that live in restrictive states to have the same freedoms I enjoy.

[alsaqr]

We don't need the federal government mandating "uniform" firearms laws throughout the US. Which states firearms laws would you use as the "uniform" model?

My home state of OK has very reasonable firearms laws. i do not want NJ, IL or CA style firearms laws imposed on OK citizens.

[Salmoneye]

But think about it. Why should the need/benefit for a people of one state to be different than for another. It's just a hassle.

Then move...

That's the beauty of 'Freedom'...

[Salmoneye]

My home state of OK has very reasonable firearms laws. i do not want NJ, IL or CA style firearms laws imposed on OK citizens.

And being from Vermont, I do not want the (what I see as) 'restrictive' guns laws of OK to be foisted upon me...

;)

[JohnM]

Are all these ideas of a Federally written gun laws from people in states with restrictive laws in the hope it would be less onerous?
We've all seen how well the "one size fits all" stuff from the Feds works!
No thanks. We in Wyoming wouldn't want to live with the best of what's from the populous states.

[Carl N. Brown]

If you follow the writings of H.L. Mencken in the the 1920s through Carl Bakal in the 1960s, there has been a strong advocacy toward federalizing gun control at the level of the New York 1911 Sullivan Act. Mencken was against the idea, Bakal was for it. Enough people have commented on it that it is undeniable that there have been for over a century people advocating federal law shoving Sullivan Act style restrictions, particularly the New York City version (see Bloomberg & MAIG) on all states, counties and cities in America in total disregard of state constitution RKBA provisions. Quite frankly, the 1934 National Fiream Act was an attempt in that direction (it originally targeted conventional pistols and revolvers). Most states have an individual right to keep and bear arms in their constitution. Gun control crusaders like Chuck Schumer and Mike Bloomberg see a federal law as superceding state gun rights' protections.

Would a unified federal gun act, overriding state differences, protect gun rights or would it be used to fulfill gun control dreams like Carl Bakal's vision of deaths due to shootings receding to the vanishing point as all guns are rounded up?

[TT]

YankeeFlyr: BTW what is a "dirt bag leftist"?

Redundancy for the purpose of emphasis.

[JVaughn]

We have a unified firearm's law. It's the Second Amendment

You'd think so, but apparently not.

(Besides, that's not a statute, strictly speaking.)

It is a statute preventor - or is supposed to be.

[JVaughn]

BTW what is a "dirt bag leftist"?


Is that anyone who isn't a Right-Wing Fascist?

Not exactly. I think a dirt bag leftist (or rightist) is one who wants to take away the rights of others based on his or her philosophical views. It just seems the lefts spend more energy trying to eliminate the rights of others than the rights do.

[Midwest]

I am certain some politician is going to tout unified gun laws by NJ, NY and CA standards,. It would 'sound' all nice and fair. They will even say that it will 'ensure gun rights' across the land and it will be 'fair' to everyone.

But then imagine instead of now (in most free states) of picking the gun you want, the NICS call in and filling out the 4473 and paying for it and out the door in 20 minutes....

You now would have to obtain a permit to purchase with a three month wait for a purchase permit, waiting periods are mandatory, 3 references, employers reference, fingerprints, photographed, mental health check release form, FBI check, state check release form, permit and license fees from $70 to $300. And $18.00 per gun purchase additional State NICS background check fee, no firearms to be sold on Sunday or state holidays.

Owner licensing would be needed to own any gun. You could only use your gun at an approved range with a 'transport certificate' to and from range and hunting will be only allowed in controlled zones under state supervision. The police can inspect your 'arsenal' at any time, and everything must be locked up in a safe... Carry licenses will be discretionary only....

Don't laugh, bits and pieces of the sample 'unified' gun law I stated above come from parts of NJ, NY, CA and Canadian gun laws. That is what people have to deal with right now in those areas. Canada is said to have unified gun laws...and look how their 'gun rights' are compared to ours.

No... I think the way we have it now is better than any 'compromise' version....

Unless,..of course they are going to repeal Brady, repeal 1968 GCA, and repeal firearms ID cards in Mass, NJ, IL repeal permit requirements in NY...and have constitutional carry across the land...

[zoom6zoom]

Hell, some of the states are not even consistent within themselves. Look at Massachusetts for example, where every local police chief gets to decide whether you get a carry permit or not.

Consistency is a good thing within states; Dillon Rule states like Virginia have state preemption, meaning that localities cannot enact laws more restrictive than state law. So no crossing a county line and you're suddenly breaking the law.

But for a Federal standard? Hell no. Too much government control already, and it's almost never in favor of Freedom.

[2DREZQ]

Here's the problem: you then get one set of people at the national level who can screw it up for everyone in the country much more readily than they can now.

That is not an insurmountable problem. We are Americans.
The problem is you are creating a problem by eliminating the best solution to the problem you are creating.

If solving a "unified law" problem is as simple as saying "We are Americans", why is Abortion such a bloody battle decades after we created an essentially unified law that the states have been fighting ever since to inject more of the peoples will into?
(NOT going there as an arguement, just a somewhat useful comparison)

[wally]

I wouldn't accept anything more restrictive than Texas!

[LAK]

The 2nd. It is supposed to be unifying,

If the SCOTUS had done what it was supposed to 80 or so years ago it would be. Had Congress acted instead, which is the second check, the net result would be the same, and there would be no "gun laws".

[citizenzen]

Unified to more restrictive.

(and yes, I am a liberal dirtbag)

[academy]

Uniformity trends toward the lowest common denominator. We'd end up with an entire nation of California/Illinois laws.

Or another way to look at it: it's intellectual communism, and economic communism worked SO well.

[Mike OTDP]

What I'd like is an equivalent to the Voting Rights Act. Certain states with a track record of violating 2nd Amendment Rights are under the supervision of Federal courts. All their laws are presumed unconstutitional until ruled otherwise. New laws require court approval.

The OP has a point. Right now, the U.S. is a patchwork quilt of laws. Cross a line on the map, and you instantly go from law-abiding citizen to felon. But the problems are concentrated in a few bad apple states. Which need to be brought under control.

[Ryanxia]

Think about what you're saying, you want the control of firearms in the hands of the Federal Government? Really? I don't mean to be in-polite but that's a horrible idea. They've got their hands in it enough as it is. We need to be focusing on taking away their control and putting it back in the place it belongs, with the states and the citizens (not subjects) that live in those states.

Besides, it's much easier to march to your state capitol to overthrow a tyrannical government than to go to DC (should the need arise as was the intention of the Constitution). :D

[Fremmer]

the last thing congress needs is the power to establish what will surely be a horrendus uniform mess resulting in lost 2nd amendment rights. how about we just not add any new gun control laws for right now.

[citizenzen]

Uniformity trends toward the lowest common denominator. We'd end up with an entire nation of California/Illinois laws.

Or another way to look at it: it's intellectual communism, and economic communism worked SO well.

The Constitution is a sort of uniformity. No matter the state law, it must not violate the Constitution.

I would not call the Constitution, intellectual communism.

Not all uniformity is a bad thing ... or a good thing.

[Fremmer]

Yes but that's a poor anology because legislation is different than constutitional rights.
I don't want uniformity with california because i don't want to deal with their laws and reasons and arguments.

No new gun laws! :banghead:

[Midwest]

Right now people can move from states with real oppressive gun laws and move into states with strong gun rights.

If there were uniform real oppressive gun laws across the U.S., where would one move to?

Switzerland or The Czech Republic ?

[citizenzen]

No new gun laws!

I vote for more new gun laws ... much, much, stricter gun laws.

So far, your side is winning.

And the Supreme Court is on your side too.

So far ...

[Owen Sparks]

This is a REALLY BAD IDEA as it puts the federal government, meaning the BATF, over all local gun laws which meand that they will be held to the strictest standards of states like Illinois and New Jersey.

No thanks!

[Midwest]

This is a REALLY BAD IDEA as it puts the federal government, meaning the BATF, over all local gun laws which meand that they will be held to the strictest standards of states like Illinois and New Jersey.

No thanks!
Many of the oppressive gun laws today can be traced back to a now obscure attorney general named Arthur Sills from New Jersey in 1966. This guy also helped Thomas Dodd with the 1968 GCA and spearheaded New Jersey to set the precedent with the firearm ID card requirement.

This idea of ID cards was picked up by Illinois in 1968 and again by Massachusetts. How one obscure person can be be so prominent in oppressive gun laws that ultimately affect millions of law abiding people decades later is in itself scary.

[holdencm9]

No.

I still believe the states oughta have some powers and sovereignty. There is this thing called the 10th Amendment too, you guys know.

Also check out Federalist Paper #45. The way it SHOULD be is the federal government's powers should be few and defined. If only we could keep it that way!

Also Federalist Paper #46, basically states that the first line of defense against a tyrannical federal government is the sovereignty of the states and their ability to mobilize their citizens to repel the danger.

[holdencm9]

Yeah, I know. Is there still a need for state identity and sovereign status? I mean, really...in the colonial times, the various colonies had markedly different interests; tobacco here, metal working there, shipping at the ports in Baltimore and Boston, New York, etc.

Now that it's a interstate economy, with daily trade across state borders and the electronic frontier, with UPS and FedEx...well, you get it.

Is there really any good reason to have all these variations in state laws? Like what questions are illegal on job applications? Like different tax exemptions for income? Like liquor import laws and all that? Really?

You're right, we should just do away with states entirely. Who really needs them? They just make a whole mess out of everything. It would be easier if we were just The Republic formerly known as the United States. But while we are at it I think it would be easier to just do away with the whole electoral process. Surely it would be more efficient if we just appointed someone to be supreme leader.

State Sovereignty is important!

[berettaboy]

The problem with unified firearms law is that dirtbag leftist states like California would have a say in it.

California wouldn't have much of a say in it, overall. And yes, I know they are a state with a large population/representation. Still...


BTW what is a "dirt bag leftist"?


Is that anyone who isn't a Right-Wing Fascist?
And what makes anyone think that CA wouldn't have a say in it?????

Remember how Heller was overturned lately,,,,seems like NYC and Chicago didn't get the memo

[2DREZQ]

I vote for more new gun laws ... much, much, stricter gun laws.

So far, your side is winning.

And the Supreme Court is on your side too.

So far ...


"Our side"?

Do you own any guns? Any handguns or semi-automatic firearms?

Please tell us what "Your sides" position is on concealed carry.

(Staying High-Road here.)

EDIT: Nevermind, I just looked at your introduction. Well, If you wanted to be in the minority, You are in the right place.

[awgrizzly]

Such a thing would be directly contrary to the Constitution and the founding principles. What is it about state autonomy and a weak federal government is so hard to comprehend?

[citizenzen]

Do you own any guns? Any handguns or semi-automatic firearms?

Please tell us what "Your sides" position is on concealed carry.

(Staying High-Road here.)

I do not own any guns. I have never owned any gun beyond a BB gun as a kid. (I am 51 years old)

I personally am against concealed carry.

But I'm sure you could have guessed that.

[gym]

Then why are you in a pro gun forum?

[citizenzen]

Then why are you in a pro gun forum?

I take part in a predominantly left-leaning political forum, where one of the conservative members—apparently frustrated over being in the minority—posted a link to your site and suggested we should take part in this forum to see what it's like to be ganged-up on. (it's a moderated forum. We're really fairly polite over there.)

I'm just here to share.

Would you prefer if I left?

[ArfinGreebly]

Honest discussion is always welcome.

Who knows?

You may learn something.

Boys, make our guest welcome.

He's about the age I was when I finally began to grasp the realities of what it means to be armed.

Keep it clean. Stay with the facts.


Citizenzen, I don't know where you are accustomed to participating, but I think you'll find a fairly diverse bunch here.

[Warp]

What I mean is...we have 50 states...with varying gun laws.

Why not eliminate the firearms laws at the state level and just federalize it and make it uniform?

Here's why...

1) We live in a HIGHLY mobile society...with a world-beater interstate highway system, air transportation network, etc. Americans in the post-WWII era are more mobile than they could have dreamed would be the case for our first 170 years as a nation...it would ease a lot of travel/residency/moving headaches.

2) Philosophically, why would/should the laws of one state be different than for another; we are all one country, with one overall cultural identity/exchange...so...why would laws in one state be "good" for the people there but in another state require another set of laws to be "good" for the people in that region?


Yeah, I understand the Constitution...I know it has provisions for 'States' Rights'. I realize that, so I don't need to be schooled on it.

But think about it. Why should the need/benefit for a people of one state to be different than for another. It's just a hassle.

BTW, I support unified driving laws, too. "Right on red" here, but not there? Why? Are the lane layouts/driving considerations different in state X than in state Y?

C'mon...




No.

Hell no!

I do NOT want the federal government involved in (restricting) our lives any more.

I do not want my rights restricted because the ninnies out in **** are doing away with absolutely all forms of personal responsibility and liberty.

Hell no!

[Frank Ettin]

The Constitution is a sort of uniformity. No matter the state law, it must not violate the Constitution...That's not exactly accurate.

Much of the Constitution is clearly not applicable to the States, e. g., all the business concerning the powers of the branches of the federal government. And the Supreme Court ruled early on that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the States (Barron v. Baltimore, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 243 (1833)). Not until almost 40 or so years after the adoption of the 14th Amendment did the Supreme Court begin to apply in a piecemeal fashion rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights against the States through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. And some enumerated rights have not been applied against the States (the 5th Amendment described right to indictment by a grand jury and the 7th Amendment described right to a jury trial in a civil case, to name just two examples).

[gc70]

Who would want to live under unified federal laws that reflected the 'average' of the states' gun control laws as they existed in 1987? That was only 25 years ago, but in that short time there has been an explosion of shall-issue concealed carry laws, as well as expansion of Castle Doctrine and Stand Your Ground laws. It is doubtful that those changes would have taken place if we had been locked into a one-size-fits-all federal solution.

Differing state laws are good. They reflect an ongoing experiment in which each state can tailor laws to suit its people. Individual states can test ideas and prove their merit, encouraging other states to follow suit. Without that ability to experiment, changes would have to arise from a national majority that would probably be much slower and more difficult to build.

[General Geoff]

Then why are you in a pro gun forum?

know thy enemy, gym. ;)


citizenzen, are you against anyone carrying, including police officers and soldiers?

[Ftak]

You know there are more & more states coming into the consealed carry laws meaning the same laws apply state to state if you travel from one to another. Some states will not even think about unifying as far as guns. I don't get out of Texas much but when I do there is always a carbine & handgun close to me. I try to stay legal on all I do if I question it I don't don't do it

[Pilot]

No thanks. Some people need to keep their ideas, and themselves in Maryland.

Oh yeah. HELL NO!

[Midwest]

I take part in a predominantly left-leaning political forum, where one of the conservative members—apparently frustrated over being in the minority—posted a link to your site and suggested we should take part in this forum to see what it's like to be ganged-up on. (it's a moderated forum. We're really fairly polite over there.)

I'm just here to share.

Would you prefer if I left?
At least we know your position straight up, even though I do not agree with your position.

You were honest in expressing your position, unlike some here who have posted saying that they were 'gun owners' who wanted to compromise, make peace, give out an olive branch to the other side.

The best thing about conceal carry laws is that if you disagree with them, you do not have to own a gun or carry! That is your personal choice and personal decision. But if I decide to own a gun and carry...I can.

I know people who are not gun enthusiasts who are at best neutral when it comes to guns. Most of them just own a shotgun or a older rifle and that is it. That is their choice. Since you are here, maybe some of us might persuade you from anti gun to at best neutral.

By the way, can you explain why one of the most liberal states in the U.S., Vermont doesn't even require carry permits for conceal carry or open carry?

[pockets]

Absolutely...sure, why not....the Federal government has done so well with everything else it has it's hands upon...why not let them screw this up more as well?
SERIOUSLY ?!?!?!?!?!?!?!

.

[Vector]

I like how people forget that the Constitution allows for states rights, and the Founding Fathers wanted very limited federal goverment powers(and for good reason).

I am happy with the current system. While I feel bad for those who live in restrictive states, they only have themselves to blame by electing anti-2nd amendment politicians.

Fortunately the tide has been turning, and now individual states can keep their own gun laws, but also have national reciprocity law that will allow those who have a CCW to carry in other states. I can carry in most states as it is, and hopefully every state in the not to distant future.
However if places like Chicago want to restrict my rights, as a law abiding citizen I will try to avoid their city whenever possible.

[Vector]

I take part in a predominantly left-leaning political forum, where one of the conservative members—apparently frustrated over being in the minority—posted a link to your site and suggested we should take part in this forum to see what it's like to be ganged-up on. (it's a moderated forum. We're really fairly polite over there.)

I'm just here to share.

Would you prefer if I left?

I appreciate your candor, and welcome you to engage in civil, respectful discussions.

In my view the more people who come to pro-2nd Amendment sites the better. Not everyone will welcome you with open arms because they are fed up with their rights being trampled upon.

However most will be willing to engage you in discussion/debate in the hope you might become more aware of their position.
Feel free to call upon me as a liaison if things become hot since my views are pro-2nd Amendment, but with a moderate tone and reasoned manner.

`

[Art Eatman]

citizenzen, I commend for your reading pleasure the book, "Under The Gun" by Wright/Rossi/Daly (University of Florida Press, 1985). For all that they're statisticians, the book is quite readable. In one of the appendices they note that they began the study as neutral to mildly-anti on the issue of firearms.

The primary conclusion was that no gun control law ever passed by the Florida legislature had ever had any effect on the rate of violent crimes where firearms were involved.

Item: A lady named Paxton Quigley was a strong, vocal proponent of the Gun Control Act of 1968. After a few years of observation at its lack of positive effect on crime, and further study by her, she reversed her position and wrote, "Armed And Female".

Check the website "The Cornered Cat". Kathy Jackson originally came to a pro-gun website as an anti-gun person, wondering why we were pro-gun. Quite a change.

I've been in this gun-control-law squabble since 1967. I doubt that there is any argument, pro or con, which would be new to me. Watching all this and looking at the effects of gun control laws--or, actually, lack of effect--makes it obvious that such laws only affect honest people.

If your desire is to reduce crime, then don't bother with gun control laws. They don't work. Never have. Never will.

The only thing I've found in searching through all manner of data and statistics is that the rate of violent crime varies with demographics: It rises and falls with the number of young males in the population, between the ages of 16 and 24.

As far as the general public's attitude? From 1993 to 2003, BATFE states that some five million firearms per year entered the market. The rate increased after that, reaching some ten million NICS checks during the last couple of years. The public is voting with its billfold.

[hso]

We have plenty of people that support national peaceable journey laws at the federal level.

We've had plenty of people support a call for a shall issue national carry permit system.

How is the basic idea being proposed any different?

[dmazur]

I have no link for this, but I believe that the MUTCD (Federal standard for highway signage) had similar problems being accepted. It was a good, comprehensive program, but the individual states liked their own sign standards and didn't want to change.

And the federal government, as expected, tied funding to it to "encourage" compliance.

If there was a similar high-quality standard for firearms which was to become effective nationwide, I would be in favor of adopting such a standard.

But I believe I sympathize with those who are afraid that a standard would be developed which would be, at best, a compromise or, at worst, the lowest possible level of freedom.

Using the MUTCD as an example, it would be like letting California say that descriptive signs on freeways aren't necessary, as people can use maps. All that is really necessary is stop signs and speed limit signs. And then the nationwide standard would approve approve only stop signs and speed limit signs, and make all other non-compliant signs illegal. And they would be removed rather than have inconsistent signage.

So, it isn't that nationwide law is necessarily bad, it's that there doesn't seem to be a way to guarantee that it won't be some kind of horrible compromise.

[taliv]

Yeah, I understand the Constitution...I know it has provisions for 'States' Rights'. I realize that, so I don't need to be schooled on it.

i don't mean to be belligerent but it doesn't appear that you really do, otherwise, you wouldn't have said this:

But think about it. Why should the need/benefit for a people of one state to be different than for another. It's just a hassle.

BTW, I support unified driving laws, too. "Right on red" here, but not there? Why? Are the lane layouts/driving considerations different in state X than in state Y?



while your examples seem innocuous and silly, the fact is that "we" are very diverse, environmentally and culturally. Given that one side of the political aisle trumpets diversity incessantly, it comes as a surprise that one would want to stamp out that diversity as displayed in local laws that reflect local values and cultures.

seriously? why would you want to do that?

you lose 2 major benefits:

1. best practices. if every town is at liberty to do things however they see fit, after a few years, it may become obvious that towns that made decision x are doing much better than towns that made decision y. under central planning, when suboptimal decisions are made, they tend to stay that way and people suffer more.

2. you lose the ability to move to a place that reflects your values, your income, your lifestyle, etc. I moved from a big city in ohio to a small town in tennessee because I didn't like their taxes, their laws, etc. honestly, i'd be living on the pacific coast if not for their taxes and laws.

[Warp]

We have plenty of people that support national peaceable journey laws at the federal level.

We've had plenty of people support a call for a shall issue national carry permit system.

How is the basic idea being proposed any different?

It isn't, which is why I am one of the many who argues against a shall issue national carry permit system.

[MistWolf]

We have a unified firearm's law. It's the Second Amendment

You'd think so, but apparently not.

(Besides, that's not a statute, strictly speaking.)

It is the law of the land. I do not want anyone writing laws who does not recognize that fact

[Warp]

No law even needs to be written. The SCOTUS needs to strike down the laws that violate the 2A, or legislatures need to repeal said laws. New laws probably isn't the answer.

[armoredman]

I would have to state, being a resident of the Great State of Arizona, that there are very few states whose laws I would wish to adopt - as in just about zero. :)
I ran into this thinking many years ago from an immigrant from Canada, who was frustrated that states had different laws, and found it to be confusing. I told her to move to a state that confused her the least, and stay put. Oddly enough, I think she went to California...wonder how that's working out...
States Rights is a resurgent idea that the Federal government is quite wary of. It has already demonstrated its power - Real ID Act, anyone? Powers reserved to the states or the people, means NOT gifted back to fed.gov, in my mind. The state have the right to make their own laws unique to their area and circumstances, as long as they do not conflict with the laws of the land - AZ doesn't need laws regarding lobster fishing, for example.
I believe the roll back is continuing, as AZ has improved even more laws recently, and other states have done so as well.
Citizenzen, welcome aboard. I also will state I don't agree with your positions, but welcome and we look forward to your participation in debates.
( My position in a nutshell is the City of Aurora was more responsible for creating the shooting gallery in that theater than the rifle magazine manufacturer was. )
To the OP, no sir, I must disagree with you utterly, we do NOT "need" any federal involvement with state matters unless those matters contradict the Supreme Law of the Land.

[grampster]

Two things I've noticed in my 69 years of life. Central planning does not work very well at the higher levels of government or in large businesses. Those two realities are somewhat evident if one is paying attention and having a bit of understanding of history.

That is not to say that central planning is not useful from time to time, under proper restraint such as the rule of law through adherence to the original intent of the Constitution here in America. As a rule, central planning does not work well with large groups spread over large areas. History is replete with examples of failed central planning governments (which results in really really bad things happening to millions of people) and failed businesses. (which harms at a level usually below being executed and thrown in a pit with your neighbors.)

So why do Leftists, NeoLiberals and Statists always seek to try and prove something works when it obviously doesn't. Without trying to be snarky or offensive here, but as the old saying goes: "Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different outcome is the definition of insanity." A much smarter guy than me once said that a large involvement by the federal government is not necessarily a bad thing as long as the federal government was only largely involving itself in the very few things that the original intent of the Constitution allowed for.

Freedom is a heady, exciting thing which presents a bit of danger. Why would anyone want to stultify that? Lets face it. The more rules we have, the more fun we have avoiding them.

We all die. Sometimes we do so in an untidy fashion. I'll have the freedom and the risk. We've had some instances of mass murder in America. One of the worst involved blowing up school children in Bath, Michigan back in 1927 killing 45 and injuring 58. No guns involved. We've had uncounted accidents and deliberate occurences with aircraft, busses, cars, fires and so on. In the panorama of history, firearm deaths involving innocent people pale in the face of all this other mayhem. Why are events singled out because of the use of a firearm? I can tell you why, but if I have to or you need me to explain, it would be a fruitless mission, which is evident in this thread as well as another one that is going along here.

Firearms cannot be disinvented. People with bad intention will find a way to get them regardless of the laws restricting them. I'd rather be armed and have an opportunity to better defend myself from people with bad intentions, whoever they may be. Plus they are fun to play with in several other ways.

[Walkalong]

One of the great things about America is states rights and the ability to have different rules on various subjects among various states.

Take gun control.

If state A wants restrictive gun laws, they can have them, within reason as far as what they can get passed and what stands the test of the supreme court. They can then live with the results of those laws.


If state B wants little to no gun laws, then they can live with their results as well.

Perhaps one state will have a lot of crime and violence, and the other have very little. The state with all the problems can look to the state with few, and follow suit.

I would suggest, as data backs up, that the states with the most restrictive gun laws tend to have the most crime.

Gun control is, and always has been, about people control, not crime control, and not about saving lives.

[bikerdoc]

My position has been more eloquently stated by others but let me be very clear.
I want less control at the fed level.
Less restriction at the state level.
And the only city involvement should be to issue the shall issue permit, with the movement to constitutional carry soon that will be eliminated hopefully. That is the ultimate unified gun law, i,e, that there are no gun laws to conceal carry.

[Spats McGee]

Who favors unified guns laws?
What I mean is...we have 50 states...with varying gun laws.

Why not eliminate the firearms laws at the state level and just federalize it and make it uniform?
No, thank you.
Here's why...

1) We live in a HIGHLY mobile society...with a world-beater interstate highway system, air transportation network, etc. Americans in the post-WWII era are more mobile than they could have dreamed would be the case for our first 170 years as a nation...it would ease a lot of travel/residency/moving headaches.

2) Philosophically, why would/should the laws of one state be different than for another; we are all one country, with one overall cultural identity/exchange...so...why would laws in one state be "good" for the people there but in another state require another set of laws to be "good" for the people in that region?
Highly mobile society? So? I don't think that's a compelling reason to allow representatives from the other 49 states meddle in my 2A rights any more than they already do.

Yeah, I understand the Constitution...I know it has provisions for 'States' Rights'. I realize that, so I don't need to be schooled on it.
I have some reservations about this claim.

But think about it. Why should the need/benefit for a people of one state to be different than for another. It's just a hassle.
I do not want representatives from other jurisdictions (for whom I did not vote, and cannot vote out of office) making decisions about what my "needs/benefits" are. Besides, if I have a right to carry something, it's not about my need to carry it. Otherwise, it's not much of a right. The federal government already meddles more than I'd like for it to. I'm not going to invite it to do more.


BTW, I support unified driving laws, too. "Right on red" here, but not there? Why? Are the lane layouts/driving considerations different in state X than in state Y?
I don't much care about unified driving laws, but those are an entirely different kettle of fish, constitutionally speaking. When I drive to another state, I expect to follow their laws. If I want to travel to another state with a firearm, I will expect to follow their laws.

C'mon...

Eliminate the hassles, folks.

It doesn't have to be that hard.
Yes, in some ways it does. Democracy is messy.

[X-JaVeN-X]

I think it needs to stay separated...this way the crazies can live where they want, and us normal gun owning, law abiding citizens can have our place. The problem with unifying it is that it can go either way and then we'd have no option to get out of crazy town short of leaving the country.

[Feanor]

Only problem with this is "uniform"- uniform by what standards? Everyone gets Arizona's laws? Sure! I'm all for it. But if everyone gets stuck with California's?

You get the idea.
I doubt very much that he does.

[Art Eatman]

To restate in a re-phrasing: Since all objective research has shown that gun control laws are inefficacious in stopping or even reducing crimes involving firearms, why bother at all with any sort of "system"?

IOW, my view is that if every gun control law ever passed by any level of government were rescinded, the crime rate would not change.

If anybody thinks that I'm incorrect, please point out a law which has decreased the rate of violent crimes with firearms. Name it, and give some examples. Please. :)

[oneounceload]

The Federal Gov't has NEVER made ANY social issue work with some form of national square peg in the round hole philosophy
It just can't work, besides, WHOSE rules are you going to implement?
NYC? DC? Chicago?
Those folks WILL be ruling those laws and your ability to carry will become non existent

[Texan Scott]

When did we give up federalism? The United States is not, nor did our founders intend it to be, one country. We are a NATION comprised of free States. You say you understand the Constitution... evidently you understand that our founders meant for the federal bureaucracy to have very limited power over the sovereigny of the States; evidently, you disagree and believe in doing away with federalism and subjecting us all to a single sovereign national government?
To anyone who actually DESIRES this, and WANTS to submit to it, I would cite the words of Davy Crockett...
"You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."

(All Davy needed was the bumpersticker that says "I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as soon as I could!")

[DavidMS]

I do favor national harmonization of gun and knife laws.

So long as Bloomberg whines that they are too lax, they won't be too bad.

I live in MD and regularly travel to DC and VA. I would love it if there were at a minimum a federal floor and ceiling. The other advantage is the elimination of local busybodyism. Remember all the trouble with your HOA? The reason that the federal government is generally less intrusive is that its got a lot more to worry about than who didn't cut their lawn to exactly 2.25 inches.

Forgot to mention, most issues around federalism are settled thanks to 200+ years of Supreme Court Jurisprudence, a Civil War and deployment of the 101th airborne to little rock in 1957.

Here are a few thoughts.


Any knife with a blade under 3.25" is legal anywhere carrying a knife is legal concealed or open
All states must correctly enter records in a national database of people prohibited from owning guns (habitual drug users, un-rehabilitated felons, wife beaters etc.)
All guns transfer with an instant background check, even if out of state.
If a state issues concealed carry licenses they must do it on a shall issue basis.
States may not regulate cosmetic features of firearms (see also California).
States may not limit the transport of firearms in a locked case.
Keep the current rules on machine guns but allow new ones to be registered.
Suppressors should be transferred as firearms with out the $200 tax or registration requirements.
There are national standards for safe gun designs mostly dealing with surviving an over-pressure cartridge in the manner of CIP and having a functions safety that requires a positive action to fire. Have SAMMI write them.
States may not impose a waiting period to pick up a firearm.
No state may limit the possession of magazines. States may prohibit the transfer in state of magazines with capacities greater than 30 rounds. (Hint: Do the transfer out of state and its legal).


The goal is to have a little predictability in state laws. I know that some of the more libertarian minded members will disagree with me but all I want is simple consistent and easy to follow rules that make sense and accomplish the goals they set out to in the least restrictive manner possible.

I generally like well written regulation because I see too many people who won't do the more difficult but right thing unless somebody makes them. I had a situation like that today at work. :banghead:

[Warp]

DavidMS: You are trampling all over states rights.

A functional safety that requires a positive action to fire? Are you kidding me?

[DavidMS]

Wrap: A functional safety that requires a positive action to fire? Are you kidding me?

I tried being vauge. That means anything from lowering the hammer on a empty chamber on a single action revolver to the Glock-style safe action trigger or a safety lever. Bumping or doping a gun from a reasonable height should not cause it to fire. Needless to say: New guns shipped in interstate commerce only. Even my SIG225 with its decocker and firing pin block would qualify.

As for state's rights, I hope to agree to disagree.

[justice06rr]

I absolutely DO NOT favor unifying gun laws among all the states.

how is that even going to work? Who is going to streamline and form these universal laws, and how do we as citizens from different states and different backgrounds agree on them?

Just compare States like Florida vs New Jersey, or California vs Alaska. The differences are vast, to say the least. How do you come to a universally agreeable Gun legislation? You can't...

[Mike J]

Another "No" vote. Unifying gun laws across all the states is as others have stated a recipe for disaster. It would also set precedent for the Federal Government to have even more control over who could practice a Constitutional right.

[Fremmer]

Hey david, we don't want your new crappy blade restrictions or your safety requirements or any of the rest of that garbage. We refuse any new gun control. No new laws. NO.

God, bloomberg and it won't be too bad. Barf. NO.

[Warp]

Wrap:

I tried being vauge. That means anything from lowering the hammer on a empty chamber on a single action revolver to the Glock-style safe action trigger or a safety lever. Bumping or doping a gun from a reasonable height should not cause it to fire. Needless to say: New guns shipped in interstate commerce only. Even my SIG225 with its decocker and firing pin block would qualify.

As for state's rights, I hope to agree to disagree.

Can you demonstrate a compelling need for your proposed safety requirements?

[taliv]

If anybody thinks that I'm incorrect, please point out a law which has decreased the rate of violent crimes with firearms. Name it, and give some examples. Please.

Art, does the 21st amendment count as a "law"? :neener:

[St8LineGunsmith]

We have a unified firearm's law. It's the Second Amendment
AMEN to that!
these anti gun people need to leave the second ammendment alone including the rest of the constitution!
if Calafornians and newyorkers would stand together they could charge theses lawmakers for infringinging on their second ammendment constitutional rights.

every time a politician starts in about making gun laws every one of us needs to start a spit storm:fire:

[awgrizzly]

Except for the laws that are required across state lines, such as the famous and much abused Interstate Commerce provision, authority for laws and ordinances is 'supposed' to be focused at the lowest practical level. This gives the local populace the greatest direct input into their governance. This is particularly effective and desirable because people, their wants and needs, differ dramatically by region.

This works quite well in the case of highways and vehicles where the interstate highways are federally regulated but not the states highways (except as required for funding), and should be no different for guns. Drivers licenses are controlled and issued by the states but are honored in all states.

In the case of volatile gun regulation, moving the authority from state to federal would cause a huge disruption, maybe even a revolution, so the idea is a non-starter. For concealed carry permits, this can easily be handled like drivers licenses (easy if the politicos pull their heads out of the sand, or elsewhere). I would suggest the states create some form of governors' council to seek uniformity and reciprocity in state laws, but absolutely stay away from federal control. Anyone suggesting such a thing here should be soundly pummeled by the moderators.

Our lives are not the federal government's business.

[armoredman]

Art, how about Kennedy's firearms law, that count?:neener:
DavidMS, no thank you, I am quite happy with my AZ "restrictions". Constitutional Carry is the new permit system, may it come to your town soon.

[Ignition Override]

citizenzen (and other fellow THRs): This is off-topic, but the CNN episode inspired me.
Even though some of us might little or nothing in common regarding guns, I will read comments by anti-gun people and try to digest them. Several years ago I was pretty indifferent towards guns, with very limited interest at a young age.
I recently discovered how stats on self-protection and other key gun issues are totally ignored by the mass media (I have no handguns).

Last night on CNN, Michael Moore and host Piers Morgan had a long segment on guns in America.
They discussed, i.e. "..gun deaths in the US, UK, Japan.." and other topics, but only if the dramatic (better copy) word 'guns' was used.

They consider it invalid to initiate a discussion of the major increase in violent crimes after the gun confiscations took place in the UK and Australia.
By the way, their citizens can go through an involved process and own bolt-action rifles, and maybe a shotgun.
The antis never mention this on tv, but a typical hunting rifle can penetrate better than any smaller round from an AK.

My point here is that the segment on CNN seems to consider a death only worth discussing if it is caused by a firearm (an emotional angle and more newsworthy?). Why do other deaths not count in a gun discussion, when murder is murder?

[CmdrSlander]

Not exactly. I think a dirt bag leftist (or rightist) is one who wants to take away the rights of others based on his or her philosophical views. It just seems the lefts spend more energy trying to eliminate the rights of others than the rights do.
On the other hand, if you want to grant rights to others based on your philosophical views then you are fine in my book, regardless of political affiliation.

[2DREZQ]

The Economist Milton Friedman was once asked (by Phil Donahue) what was wrong with the idea of the Federal Government controlling the free market (It was more complex than that, but you get the idea)
He responded at length, but the question that stymied Donahue was "Where are you going to get the Angels that are going to organize society for us?"
Are American politicians so much more noble and true than any of the other people throughout history who were attracted to rulership because of the power that derived from it? Do you believe that politicians of any stripe run for office out of altruistic motives to serve and advance the cause of the American people? Really? Or is it just the politicians of the party YOU vote for that are noble, and the others that are slavering dogs from Hades?
OK, what happens after the slavering dogs from the party you hate take power? Uniform federal laws across the nation are a greased slide into the sort of corruption and abuse that have taken down many a country before us. Would you like it if the we all lived under the standardized interpretation of Emminent Domain as handed down by the SCOTUS in Kelo vs New London? States across the country responded to that legal abortion by strengthening the restrictions on E.D. Those that didn't have apparently had real problems with political corruption and virtual theft of property from innocent people under the color of law.

It may be that the resurgence of interest in states rights may be the thing that pulls the US of A back from the brink.

[St8LineGunsmith]

I wouldn't accept anything more restrictive than Texas!
I agree with this
and why the hell is citizen not banned from this forum already:confused:

if you want stricter gun laws move to england and stop tryibg to stomp all over my constitutional rights to own and carry any make or model of firearm I so desire to own and/or ability to afford.
this includes having an abrams tank parked in my drive way if I can afford it.

do us all a favor and research to educate your self why gun laws dont work and the only people who benefit from these idiotic laws are the criminals not the law abiding citizen.
you might also want to educate your self why the second ammendment was written to begin with

i think the law should be unified to the extent that when I am traveling that i don't have to worry about being arrested for carrying a firearm out of state which is also in violation of my second amendment right.
I should not have to apply for a permit to carry something that is already a second amendment right.
when are these liberal idiots going to realize that carrying a gun is my right not a privilege.

[Art Eatman]

Well, the comment about the 21st Amendment certainly helps my point about laws not doing any good.

I still don't understand how anybody can talk about laws, suggesting some sort of alternative. If a law does not prevent crime, what good is it?

The only reason to worry about a four-inch blade on a pocket knife is that it's heavy in the pocket. A two-inch blade will sever a carotid or a femoral artery.

Bad guys have no trouble getting guns, so why bother with all this registration or banning nonsense? Why set the forces of law against honest citizens?

While "Heller" added self-defense to the Second Amendment, it was only necessary because TPTB have ignored the fact that Old Dead White Men took it for granted that you could use your gun in self defense. They said so in many and many a letter--but few people bother with the history of this nation.

But I don't need "Heller". The 14th Amendment mentions "equal protection under the law". State and Federal courts have held that the police have no duty to protect individual citizens. Okay, obvious question: Who is responsible? Obvious answer: The individual.

I note that "personal responsibility" is a devil-word in modern America.

[Alaska444]

Well, the comment about the 21st Amendment certainly helps my point about laws not doing any good.

I still don't understand how anybody can talk about laws, suggesting some sort of alternative. If a law does not prevent crime, what good is it?

The only reason to worry about a four-inch blade on a pocket knife is that it's heavy in the pocket. A two-inch blade will sever a carotid or a femoral artery.

Bad guys have no trouble getting guns, so why bother with all this registration or banning nonsense? Why set the forces of law against honest citizens?

While "Heller" added self-defense to the Second Amendment, it was only necessary because TPTB have ignored the fact that Old Dead White Men took it for granted that you could use your gun in self defense. They said so in many and many a letter--but few people bother with the history of this nation.

But I don't need "Heller". The 14th Amendment mentions "equal protection under the law". State and Federal courts have held that the police have no duty to protect individual citizens. Okay, obvious question: Who is responsible? Obvious answer: The individual.

I note that "personal responsibility" is a devil-word in modern America.
+1 Art, it is both an individual right and individual responsibility for self defense. The Feds and states need to allow us the means to enact those rights and responsibilities.

I keep pointing back to a post by Al Norris showing the CCW map of the US county by county. There are only a few areas where we do not have the right to CCW for law abiding citizens. Keep it at the state level and keep moving step by step, county by county, state by state. Putting it in the Feds hands is a losing proposition that will snatch defeat in the face of victory.

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4777284&postcount=44

[Trisha]

"One Ring to Rule them all and in the darkness bind them!"

My EDC folders are more than 4" of sharpened edge. I prefer fixed blades over 7" for anatomical certainty and flexibility of deployment. My EDC primary firearm is never loaded to less than the old Major Power Factor and Constitutional Carry is the best result for insuring Liberty (yep, capitalized).

citizenzen, there's a gal who used to be vehemently anti-gun, maybe you've read her most prominent book Armed and Female (http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Female-Twelve-Million-American/dp/0312951507)?

OP, I was in Mesa, AZ when an armed robbery of a bank was attempted - and over a dozen CCW holders drew down on him. I witnessed a septuagenarian couple withdrawing money near sunset from an ATM while I was there, and saw three youths try and position themselves to obstruct the departure of the couple, who calmly proceeded to place their right hands inside concealment and speak softly out of earshot.

The three scattered, and the couple entered their car a block later, the gentleman holding hands with his wife while they paused occasionally to look around themselves. They spotted me midway down the block and I received the brightest, warmest smile which I returned.

The point?

Freedom from fear of the predator. Personal responsibility is a beautiful thing to witness first hand.

:D

[Bohemus]

Right now people can move from states with real oppressive gun laws and move into states with strong gun rights.

If there were uniform real oppressive gun laws across the U.S., where would one move to?

Switzerland or The Czech Republic ?

MG lovers to Switzerland (or Philipines), CCWs to Czech republic.

[Yelovitz_503]

Eliminate the hassles, folks.

It doesn't have to be that hard.

Kind of the nature of the beast though, it's called the United States of America for a reason. And if different states can have different tax policies, different traffic laws, different business regulations, different driving license tests, etc. why should we make guns a national standard? I know you said you didn't want to be 'schooled' on states rights, but that's exactly what it comes down to.

We have a unified firearm's law. It's the Second Amendment
Exactly. That's the only national law I want with regards to this stuff.

i want to see a conceal carry permit valid in all 50 states
Ah, wouldn't that be the day...

I am comfortable with MY state's gun laws, but not those of say New Jersey, Illinois, or California, and is typical with ANY power grab by the government, I fear the trend would be towards stricter controls rather than weakened ones
I agree, there are a lot of states I wouldn't ever live in because their gun laws are so absurd. New York is also on that list for me. It's that eternal question of "just whose law are we talking about here?" Again it comes to states rights to govern themselves. I think we should have fewer federal regulations and allow states to handle even MORE of their own business, when things get too high up that tree it's hard to get them back down. Our constitution wasn't written to give the government control over this stuff it was written to protect private citizens and individual freedoms.

[Spats McGee]

Welcome to THR, nikkoo!

I'm a little confused by your post, though:
Unified to more restrictive
Are you saying that's what gun laws would be if we unified things, or what they ought to be?

[ArfinGreebly]

BTW, for those who may have missed it, we have a number of states that have adopted "constitutional carry," that is, if you can legally own a gun, you can carry it either openly or concealed, without any additional paperwork.

I'm completely cool with standardizing the law at that level.

Basically, we roll back to what was working just fine prior to 1968.

Time to admit that we screwed up in 1968, drop the pretense that gun control helps anybody but bureaucrats, and revert to what Vermont, Alaska, and Arizona have figured out works.

The rest of the states seem to be slow learners, but there are a few that are close.


You know, it's been common knowledge for ages that bureaucracies make a mess of pretty much whatever they touch. And, every so often, someone somewhere will admit that and fix something that's been broken for ages. Like Alaska and Arizona finally did.

And then there are the "true believers" who are committed to the idea that a collection of smooth talkers and opportunists are better qualified to manage their lives better than they, themselves, are.

The fact that this has never been true doesn't seem to carry any weight.

Sad.

[St8LineGunsmith]

When did we give up federalism? The United States is not, nor did our founders intend it to be, one country. We are a NATION comprised of free States. You say you understand the Constitution... evidently you understand that our founders meant for the federal bureaucracy to have very limited power over the sovereigny of the States; evidently, you disagree and believe in doing away with federalism and subjecting us all to a single sovereign national government?
To anyone who actually DESIRES this, and WANTS to submit to it, I would cite the words of Davy Crockett...
"You may all go to hell, and I will go to Texas."

(All Davy needed was the bumpersticker that says "I wasn't born in Texas, but I got here as soon as I could!")
Ya I think it is called socialisim

[St8LineGunsmith]

"One Ring to Rule them all and in the darkness bind them!"

My EDC folders are more than 4" of sharpened edge. I prefer fixed blades over 7" for anatomical certainty and flexibility of deployment. My EDC primary firearm is never loaded to less than the old Major Power Factor and Constitutional Carry is the best result for insuring Liberty (yep, capitalized).

citizenzen, there's a gal who used to be vehemently anti-gun, maybe you've read her most prominent book Armed and Female (http://www.amazon.com/Armed-Female-Twelve-Million-American/dp/0312951507)?

OP, I was in Mesa, AZ when an armed robbery of a bank was attempted - and over a dozen CCW holders drew down on him. I witnessed a septuagenarian couple withdrawing money near sunset from an ATM while I was there, and saw three youths try and position themselves to obstruct the departure of the couple, who calmly proceeded to place their right hands inside concealment and speak softly out of earshot.

The three scattered, and the couple entered their car a block later, the gentleman holding hands with his wife while they paused occasionally to look around themselves. They spotted me midway down the block and I received the brightest, warmest smile which I returned.

The point?

Freedom from fear of the predator. Personal responsibility is a beautiful thing to witness first hand.

:D
Trisha that was beautifully put

[splattergun]

This nation is a federation of 50 different SOVEREIGN States. That's why not.

[Texan Scott]

St8LineGunsmith: Ya I think it is called socialisim

Democratic Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Constitutional Monarchy, any number of systems... the common theme is RULE FROM THE TOP DOWN.
America was founded as a Federal Democracy, predicated on consent of the governed and certain inviolable, inalienable, individual rights RECOGNIZED by the government, not GRANTED by them... in other words, RULE FROM THE BOTTOM UP. This requires, as has been mentioned rightly by others, limited government at the lowest possible level.

[Alaska444]

Democratic Socialism, Communism, Fascism, Constitutional Monarchy, any number of systems... the common theme is RULE FROM THE TOP DOWN.
America was founded as a Federal Democracy, predicated on consent of the governed and certain inviolable, inalienable, individual rights RECOGNIZED by the government, not GRANTED by them... in other words, RULE FROM THE BOTTOM UP. This requires, as has been mentioned rightly by others, limited government at the lowest possible level.
Actually, we were founded as republic, or rule by law. The founding fathers specifically rejected democracy as the form of government. We have strayed far from the founding fathers intentions.

[Millwright]

If you demand the feds control gun law uniformity, you've just ceded the second amendment, lad ! Our nation is a republic consisting of 50 (or 57 if you believe our current POTUS) states independent of but co-operative with one another. Yes there are areas of domestic commerce where uniformity issued by the "fed" is essential and productive. But though I live in hoplophobic NJ, the very last thing I'd want to see is my cross inflicted upon the nation ! >MW

[Texan Scott]

Alaska444, you are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT... improper verbage on my part, I can only plead 'heat of the moment'!

[larryh1108]

It seems like the Feds alreadyhave their hands in our pockets. If I order a gun from Bud's, it has to be sent to an FFL in my state for me to receive it. That's an additional tax. It's a form of control what I see no advantage to the buyer. It would seem that Bud's can run the NICS check and ship or not ship. Now they are talking about a tax on ammo, already tax the fun toys, etc. If the Feds get involved any deeper, there will be taxes on taxes like we have on our gas. Not many Americans will be able to afford to buy guns or ammo because someone has to pay for the paperwork needed to adopt and enforce any national laws. National laws only appeal to people in cities like Chicago, NYC, DC, etc because they have little or no right now and to people in IL, CA and NJ as well as other states that severly limit the ability to own and carry a handgun. There would be no good to come out of allowing the feds to administer a national gun law.

[Robert]

OP, there are plenty of opinions and view points in the 5 pages of this thread. We have reached the point of going around it circles so let's call it done.