Gun ownership requirements around the world

Status
Not open for further replies.
Orkanen

Orkanen

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2019
Messages
102
Location
Øvre Snertingdal, Norway
Hand gun ownership requirements in Norway:
Clean wrap sheet, no documented mental issues, 18 or older, approved handgun safety course with passed theoretical and practical exam, active membership in an approved gun club.
You can apply for gun purchase approval no sooner than 6 months after you pass your safety course and join a club. Practice activity is logged by the club, who also deems what's considered activity, secretary or foreman approves your applications and you hand them to the police bureaucracy for processing, which takes anywhere from 2 weeks to 3 months, depending on county.
You can keep your weapons as long as you can show a minimum activity of 4 training or competition sessions per year, as well as maintaining your gun club membership. Checks for activity are scarce. Police can demand you sell your guns, or confiscate them, if you leave your club without joining another.
When applying for a gun, you also state its purpose, generally in which recreation or competition class you wish to use it in, and if you have more than one gun, why you can't use the one you already have. Above a certain level of activity, you can apply for more than one gun of same calibre and usage. There are also collectors licences where, and to my knowledge, the guns are more for show than use. One of my cousins has such a licence, boasting ownership among his many possessions, of 3 1911s and 1 1914.
Hunting with handguns is not permitted in Norway.

For those interested in competition rules:

Handguns are grouped and separated in classes.
Group 1: Pistols can have a maximum size of 300 x 150 x 50 mm a maximum weight of 1,400 kg
(1F) Small pistol, 22LR.
(1G) Large pistol, .30 and up to maximum permitted calibre in Norway, .455.
(1M) Military, from 9 mm to .455. Minimum projectile weight 100 gr, minimum factor of 120, which means projectile mass in grain x velocity fps / 1000 should be equal or higher than 120. Stock grips
(1R) Revolver, from 9 mm to .455 for adults, teens can use .22.
Group 2
(1S) Miniature revolver, should fit inside a box of 200 x 150 x 40 mm, weigh no more than 1,000 g
(1S) Miniature pistol, should fit inside a box of 185 x 125 x 35 mm, weigh no more than 800 g
Group 3
(1S) Magnum I, .357 to .40. Minimum projectile weight 140 gr, minimum factor 190
(1S) Magnum II, .41 to .505. Minimum projectile weight 210 gr, minimum factor 275

There's more to it than this in some classes, like shell length, grip shape and so on.
 
Orkanen said:
There are also collectors licences where, and to my knowledge, the guns are more for show than use. One of my cousins has such a licence, boasting ownership among his many possessions, of 3 1911s and 1 1914.
Click to expand...
Can collectors' guns be operable, or are they required to be deactivated?
 
AlexanderA said:
Can collectors' guns be operable, or are they required to be deactivated?
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I don't know enough about it. I'm having a hard time finding information on the subject. I've understood from my cousin that they're operable. Collectors weapons are occasionally for sale here, requiring a licence. Deactivated weapons are licence free and can be bought by anyone.
 
I can keep my handguns at home as long as I possess a required insurance approved safe. The safe has to be placed inside my home, not in a shed. Gunpowder and ammunition is to be stored in a locked room or closet.

How are rules in Washington State?
 
{How are rules in Washington State?}

In a word, deteriorating!
But, with a Concealed Carry Permit, I can still carry revolvers and semi autos of my choice, in most places.
Previously, I could go into a gun store and walk out about an hour later with a new handgun. This is because I have a carry permit which required a background check, including fingerprinting. Now, there is a waiting period of up to 30 days to get another background check, by my County Sheriff. So far, we don't need any kind of training to own guns in Washington State, but the Legislature is trying to change that. New rules just went into effect that require guns to be secure in some kind of locked storage.
I am interested in the gun laws of Norway, since most of my ancestors came from there about 140 years ago.

Best,
Rick
 
I guess we will have to wait until the Judges tell us what the new law means.

[And people of all ages are supposed to comply with strict new storage requirements. "A person who stores or leaves a firearm in a location where the person knows, or reasonably should know, that a prohibited person may gain access to the firearm" is now "guilty of community endangerment due to unsafe storage of a firearm" if "a prohibited person" accesses the gun and uses it. This requirement has been met with heavy backlash, with critics pointing out the potentially dangerous consequences of making weapons more inaccessible in a life-threatening situation.


While the new law stipulates that nothing in it "mandates how or where a firearm must be stored," it also says that the only way to surely avoid unsafe-storage penalties is through either "secure gun storage" or "a trigger lock or similar device that is designed to prevent the unauthorized use or discharge of the firearm." Secure gun storage is defined as a "locked box, gun safe, or other secure locked storage space designed to prevent unauthorized use or discharge of a firearm."]

Best,
Rick
 
The law is about allowing prohibited folks access, not storage.

And then only if it actually happens.

But wait for a decision if you want. Personally, I'd be surprised if it makes it to appellate court over interpretation.

The statement you made that I quoted remains untrue.
 
Jammersix said:
The law is about allowing prohibited folks access, not storage.

And then only if it actually happens.

But wait for a decision if you want. Personally, I'd be surprised if it makes it to appellate court over interpretation....
Click to expand...

In any event, we already have legal obligations to store our firearms responsibly and can incur civil (or in some cases criminal) responsibility if we fail to do so.

  1. Tort liability if someone gets your allegedly improperly stored gun and hurts someone with it will generally be based on negligence. Negligence in law is basically:
    A failure to behave with the level of care that someone of ordinary prudence would have exercised under the same circumstances. The behavior usually consists of actions, but can also consist of omissions when there is some duty to act (e.g., a duty to help victims of one's previous conduct).
    Click to expand...
    Negligence is generally a question for a jury. Basically the jury will need to decide, after all the evidence about what took place and what everyone said or did is presented whether the defendant acted as a reasonable and prudent person would in the same situation.

    So --
    • In general, everyone has a legal duty to exercise due care to avoid reasonably foreseeable injury to others. If one is found not to have done so and thus caused damage to another, he could be required to compensate the injured person for that damage.

    • A gun is a potentially dangerous instrumentality. If someone stores his gun in a manner in which it is foreseeable that it can be accessed by an unauthorized person, such as one's child, and such person gets the gun and hurts someone, under some circumstances a jury might decide that the gun owner failed to exercise appropriate care and may be held financially liable.

    • These sorts of results are highly circumstance dependent. Whether there can be liability will be a matter of exactly what happened and how.

    • Consider this case from gun-friendly Montana, Estate of Strever v. Cline, 278 Mont. 165 (Mont., 1995), at 174 -- 175 (emphasis added):
      ...A firearm, particularly one that is loaded or has ammunition in close proximity, is considered a dangerous instrumentality and therefore requires a higher degree of care in its use or handling. This concept is set out in the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which provides:

      Care required. The care required is always reasonable care. This standard never varies, but the care which it is reasonable to require of the actor varies with the danger involved in his act, and is proportionate to it. The greater the danger, the greater the care which must be exercised.

      As in all cases where the reasonable character of the actor's conduct is in question, its utility is to be weighed against the magnitude of the risk which it involves. [Citation omitted.] The amount of attention and caution required varies with the magnitude of the harm likely to be done if care is not exercised, and with the utility of the act. Therefore, if the act has little or no social value and is likely to cause any serious harm, it is reasonable to require close attention and caution. So too, if the act involves a risk of death or serious bodily harm, and particularly if it is capable of causing such results to a number of persons, the highest attention and caution are required even if the act has a very considerable utility. Thus those who deal with firearms ... are required to exercise the closest attention and the most careful precautions, not only in preparing for their use but in using them....

      Restatement (Second) of Torts § 298 cmt. b (1965).

      Accordingly, given the foreseeability of the risk involved in the improper and unsafe use and storage of a firearm; given the strong policy considerations favoring safe and prudent use and storage; and on the basis of the law as set forth in §§ 1-1-204, 27-1-701 and 28-1-201, MCA, our decisions in Limberhand, Maguire, Phillips, Mang and Busta and the above referred to standards of care set forth in Prosser and Keeton on Torts and in comment b to § 298 of the Restatement, we hold that, as a matter of law, the owner of a firearm has a duty to the general public to use and to store the firearm in a safe and prudent manner taking into consideration the type of firearm, whether it is loaded or unloaded, whether the ammunition is in close proximity or easily attainable, and the location and circumstances of its use and storage.

      Because we conclude that Susanj owed a legal duty to the general public to store his firearm and ammunition in a manner consistent with this standard of care,...
      Click to expand...

  2. There are federal cases that suggest that a person could be criminally liable for aiding and abetting the illegal possession of a gun by a prohibited person, if the prohibited person is a visitor, house guest, or cohabitant, and has access to you gun.

    • Possession is defined broadly. See U.S. v. Booth, 111 F.3d 1 (C.A.1 (Mass.), 1997, at 1):
      ...The law recognizes two kinds of possession, actual possession and constructive possession.... Even when a person does not actually possess an object, he may be in constructive possession of it. Constructive possession exists when a person knowingly has the power and the intention at a given time of exercising dominion and control over an object or over the area in which the object is located. The law recognizes no distinction between actual and constructive possession, either form of possession is sufficient. Possession of an object may be established by either direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence. It is not necessary to prove ownership of the object,...
      Click to expand...

    • See U.S. v. Barron-Rivera, 922 F.2d 549 (C.A.9 (Wash.), 1991) in which Barron-Rivera's conviction for being an alien in possession of a firearm was affirmed without him even having had to touch a gun. Barron-Rivera's claimed reversible error in that the government failed to prove the necessary intent.

      The court of appeal noted, at 551:
      ...Barron-Rivera argued that the gun was in his wife's residence at the time he re-entered the United States and moved back into that residence. Accepting that contention, the district court, nonetheless, found that Barron-Rivera's possession of the firearm was voluntary because he permitted the firearm to remain in the house after he acquired knowledge of its presence....
      Click to expand...

      In affirming the conviction, the court of appeal found, at 551 -- 552:
      ...In other words, by continuing to reside in the apartment in which the gun was located, he voluntarily and knowingly possessed the gun...
      Click to expand...

      While it doesn't appear Barron-Rivera's wife doesn't appear to have been charged with aiding and abetting, but it looks like she could have been. See Huet discussed below.

    • See, also, United States v. Huet, 665 F.3d 588 (3rd Cir., 2012), in which the gun a prohibited person was charged with illegally possessing was not secured against the prohibited person's access, supporting both the prohibited person's conviction for unlawful possession of a gun and the indictment of his cohabitant. From the opinion (at pg. 593, emphasis added):
      ...on June 6, 2008, a valid search warrant (the “search warrant”) was executed on the couple‟s Clarion County home. Agents seized an SKS, Interordnance M59/66 rifle (“SKS rifle”) from an upstairs bedroom.

      Although Huet is legally permitted to possess a firearm, Hall was convicted in 1999 of possessing an unregistered firearm, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 5861(d), and is therefore prohibited from owning or possessing a firearm. After being informed of the raid, Huet allegedly told investigators that the guns in the house belonged to her and that it was not illegal for her to purchase weapons. Despite Huet‟s assertions that she alone possessed the SKS rifle, the Government sought and obtained an indictment charging Hall with illegal possession of the weapon, and Huet with aiding and abetting Hall‟s possession....
      Click to expand...
      So the gun Hall, a convicted felon, was indicted for unlawfully possessing, belonged to his cohabitant, Huet. It appears to have been undisputed that Huet could lawfully possess firearms. Nonetheless, she was indicted for aiding and abetting Hall's unlawful possession of gun because Huet's gun wasn't secured against access by Hall.
 
Frank Ettin said:
A lot
Click to expand...
I've read several stories through the years giving me the impression that you Americans to some degree lack a form of personal responsibility for your actions where you can claim ignorance. I find things like warning labels on coffee cups stating contents may be hot, and don't warm up your pet in a micro-wave oven, to be odd. A story I came across years ago about a woman suing a store and winning after having tripped over a toddler and broken a leg baffled me, particularly when learning the toddler was hers. Not to mention your incredibly long and ridiculously complex disclaimers accompanying products of any kind. Here, RTFM or you're to blame.

Because of this, my first thought after reading your post was that if you are too scared to defend yourself and a perpetrator snatches your gun and hurts someone with it, you're to blame. I hope it isn't so.

I appreciate your post and quotes, giving me more insight into the workings of your culture. Here, since a firearm takes time to acquire and are usually costy to buy and keep anyway, one might as well buy a good one and take well care of it. Which is why when buying a revolver, I bought a Manurhin MR73 instead of a S&W 686 Performance Centre.
 
How is Norway for black powder firearms? do they distinguish a cartridge firearm from a black powder firearm? My understanding is that, in many countries, a percussion revolver would be easier to obtain. In France they are relatively unregulated.
 
I agree with the duty. (Opinion) There is certainly a moral duty, even in the absence of a legal duty. (End Opinion.)

If you own a gun, you need a safe.
 
roscoe said:
How is Norway for black powder firearms? do they distinguish a cartridge firearm from a black powder firearm? My understanding is that, in many countries, a percussion revolver would be easier to obtain. In France they are relatively unregulated.
Click to expand...
Generally, percussion revolvers made before 1890 and guns with unobtainable ammunition are not regulated. One is for black powder required to apply with the same paperwork as for weapons, limited to 1 kg at a time.

One cannot buy ammo, primers, regular powder, shells, or projectiles without producing a weapon registration card.
 
I've read several stories through the years giving me the impression that you Americans to some degree lack a form of personal responsibility for your actions where you can claim ignorance
Click to expand...

Sadly there are always people an any group that fail to accept personal responsibility for their actions,
It is understandable in children who do not know better, but in adults.....
 
Dudedog said:
Sadly there are always people an any group that fail to accept personal responsibility for their actions,
It is understandable in children who do not know better, but in adults.....
Click to expand...
We have them here too. In abundance.

But back to topic. Any laws and requirements worth mentioning in Southern California?
 
Any laws and requirements worth mentioning in Southern California?
Click to expand...

:eek: Ah yes
To keep it reasonably short, a quick summary
All Transfers must go thru a FFL except certain inter family transfers
You can only purchase new handguns off the (small) approved list, nothing new can be approved unless it microstamps (which of course does not work)
https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certguns
(the handgun list does not apply to sworn peace officers)
No new "Assault weapons" Claifornia has there own unique list of thing that makes the gun evil, exits ones had to be registered alreay
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2
Background check for ammo purchases (with a fee of course)
No giving ammo to friends (some exceptions but you can't for example say "thanks Bill for fixing my washing machine I know you needed ammo for you XYZ so here are a couple boxes since I have extras"
Limits on the amount of powder and primers an individual may have (can't stock up to many reloading components)
10 day waiting period
1 handgun purchase per month, (most likely one gun per month soon)
New mags have a limit of 10 rounds
Concealed carry requires a permit from your county sheriff, good in the State once you have it, getting one in some counties is next to impossible (our sheriff is gun friendly)
Red Flag laws, your guns can be taken without due process in violation of what the Constitution of the US says (at least IMO)
No .50 BMG rifles, certain other evil guns are banned by name

there is more (lots) but that's hitting the major points
(and there seem to be new laws on the way all the time)
 
Dudedog said:
:eek: Ah yes
To keep it reasonably short, a quick summary
All Transfers must go thru a FFL except certain inter family transfers
You can only purchase new handguns off the (small) approved list, nothing new can be approved unless it microstamps (which of course does not work)
https://www.oag.ca.gov/firearms/certguns
(the handgun list does not apply to sworn peace officers)
No new "Assault weapons" Claifornia has there own unique list of thing that makes the gun evil, exits ones had to be registered alreay
https://oag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/genchar2
Background check for ammo purchases (with a fee of course)
No giving ammo to friends (some exceptions but you can't for example say "thanks Bill for fixing my washing machine I know you needed ammo for you XYZ so here are a couple boxes since I have extras"
Limits on the amount of powder and primers an individual may have (can't stock up to many reloading components)
10 day waiting period
1 handgun purchase per month, (most likely one gun per month soon)
New mags have a limit of 10 rounds
Concealed carry requires a permit from your county sheriff, good in the State once you have it, getting one in some counties is next to impossible (our sheriff is gun friendly)
Red Flag laws, your guns can be taken without due process in violation of what the Constitution of the US says (at least IMO)
No .50 BMG rifles, certain other evil guns are banned by name

there is more (lots) but that's hitting the major points
(and there seem to be new laws on the way all the time)
Click to expand...

You poor SOBs.. I weep and pray for you,,,,, :( :(
 
If you owned them it would be ok as long as the mags go in the pistol grip. (don't have time to look them up now and I am not familiar with either one)
A handgun with the mag in front of the grip, like a broomhandle Mauser would be on the evil list and be considered an "assault weapon."
If one them was damaged, lost, stolen etc you could not buy a new one if it was not on the list.
 
Dudedog said:
If you owned them it would be ok as long as the mags go in the pistol grip. (don't have time to look them up now and I am not familiar with either one)
A handgun with the mag in front of the grip, like a broomhandle Mauser would be on the evil list and be considered an "assault weapon."
If one them was damaged, lost, stolen etc you could not buy a new one if it was not on the list.
Click to expand...
Hmm, it seems I possess an assault weapon...
20190901_220918.jpg
It's a .22, taking a maximum 5 + 1 rounds in its magazine.
20190901_220850.jpg
It's purely for competition purposes.

I posted pictures of my Manurhin here.
 
Sweet Pistol:D

CA has a special list of "Olympic" guns that are exempt I will have to check and see if your Pardini is on it.
https://oag.ca.gov/sites/all/files/agweb/pdfs/firearms/forms/op.pdf
If not is not it would be considered, yes you guessed it, an Assault Weapon in CA. having the magazine in front of the grip makes it extra evil, I mean anybody should be able to tell by looking at it that is is extra evil.
Electronic as well, might be a death ray capable of destroying tanks and jet airliners.
:rofl:
.
CA is just sort of nuts. :eek:

Edit:
I checked, you would be ok if you were here, it is on the Olympic list by name.
If it was not it would not matter at all that it should be on that list, for example if it was the new model XYZ that was almost the same.
The Manurhin MR-73 appears to be on that list as well.

Back when they made them CA decided green "plastic" Springfield XDs were different guns than black "plastic" Springfield XDs and required Springfield to have them tested separately(with the additional fee of course)
 
Last edited:
Dudedog said:
Electronic as well, might be a death ray capable of destroying tanks and jet airliners.
Click to expand...
It was initially sold with an electronic trigger, neat but somewhat unreliable, so by the time I laid my grubby hands on it, that part had already been replaced with a mechanical one.
Dudedog said:
CA is just sort of nuts. :eek:
Click to expand...
That's what I keep hearing. Where else in the world would you find a "Governator"?
Dudedog said:
Back when they made them CA decided green "plastic" Springfield XDs were different guns than black "plastic" Springfield XDs and required Springfield to have them tested separately(with the additional fee of course)
Click to expand...
We have equally greedy government officials and politicians here too, yet most of our additional taxes revolve around cars.

Isn't the 2nd. Amendment valid in California?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
(Australia) Sporting Shooters Face Tougher Rules
Replies
10
Views
445
fallingblock
F
M
  • Locked
What If HOAs Prohibit Gun Ownership?
2
Replies
25
Views
4K
MachIVshooter
MachIVshooter
evan price
  • Locked
Kennesaw GA REQUIRES Gun ownership?
Replies
20
Views
1K
Malum Prohibitum
M
M
  • Locked
My views on gun ownership
4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13
Replies
322
Views
16K
The Real Hawkeye
T
F
  • Locked
Australia...they came for my guns!
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
hipower22
H
Back
Top