Which State is the MOST ANTIGUN?

[HIcarry]

Hawaii

Hawaii:

Brady Score - 43 out of 100 points; ranks 8th out of 50 states.

Register every gun
Requires "Permit to Aquire Handgun" for each handgun; requires that you pay for the gun, get identifying info to take to the police department; apply for permit to aquire, wait 14 days; return to the police department to pick up permit then take permit to gun store/seller to prove eligibility to purchase; return to police department, with gun to "register" it.
Requires "Permit to Aquire Long gun" that allows multiple purchases with the permit. Requires annual renewal. Still need to take gun, after purchase, to police department to register.
No "assault pistols" which, by they're "it looks scary" definition, includes the new Ruger Charger.
Limits magazines for handguns, or those "capable" of being used in a handgun, to 10 rounds. Depending on your interpretaton of this language, it can be construed to limit magazines for AR and AK platforms to 10 rounds since those magazines are "capable" of being used in pistols.
"May Issue" concealed carry, which in reality may as well be "No Issue"
One public shooting range on Oahu (the main Island) that does not allow rapid fire, movement while firing, hohlster presentation, or the use of human shaped targets. Also, handgun range is 25 yards.
If you bring in a gun, it needs to be registered within 3 days of arrival, even if you are only here to hunt or shoot copetitively.
If you are served with a TRO and have to turn in your guns, you must "re-apply" for the guns once the TRO is lifted.

Not exactly gun friendly...

 

[swgunner]

um threeband check this out http://www.mdshooters.com/showthread.php?t=8891

Montgomery county registers paintball and airsoft.

And no issue of permit must have "good and sufficient reason" we "Maryland Shall Issue" have been fighting this for years. I have been once and told it wouldnt happen by a MSP SGt, but I have a Security Guard License and Gun License both for work.
Thanks all

 

[isp2605]

Hawaii:
Brady Score - 43 out of 100 points; ranks 8th out of 50 states.

HIcarry,
None of that matters tho since no one can drive to HI.


If anyone wants to see what the score is for their state, instead of some nebulous "rating" by people who don't have a real grasp on other state's laws, go to http://www.stategunlaws.org/ and click on the state. You'll see where each state is ranked by Brady. #1 the state Brady believes has the best gun control laws, #50 has the worst gun control laws. Some of you may be surprised just how favorable Brady views your state and how unfavorable they view some of the states people think are worse. The one thing about Brady's rating is they have definitive criteria how they graded.
According to Brady their Top 5 states are:
California - # 1
New Jersey - # 2
Connecticut - tied for 3
Massachusetts - tied for 3
Maryland - # 5

 

[toivo]

i would put Noo Yawk at the top of the list, assuming we're not talking about non-states like D.C.

New York State is not New York City. Yes, our AWB is putrid garbage. Yes, the 10-round magazine limit is ridiculous and makes it hard to buy from out-of-state dealers who may or may not have "New York" version of the firearm in question. Yes, it's annoying to have to have every pistol you own listed on your permit. On the other hand...

No permits or registration for long guns. No waiting periods. The standard pistol permit is valid for CCW. Permits are issued with no training requirement (at least in my county). Concealed carry is legal everywhere except schools and federal buildings. Pistol permits are good for life.

The biggest problem with the NYS pistol permit system is that it gives too much discretionary leeway to the judges who grant the permits, some of whom abuse their power by arbitrarily denying permits or by placing restrictions that aren't codified in state law: the so-called "range-and-hunting-only" permits. County judges have it in their power to withhold a right that the state recognizes. While the state process merely inhibits the RKBA, the judges can completely squash it. I am very lucky to live in a "good" county and to have had my permit application reviewed by a "good" judge. My permit was granted relatively quickly and with no restrictions. Not everyone is so lucky. And luck really shouldn't enter into it.

 

[Zoogster]

If anyone wants to see what the score is for their state, instead of some nebulous "rating" by people who don't have a real grasp on other state's laws

Funny you would say that and then refer people to a Brady judged ranking system. The Bradys far from the authority on freedom or gun rights and thier ranking system does not always add up to what pro gun entities would rate in reverse.

I have often found the Brady rankings to be less accurate than actual gun freedoms.
Clearly the best and worst ends of the spectrum are informative, but the individual rankings often mean little. One or two spots higher or lower than another on the Brady system means very little.
Some that score better better for gun rights by them are actualy less free or have worse self defense idealogy.


I think IL and MA are the worst.
IL requires a license that can at any time be revoked and not having that license makes it a crime just to possess a firearm.
Even the former Governor had his license revoked before any court case or guilt was determined.
It is a privelidge requiring a license that must be renewed regularly to even possess a firearm in your home in the state.
Chicago is much worse.

In MA the local police must give permission and authorize firearm ownership. They have a lot of strict gun laws, but more than that they have the licensing. Without that license just owning a gun is a crime.
Self defense in the state is also really tough, and in all but the most clear cut self defense cases you are in major trouble within the state. They even require a firearm license for pepperspray!

NY and NJ are also bad. They have similar licensing, NY for handguns, and NJ for all of them.
Self defense in New York state can be okay, but neither NY or NJ is a great place to be after use of force.

CA has a lot of stupid laws, and the items you can have include many restrictions.
Self defense is however far better than many other states. CA has long had a castle doctrine, and anyone can legaly own firearm with no required license whatsoever. The state does automaticly register handguns purchased (but no official registration), and purchase of a handgun requires someone to pay to take a multi question test for a "safety certificate" as of 2003, and no FTF transfers.
However ownership of all guns is permanently legal requiring no license unless someone becomes a prohibited person (and there is an awful lot of CA laws that can achieve that.)
Someone can carry openly or concealed with no license in thier home or place of business, or on thier private property or with permission of the owner (not accesible to the public, which means it must be behind a fence, gate, or legal "no tresspassing" signs.)
So a freedom requiring a permit or license many places is automatic.
The presumption is legal self defense if deadly force is used against someone who breaks into the home. There is no duty to retreat.
It is actualy a state that is better than much of the nation on self defense, including many states that are now "shall issue".

So CA is far from the worst state. It is certainly high up there though. It gets the worst reputation because it has the highest state population in the nation, the most complainers, and the most representation in Congress setting policy for the nation.
Los Angeles County alone has a higher population than 42 states at about 10 million.
What is allowed in CA spreads.
CA ironicly is such a large sampling of America, with a large portion of the residents originaly from out of state that it can often be a predictor of future regulations and trends in the nation on many issues beyond firearms unless they are fought.
Hopefully it can go back in the opposite direction on the issue of firearms.


There is a handful of other states that are not that far behind in anti gun attitudes, and others that have a couple really stupid unique laws but are not considered bad because they are otherwise free. So a pure ranking system on general things does not always add up.

HI is not friendly to gun owners. MD is not that great. Even NC requires local Sheriff permission to purchase a handgun. KS in the middle of the nation requires more restrictive transport (locked up and with ammunition locked seperately) without a license to carry than even CA.
WI and MI are not that great.

 

[isp2605]

Funny you would say that and then refer people to a Brady judged ranking system. The Bradys far from the authority on freedom or gun rights and thier ranking system does not always add up to what pro gun entities would rate in reverse.

At least the Bradys listed their criteria instead of all these other opinions that are based on what someone has read on the internet from others who don't really have a grasp of other state laws and probably even their own state. At least they base their ratings on research and facts of what the laws are in the individual states instead of repeating rumors like a lot on here. If you actually read their criteria for their rating they use a lot of the same that others on here have mentioned.

I think IL and MA are the worst.

For IL there's no restriction on gun type except full auto. No AWB. No mag restriction. No limit on the number of guns you can buy. No approved list of guns that can and cannot be bought. No registration of any firearm. No prior approval by sheriff or other required everytime to buy a firearm.
If you think IL is worse than CA, MD, NY, and HI (even if you can't drive to HI) then look at the facts and not what you think.

 

[Zoogster]

If you think IL is worse than CA, MD, NY, and HI (even if you can't drive to HI) then look at the facts and not what you think.

I still think IL is one of the worst. A license required that you must constantly renew just to legaly own a firearm.
A license that can at any time be revoked making ownership illegal. Expiration of said license turns you into a criminal.
If they don't renew your license within the grace period it is illegal to even own firearms you have owned for years.



Then Chicago is and has been the most corrupt city in the nation for a long time. Chicago having great influence over most of the state.

In most of CA outside the big cities and counties concealed carry is possible. Yet all of IL is prohibited.
In CA there is state pre-emption on a lot of things so you don't have to worry about crossing various county or municipal lines within a state that cause you to break various gun laws. In IL you need to know not only the state law, but the law of every county you cross all subject to change at any time. Some counties have had thier own Assault weapon restrictions. They even enforce different transport requirements in some counties.
I would rather deal with some of the legislation in other states than deal with that licensing scheme.

 

[isp2605]

A license required that you must constantly renew just to legaly own a firearm.
A license that can at any time be revoked making ownership illegal.

It's not that simplistic or easy as you make it sound or believe. If you can't legally purchase a firearm by legally completing a 4473 then a FOID will be revoked. It can't be revoked "at any time for any reason."
But no need to let facts influence someone's ideas or argument.

In IL you need to know not only the state law, but the law of every county you cross all subject to change at any time. Some counties have had thier own Assault weapon restrictions. They even enforce different transport requirements in some counties.

Once again, not at all true. Counties do not have the authority to pass laws contrary to state law. There is no home rule for counties. That includes counties passing AWB.
But thanks for playing. You have proven my point precisely. I have written that people post comments without knowing facts and basing their beliefs on misunderstood and false knowledge. You have proven that with both of your statements.

Here's some quotes from CA AG's office if you need help clarifying some of the things CA has which IL doesn't.

"What is the process for purchasing a firearm in California?
All firearms purchases and transfers, including private party transactions and sales at gun shows, must be made through a licensed dealer under the Dealer Record of Sale (DROS) process. California imposes a 10-day waiting period before a firearm can be released to a buyer or transferee."

Don't need to do that in IL. IL has a 24 hr for long guns and 72 hr for handguns but there's no requirement the transaction has to go thru a dealer.

"Is there a limit on the number of handguns that I can own or purchase?
While no limitation exists for the number of handguns that you may own,you are generally limited to purchasing no more than one handgun in any 30-day period. "

Only 1 handgun in 30 days. No such restriction in IL.

What are the Handgun Safety Certificate (HSC) requirements?
Prior to the submission of DROS information for a handgun purchase, individuals purchasing handguns must present an HSC or provide the dealer with proof of exemption pursuant to California Penal Code Section 12081.

So you have to get a HSC before you can buy a handgun. No such restriction here.

I am moving into California and I own several handguns. What are the new-resident registration requirements?
You are considered to be a personal handgun importer as defined by California law. You may bring all of your otherwise California-legal firearms with you, but you must report all of your handguns to the DOJ within 60 days as required utilizing the New Resident Handgun Ownership Report. [PDF 518 kb / 2 pg] You are not required to report rifles or shotguns. You may not bring ammunition feeding devices with a capacity greater than ten rounds, machineguns, or assault weapons into California.

Nothing even close by IL law.

How about posting a list of guns that CA says you can't own no matter whether you have a CCW, license or what. Oh, nevermind. It's 15 pages of guns. It would take up too much bandwidth for you to post all the guns prohibited to be bought in CA simply because they're on "the list".
And if you can't find it, here's the list of guns that you can't buy in CA because they're on "the list".
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/removed.pdf
http://caag.state.ca.us/firearms/forms/pdf/recentlyadded.pdf
I'm sure CA has a reason for banning those dangerous Browning Buckmarks, Ruger bull barrel .22, various makes of 1911 models, Beretta 92, and 15 more pages of various handguns by all the major makers which can be typically found in LEO's holsters.

 

[Zoogster]

It's not that simplistic or easy as you make it sound or believe. If you can't legally purchase a firearm by legally completing a 4473 then a FOID will be revoked. It can't be revoked "at any time for any reason."
But no need to let facts influence someone's ideas or argument.

It can be revoked just like any state issued license. If yours is unfairly revoked and you do not feel it was done according to the law then you can file the proper paperwork and complain through the slow system they have set up for you. (Or you could spend thousands and file a lawsuit that would still take a long time to be resolved.)
When something is licensed the state can revoke that license. If you feel thier actions are not allowed you may be able to get them reversed after going through the lengthy formalities, but it is still a crime for you to own firearms in the meantime.

Once again, not at all true. Counties do not have the authority to pass laws contrary to state law. There is no home rule for counties. That includes counties passing AWB.

They may not have the right, but they do it anyways. Cook county had an Assault Weapon Ban, and it renamed it to the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban (Blair Holt was killed by a handgun ironicly.)
Of course that sounds similar to the national level Blair Holt’s Firearm Licensing and Record of Sale Act of 2009 which is a more recent proposal.
Did cook county remove that ban? Will they still sieze and destroy those firearms?

Other places around Chicago had handgun bans as well. They didn't cease because of IL law, most dropped the law because of the Heller decision to avoid legal conflict that would likely have a similar result to D.C.
So clearly local areas can enact stricter gun control than than state law and it is up to you as the gun owner to know the law of every municipality and jurisdiction you enter and keep up with any changes.

 

[isp2605]

It can be revoked just like any state issued license.

Again, you don't have your facts straight. It can't be "revoked like any state issued license". The criteria for revocation is the same as if when you apply. If you can't answer the questions on a 4473 then you can't get or keep a FOID.

They may not have the right, but they do it anyways.

Counties do not have the statutory authority to pass any laws. It's not that they don't have the right, they don't have the statutory authority. What you are talking about is Home Rule and HR is not available for counties, only cities. Sorry, that's simple civics which any IL high school kid knows.

I see no comment about all the references concerning CA law. Guess you must not have been aware of those. How about all those 15 pages of "dangerous weapons" CA bans all over the state. I never realized just how dangerous and threatening my Buckmark, Ruger bull barrel, Sig 226 and some others really were. CA thinks so. AWB? CA has a whole lot more problems than an AWB by banning a .22 Ruger pistol.

 

[wrxguyusa]

I see no comment about all the references concerning CA law. Guess you must not have been aware of those. How about all those 15 pages of "dangerous weapons" CA bans all over the state. I never realized just how dangerous and threatening my Buckmark, Ruger bull barrel, Sig 226 and some others really were. CA thinks so. AWB? CA has a whole lot more problems than an AWB by banning a .22 Ruger pistol.

Not that any gun bans are not stupid, but I do want to point out that .22 pistols are used in a whole lot more crimes/murders than any assault weapons.

Statistically (in the civilian world), rifles labelled "assault rifles" and even fully automatic guns are safer than .22 pistols.

 

[Phatty]

What you are talking about is Home Rule and HR is not available for counties, only cities. Sorry, that's simple civics which any IL high school kid knows.

This is incorrect. Read Article VII, Section 6 of the Illinois Constitution.

"SECTION 6. POWERS OF HOME RULE UNITS
(a) A County which has a chief executive officer elected
by the electors of the county and any municipality which has
a population of more than 25,000 are home rule units."

Currently, Cook County is the only home rule county in Illinois.

For IL there's no restriction on gun type except full auto.

Pretty much anything that is restricted by the NFA is illegal in Illinois. So in addition to full auto, no silencers, no short-barreled rifles, no short-barreled shotguns, etc.

It's hard to compare which state has the "worst" gun laws, because people give various amount of weight to various restrictions. For example, many people in Illinois would gladly incur California's AWB for the right to carry.

 

[Phatty]

Cook county had an Assault Weapon Ban, and it renamed it to the Blair Holt Assault Weapons Ban (Blair Holt was killed by a handgun ironicly.)

This is correct. You can find the applicable ordinance here: http://www.municode.com/Resources/gateway.asp?pid=13805&sid=13

Look at Chapter 54, Article III, Division 4

 

[isp2605]

Currently, Cook County is the only home rule county in Illinois.

Correct. It's the only county in IL. Far from the "patchwork of counties" that someone thinks exists.

Not that any gun bans are not stupid, but I do want to point out that .22 pistols are used in a whole lot more crimes/murders than any assault weapons.

I spent 35 yrs in LE. Over 2/3 of that time in Investigations and have worked quite a few shootings and homicides. Your statement is not the point. Look at the list of guns banned from sales in CA. While I worked a number of shootings and homicides where a .22 was used, the guns on the CA list are hardly AW type guns. Browning Buckmarks and Ruger .22 Bull Barrels are far from the typical guns found used in illegal activites.

many people in Illinois would gladly incur California's AWB for the right to carry.

Would you also want registration, mag bans, and all the other things too? And don't forget micro engraving of ammunition to go into effect in CA. To buckle under for an AWB for CCW is giving up too much too. But that's what the antis are willing to offer. Are you sure that's what you want to agree to? That's how we ended up with FOID. There were some in IL who wanted complete registration. The compromise was FOID.

 

[Phatty]

Would you also want registration, mag bans, and all the other things too? And don't forget micro engraving of ammunition to go into effect in CA. To buckle under for an AWB for CCW is giving up too much too. But that's what the antis are willing to offer. Are you sure that's what you want to agree to?

I wasn't advocating to give up some rights to get other rights. My point was that if the choice was presented to all gun owners where they had the option of being regulated by the California regulatory scheme or the Illinois regulatory scheme, some would choose California and some would choose Illinois. Imagine if the only thing some lady wanted to do was to be able to carry a small pistol on her for self-defense she would at least have that option in California. Maybe she has no interest whatsoever in ever owning a rifle, her pistol only holds 8 rounds, and she's not a privacy fanatic. I'm sure many, many others would rather have the Illinois gun-control scheme instead of California's. I assume, since you're retired LE, that the no CCW in Illinois doesn't affect you, so obviously in your position Illinois laws are much more preferable than California's laws.

 

[isp2605]

Imagine if the only thing some lady wanted to do was to be able to carry a small pistol on her for self-defense she would at least have that option in California. Maybe she has no interest whatsoever in ever owning a rifle, her pistol only holds 8 rounds, and she's not a privacy fanatic.

That's exactly the arguments some of the national trap shooters used for not supporting CCW. Why should they support your CCW? They only care about shooting trap therefore they didn't back CCW. We heard the same thing from some of the benchrest shooters. They didn't care about CCW either so they wouldn't back CCW. And the same from a lot of the guys who shoot high power rifle competition. Oh wait! The government wants to ban ARs? Then we heard the high power shooters crying because the other interests weren't fighting for them. Seen all these arguments before. And that's exactly what you're going to get when you hear the politicians talk of "common sense" gun laws. You really don't need CCW. You don't need high cap mags. You don't need ARs. For hunting you can get by with a pump shotgun or a .22 bolt action rifle. That's the "common sense gun laws" they're talking about. So which ones do you want to give up first? Remember, once you give them up they're gone forever. And if you think it will stop with the one then remember the high power rifle shooters. Or reread the post from the guy who doesn't care about HI gun laws because a person can't drive to HI.

I assume, since you're retired LE, that the no CCW in Illinois doesn't affect you, so obviously in your position Illinois laws are much more preferable than California's laws.

I am retired LE but you assume incorrectly. I've heard that far too many times that since I'm LE no CCW doesn't affect me. Think again. My wife, kids, brothers, and rest of the family are not LE. I want CCW for them. You still think no CCW doesn't affect me? It affects me because it affects everyone in my family.

 

[shotgunjoel]

The wonderful people over at the Brady Campaign to Prevent Rational Thinking rank California as having what they consider the best gun laws. Just go through and reverse all of the numbers for us.

 

[shotgunjoel]

Here's the link if you dare go to the site. http://www.stategunlaws.org/

 

[Steve from Ohio]

I am thankful to see retired LE as pro CCW. And I will concur with one thing mentioned; "once you give them up they're gone forever".

Here is an announcement from the Buckeye Firearms Association. You may want to check out this anti gun 20/20 special being aired. And post a review and/or vote in a poll if possible. It would especially give them a nip to hear from pro-CCW that are also LE. For what its worth, I know that I'll voice an opinion.

Speaking of anti gun states, I was surprised to see the Brady State Scorecard ranking Ohio 20th out of the 50 states. I was hoping for 50th out of 50. Or at least in the high 40s. But 20th? FOR SHAME!!!

Where did we fail by scoring those 13 out of 100 possible Brady points??!!


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Buckeye Firearms ALERT


a publication of Buckeye Firearms Association

Ohio's #1 Gun-Rights Political Action Committee
"Defending Your Firearm Rights"

FORWARD this alert to everyone you know!
Did you get this email second-hand? Subscribe now!

April 10, 2009

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TONIGHT: 20/20 takes a biased look at mass shootings and armed civilians!

Do you think it's a good idea to be armed during a mass shooting? Diane Sawyer and the producers at 20/20 aren't so sure. Tonight at 10pm EST, ABC will air a special edition of 20/20 called "If I only had a gun" which looks at mass shootings and the idea of civilians being armed.

Click here to read about this upcoming news show and see a video clip.

http://abcnews.go.com/2020/story?id=7298996&page=1

The show will create a simulation of a mass shooting and supposedly show the response of an armed civilian. From what we've seen, this show will probably make your blood boil.

Watch tonight. If they run a poll, please respond. It is important to counter any anti-gun bias in the mainstream media.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HELP US FIGHT FOR YOUR RIGHTS

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------