Who favors unified guns laws?

[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]

Depends on the laws...

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.

1. Any knife with a blade under 3.25" is legal anywhere carrying a knife is legal concealed or open
2. 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.)
3. All guns transfer with an instant background check, even if out of state.
4. If a state issues concealed carry licenses they must do it on a shall issue basis.
5. States may not regulate cosmetic features of firearms (see also California).
6. States may not limit the transport of firearms in a locked case.
7. Keep the current rules on machine guns but allow new ones to be registered.
8. Suppressors should be transferred as firearms with out the $200 tax or registration requirements.
9. 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.
10. States may not impose a waiting period to pick up a firearm.
11. 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]

I was vauge

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"?

 

[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

 

[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?
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

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?

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.

 

[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]

various people quoted/you said it best

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]

"Constitutional" Carry

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