Who favors unified guns laws?

[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).

 

[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.