Why does discussion of how gun laws vary state to state …

[Old Dog]

… quickly become so contentious? Cases in point, the recent threads “Where would you NOT move to due to firearms laws?” and “Open carry in Texas ‘much ado about nothing,’ despite doomsayers’ predictions.”

Both of these threads contained, among other things, mild to pronounced bashing of some states based on the particular biases (some of the bias definitely seemed regional in nature) of the posters, and a lot of finger-pointing, poor understanding of the history of concealed carry in this country, and some outright, “This is why my state is so great” when comparing apples to oranges (your state doesn’t have open carry … doesn’t matter, your gun will get stolen when you have to leave it in your car … we had shall-issue long before your state did … you can’t have full-auto … I don’t need it … won’t live in a state that doesn’t allow suppressors … your state has gun registration … yeah, but I can shoot on public land anywhere …and so on and so forth.)

Can’t we just all try to put the differences in states’ law into some perspective? For example, are things improving in the RKBA arena in your own state, or are you seeing some regression?

In my state – yes, the ORIGINAL shall-issue state (1961), Washington -- we gained suppressors but then also had universal background checks foisted upon us … (Is that a wash? Not from a rights perspective, as private sales are now effectively outlawed, though the law is difficult to impossible to enforce.)

I get that we all (for the most part) have some pride in our states of residence; but that whole “Where would you NOT move …” thread got totally derailed. I guess my point is (I’m getting tired of typing) that we should all be tracking the overall RKBA progress in our states and nationally, and be able to discuss these things in a civil manner without devolving into the grade-school tit-for-tat, this is why my state is so much better for gun-owners (and concealed carriers) than yours.

 

[yugorpk]

Yeah, cant we all just get along. Not like states have ever fought each other...

FWIW for those unitiated in the vagaries of Washington law we had silencers in Washington and have had for a long time. We just couldn't use them. Used to break my heart when I'd go out shooting and my silencers would be sitting there all lonely like

Washington has a long history of passing vague, poorly written and completely unenforceable gun laws that people widely ignore. Ive even seen it commented here on this forum that We live under an oppressive regime because of the UBC law. The state is out to get us! OK. It was passed as a ballot initiative so...Its not like we're Oregon where it just got rammed down their throats by the Demopoly.

 

[22-rimfire]

Can’t we just all try to put the differences in states’ law into some perspective? For example, are things improving in the RKBA arena in your own state, or are you seeing some regression?
<snip>
I get that we all (for the most part) have some pride in our states of residence; but that whole “Where would you NOT move …” thread got totally derailed. I guess my point is (I’m getting tired of typing) that we should all be tracking the overall RKBA progress in our states and nationally, and be able to discuss these things in a civil manner without devolving into the grade-school tit-for-tat, this is why my state is so much better for gun-owners (and concealed carriers) than yours.

I purposely did not respond to that thread. So many things are just a waste of time although the second amendment is very important relative to both Federal and State laws and what is or has developed.

I wish I knew every state's gun related laws, but I don't. There are places that I would not move to when I was younger looking for a new job, but guns was never the central issue in those decisions. I punted on a Chicago job for example. Punted on California.

 

[Merle1]

… quickly become so contentious? Cases in point, the recent threads “Where would you NOT move to due to firearms laws?” and “Open carry in Texas ‘much ado about nothing,’ despite doomsayers’ predictions.”

Both of these threads contained, among other things, mild to pronounced bashing of some states based on the particular biases (some of the bias definitely seemed regional in nature) of the posters, and a lot of finger-pointing, poor understanding of the history of concealed carry in this country, and some outright, “This is why my state is so great” when comparing apples to oranges (your state doesn’t have open carry … doesn’t matter, your gun will get stolen when you have to leave it in your car … we had shall-issue long before your state did … you can’t have full-auto … I don’t need it … won’t live in a state that doesn’t allow suppressors … your state has gun registration … yeah, but I can shoot on public land anywhere …and so on and so forth.)

Can’t we just all try to put the differences in states’ law into some perspective? For example, are things improving in the RKBA arena in your own state, or are you seeing some regression?

In my state – yes, the ORIGINAL shall-issue state (1961), Washington -- we gained suppressors but then also had universal background checks foisted upon us … (Is that a wash? Not from a rights perspective, as private sales are now effectively outlawed, though the law is difficult to impossible to enforce.)

I get that we all (for the most part) have some pride in our states of residence; but that whole “Where would you NOT move …” thread got totally derailed. I guess my point is (I’m getting tired of typing) that we should all be tracking the overall RKBA progress in our states and nationally, and be able to discuss these things in a civil manner without devolving into the grade-school tit-for-tat, this is why my state is so much better for gun-owners (and concealed carriers) than yours.

It's no different than folks bragging up "their" team - or NASCAR driver!

 

[Red Wind]

Contention is the new American Way. We eat our young and fight each other to the death! The Statist win.

As we say in the 82nd Airborne, "I am with you, All the Way,Sir!"

So, not one more backward step.

 

[GBExpat]

Why does discussion of how gun laws vary state to state …quickly become so contentious? ...

Why would you expect it to be different from any other subject here?

The most seemingly-innocuous subjects can spark fireworks in a place like this, especially if one or more of the prickly types joins the "discussion".

Nature of the Beast.

 

[Deanimator]

As a general rule, repressive gun laws are reflective of a general societal rot in a state, which is usually reflected in a variety of ways.

It's like Sharia. If you're pushing gays off of buildings, you've probably got other problems too.

If you're telling your citizens, "We don't have to protect you and we won't let you protect yourself!", you've got other defects as well.

 

[Ed Ames]

I think people who see the up-side to a place generally don't like it when others only mention the negatives, especially if the negatives are something they are willing to put up with. If you enjoy something and everyone says it is bad, that usually raises a question about your judgment.

Plus a lot of people make very broad assumptions based on stereotypes, and if you have been stereotyped long enough it gets frustrating.

It's like...imagine the best events in your life...meeting your SO, having kids, whatever...all happened in a Waffle House. Everyone bashes Waffle House, and you know that some criticism is valid, but it still has a place in your heart and you want people to know the good side. And to stop blaming Waffle House for things that happen in Huddle House restaurants because those are completely different chains.

 

[yugorpk]

Also we all talk about gun laws like they are federal only. Sure there are some gun laws that the feds will prosecute but people always forget about their state laws. The states are the ones who will throw you in jail. Federal crime prosecution is relatively rare. Then you start talking about state laws and theres going to be better states than others so the ones with bad laws are going to get pointed out and gang piled on. Its no different than me thinking that I'd rather die than live in Canada or England ( or whatever they call that island ) but just on a smaller scale.

 

[DeepSouth]

It's funny to me that people care about these things.

For instance, I live in Alabama, their ARE states with better gun laws, better economies, better crime rates, better schools and so on. Their are states that are by almost everyone's standards....better. (We do have better football than Anyone else though. )

Now do I care, nope. If your state is better than mine then good for you. I was born and raised here, I've never lived anywhere else, this is home and I love it for that reason but that doesn't mean I'm delusional.


People take everything personal these days, or so it seems. I just don't get that.

 

[Deanimator]

Now do I care, nope. If your state is better than mine then good for you. I was born and raised here, I've never lived anywhere else, this is home and I love it for that reason but that doesn't mean I'm delusional.

I was born and raised in Chicago, IL.

Do I have one IOTA of emotional attachment to the place? No, NONE at all. It could never be "home" to me, and guns are only a part of why.

I feel about Illinois and especially Chicago, the way the actor Helmut Dantine felt about his birthplace, Austria. The prevailing values and the people who hold them are alien and abhorrent to me.

 

[danez71]

Why does discussion of how gun laws vary state to state …… quickly become so contentious?

Because...when a state is bashed, the people of that state are also bashed.

Replies are too often 1) formed in a way that places blame for lack luster laws on the resident forum member, 2) that the resident accepts and agrees with the laws rather than just tolerates the law, and 3) question why the resident is willing to live such an oppressive life when all they have to do is drive a few miles to the bashers state and live like a 'Free Man'.


Oh.... and there is an added element when the criticism cites erroneous info which makes things even worse.

 

[Bobson]

Some states actually are genuinely "better" for folks interested in shooting sports, or concealed carry, or whatever other aspect of firearms ownership. I don't think pointing that sort of thing out is bad thing, or an effort to stir up trouble.

The thing is, "better," itself, is almost always a subjective thing, and it can be easy for people to forget that (myself included, not pointing fingers at anyone). If Bob is interested primarily in shooting on public land, and Jim is primarily interested in concealed carry, and they each live in states that allows what they want and forbids what they don't care for, they might both naturally view their own state as being better than others, as far as gun rights go. From that point, any little matter of contention can be enough to get a rumble going... It's just human nature. Not the end of the world.

 

[Ed Ames]

The thing is, "better," itself, is almost always a subjective thing, and it can be easy for people to forget that (myself included, not pointing fingers at anyone).

That's a good point.

Another issue that I hadn't really consciously considered, but can manifest itself in several ways: perceived misinformation can be seen as hurting the RKBA efforts in a particular state.

For example, in California, a large percentage of gun owners have been driven underground, and many don't know what their rights are. They don't know where to shoot, or even where to buy ammo. The culture there is that you don't talk about hunting or shooting, don't admit you are one of "those people". I talk about the wonderful public land shooting opportunities, but most Californian gun owners have no idea that they can just go out into the desert and legally shoot. I mention it because I want curious Californians (and visitors to the state) to try it, because if guns are useless (as in, nowhere to shoot) then gun ownership is unimportant, and the RKBA fight loses strength.

When non-Californians say that California's gun laws are similar to New Jersey's, they are telling CA gun owners it isn't safe to go shooting. The reality is that CA is far more gun friendly than NJ. Want proof? Put an unloaded 1911 in your trunk, drive into each state. In which state are you committing a felony? Hint: Not California.

At the same time, it is easy to take that too far. In a recent thread the question of FOIDs came up. Some posterd said non-residents don't need FOID cards in Illinois. I say that, well, "The court ruled 7-to-0 that someone who has a permit to have a gun from their home state doesn’t need to also get a FOID card." http://www.usacarry.com/illinois-supreme-court-rules-non-residents-dont-need-foid-card/

I think leaving out any mention of the bolded part could easily get an out of state visitor who doesn't have a CHL into trouble...but I suspect that from an in-state perspective that's a minor nuance of a major victory, and it sounds like I'm nit picking.

 

[Rockrivr1]

I'm from Massachusetts. I left but came back for family and friends. Massachusetts is a toilet bowl of hippy dip***** liberals and about as restrictive of gun laws as any state in the Union. In regards to firearms Mass SUCKS! I soundly look forward to the day I move to NH! And yes, I'm a Mass-hole!

 

[DeepSouth]

I was born and raised in Chicago, IL.

Do I have one IOTA of emotional attachment to the place? No, NONE at all. It could never be "home" to me, and guns are only a part of why.

I understand that, kind of, since I have been here my entire life all of my family is here (except for one aunt & uncle) every friend I've ever had lives within a half hour drive of my house. I have hunted the land all over the county, the town I grew up in and live in now was founded by my 4th great grandfather. My family has been farming the same land for about 6 generations.

I guess it's the memories, the people, the history, and the culture that I'm attached to. But the only place I can get that is right where I am. But I do understand people have different life experiences that lead them into different attachment and thinking.

 

[Warp]

That's a good point.

Another issue that I hadn't really consciously considered, but can manifest itself in several ways: perceived misinformation can be seen as hurting the RKBA efforts in a particular state.

For example, in California, a large percentage of gun owners have been driven underground, and many don't know what their rights are. They don't know where to shoot, or even where to buy ammo. The culture there is that you don't talk about hunting or shooting, don't admit you are one of "those people". I talk about the wonderful public land shooting opportunities, but most Californian gun owners have no idea that they can just go out into the desert and legally shoot. I mention it because I want curious Californians (and visitors to the state) to try it, because if guns are useless (as in, nowhere to shoot) then gun ownership is unimportant, and the RKBA fight loses strength.

When non-Californians say that California's gun laws are similar to New Jersey's, they are telling CA gun owners it isn't safe to go shooting. The reality is that CA is far more gun friendly than NJ. Want proof? Put an unloaded 1911 in your trunk, drive into each state. In which state are you committing a felony? Hint: Not California.

At the same time, it is easy to take that too far. In a recent thread the question of FOIDs came up. Some posterd said non-residents don't need FOID cards in Illinois. I say that, well, "The court ruled 7-to-0 that someone who has a permit to have a gun from their home state doesn’t need to also get a FOID card." http://www.usacarry.com/illinois-supreme-court-rules-non-residents-dont-need-foid-card/

I think leaving out any mention of the bolded part could easily get an out of state visitor who doesn't have a CHL into trouble...but I suspect that from an in-state perspective that's a minor nuance of a major victory, and it sounds like I'm nit picking.

I'll go ahead and start a thread in Legal about that topic since you haven't.

I don't believe your interpretation to be correct.

 

[pintler]

There's a tendency to think that the way things are for you must be the right way.

For two non-gun examples, in 48 states you can pump your own gas - and almost everyone in those states does so. In Oregon and (I think New Jersey), it's a crime to pump your own gas. The theory is that gasoline is a dangerous substance (true enough!) and that fueling is best left to trained professionals.

People who have been pumping their own gas w/o mishap for years tend to think that's odd, but you can find OR and NJ residents - especially those who have always lived there and don't travel a lot - that think letting amateurs pump gas is unnecessarily risky.

Car safety inspections are another. Some states require a periodic safety inspection for cars, and you put a sticker in the windshield showing you inspection is current. Other states don't. IMHE, people from states that don't require them think the idea is silly, but many people from states that do require them think it unsafe to have a bunch of uninspected rolling death traps loose on the highways.

We all incorporate these kinds of beliefs almost without realizing them.

 

[Bobson]

There's a tendency to think that the way things are for you must be the right way.

Dang, if that ain't the truth...

Isn't that the whole reason anti-gunners keep pushing?

 

[yugorpk]

There's a tendency to think that the way things are for you must be the right way.

For two non-gun examples, in 48 states you can pump your own gas - and almost everyone in those states does so. In Oregon and (I think New Jersey), it's a crime to pump your own gas. The theory is that gasoline is a dangerous substance (true enough!) and that fueling is best left to trained professionals.

People who have been pumping their own gas w/o mishap for years tend to think that's odd, but you can find OR and NJ residents - especially those who have always lived there and don't travel a lot - that think letting amateurs pump gas is unnecessarily risky.

Car safety inspections are another. Some states require a periodic safety inspection for cars, and you put a sticker in the windshield showing you inspection is current. Other states don't. IMHE, people from states that don't require them think the idea is silly, but many people from states that do require them think it unsafe to have a bunch of uninspected rolling death traps loose on the highways.

We all incorporate these kinds of beliefs almost without realizing them.

Except that no one Ive ever met in Oregon buys that "dangerous to pump your own gas" thing. Its pretty much universally accepted to be a minimum wage employment scheme. Prices arent any different than what you find across the border in Washington so no one gets all that bent out of shape about it despite the fact that you have to spend a LOT more time at the gas pump. Oh yeah. A LOT more time. Add at least another 5 minutes and sometimes more if you get a busy gas station waiting for the pump jocky to return after the pump has long ago shut off. Oregon has a lot of silly employment laws geared solely at keeping Oregonians artificially employed.

 

[Robert]

Well since this has ceased to be on topic for THR let's call this one done.