State-by-State Gun Laws

[Skookum]

So tell me again when crazy people still kill people what the next steps are?

What do you propose?

Why make abortion illegal? People are going to seek them anyway.

Why make drugs illegal? People will find ways to manufacture and get high on them anyway. (What is a drug, by the way? A drug is harder to classify than a gun)

Why make immigration illegal? People will find a way in.

So I guess I'm really not sure what your position is, if gun control is supposedly a worthless endeavor. If gun control is, they all are, but I know that's not what you think...

 

[Babe2201]

What do you propose?

Why make abortion illegal? People are going to seek them anyway.

Why make drugs illegal? People will find ways to manufacture and get high on them anyway. (What is a drug, by the way? A drug is harder to classify than a gun)

Why make immigration illegal? People will find a way in.

So I guess I'm really not sure what your position is, if gun control is supposedly a worthless endeavor. If gun control is, they all are, but I know that's not what you think...

What do I propose? I don't propose your silly idea to begin with so why would I have an answer? Once again you are unwilling to answer a question. Why is that?

A simple yes or no question. Is there an amendment to our constitution that says there is a right to have an abortion or to do drugs?

The immigration thing is just silly because non citizens do not have the same rights citizens do.

 

[Skookum]

What do I propose? I don't propose your silly idea to begin with so why would I have an answer? Once again you are unwilling to answer a question. Why is that?

A simple yes or no question. Is there an amendment to our constitution that says there is a right to have an abortion or to do drugs?

The immigration thing is just silly because non citizens do not have the same rights citizens do.

See 9A, and 10A.

 

[Ray-IN]

some of those MRE's tasted so bad they would likey incite a war..

When MRE's replaced C-rats, one of my drill sergeants was in a hurry and didn't follow the instructions, he ate the freeze-dried meat and washed it down with water. A few hours later he got sick and bloated, with belly pain. I took him to the nearest clinic, where they pumped his stomach.
When he improved he was released I took him back to his barracks. To add insult to injury the CO gave him a letter of admonishment after he received the clinic report.

 

[DonTom]

What do you propose?

Why make abortion illegal? People are going to seek them anyway.

Why make drugs illegal? People will find ways to manufacture and get high on them anyway. (What is a drug, by the way? A drug is harder to classify than a gun)

Why make immigration illegal? People will find a way in.

So I guess I'm really not sure what your position is, if gun control is supposedly a worthless endeavor. If gun control is, they all are, but I know that's not what you think...

Which one of above is a constitutional right?

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

When MRE's replaced C-rats, one of my drill sergeants was in a hurry and didn't follow the instructions, he ate the freeze-dried meat and washed it down with water.

All C-rats can all be eaten cold. Not MRE's. I assume he thought MREs were like C-rats.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

See 9A, and 10A.

See what counts, the most resent SCOTUS rulings.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

if gun control is supposedly a worthless endeavor.

My only problem with gun control laws is they all aim at ONLY disarming the good guys. Criminals want as much gun control as possible.

Here is a great example of a person who wants as much gun control as possible:

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

An amendment can be repealed. An amendment can be added.

Yes! So try to ban it the correct way, not with state laws that infringe on our federal right.

BTW, it would do very little good. Most states have their own version in the state's own Constitution. And usually in very clear words, such as here in NV:

(NV) "STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article 1, Section 11, Paragraph 1.

“Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes.”

For there in WA state:

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article 1, Section 24.
“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” ​

So even if you get rid of the 2A, it becomes a state's rights issue under the 10th amendment. Won't change the status of my rather large rifle collection here.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Skookum]

For there in WA state:

STATE CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION - Article 1, Section 24.​

“The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.” ​

-Don- Reno, NV

Recently effective:

New Washington law bans sale of some semi-automatic rifles. It's already facing a legal challenge

Gov. Jay Inslee and state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, both Democrats, pushed for the Democratic-controlled Washington Legislature to pass the ban on many semi-automatic weapons this session after years of failed attempts.

www.pbs.org

How timely:

The Biden administration will require thousands more gun dealers to run background checks on buyers

Thousands more firearms dealers across the United States will have to run background checks on buyers at gun shows.

apnews.com

 

[DonTom]

Recently effective:

New Washington law bans sale of some semi-automatic rifles. It's already facing a legal challenge

Gov. Jay Inslee and state Attorney General Bob Ferguson, both Democrats, pushed for the Democratic-controlled Washington Legislature to pass the ban on many semi-automatic weapons this session after years of failed attempts.

www.pbs.org

How timely:

The Biden administration will require thousands more gun dealers to run background checks on buyers

Thousands more firearms dealers across the United States will have to run background checks on buyers at gun shows.

apnews.com

The gun show thing is just BS. They are all dealers selling and they always required a BGC. And the last gun show I went to here in Reno had signs all over that said "no private gun sales allowed on this property". So what change is being made? The useless UBC that will be ignored everywhere and causes the opposite of its intent to happen?

CA has a UBC law. So does NV. In CA, people who used to try to go by the federal law and exchange info, see driver's licenses etc have turned to "No questions asked!" because of the UBC law.

Here in NV, it has only caused almost every county to become 2A sanctuary.

The US Constitution is the highest law of all. It is "we the people" limiting what our governments can and cannot do. The US Constitution protects us "we the people" from our own government.

Other laws are the opposite. The government telling us what we can and cannot do.

When there is a conflict between the two, which do you think "we the people" SHOULD follow?



-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Skookum]

When there is a conflict between the two, which do you think "we the people" SHOULD follow?

I think states should be very careful about which federal laws they choose not to enforce with regards to guns. They soon may make such a bad example of themselves as to materially affect the interpretation of 2A - at the federal level. The legal theory used here is FAFO...

 

[DonTom]

I think states should be very careful about which federal laws they choose not to enforce with regards to guns.

IMO, "we the people" should make sure our government goes by the rules we set up for them.

There is a correct (admittedly very difficult-but difficult for very good reasons) procedure to change the US Constitution. That is the only correct way.

The right to bear arms is NOT state's rights. The states should have NO say in what type of gun is legal or not. Go by the rules or use the correct procedure to try to change them. Is that asking too much, IYO?

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[TheBar]

why do the NRA-sympathetic then reject any attempt to improve outcomes related to mental health and gun violence? Specifically, red flag laws that allow firearms to be taken away from folks experiencing mental health crisis? Why isn't there support from the NRA and its sympathizers to increase spending on state and federal mental health programs?

I know you need to have the last word so I won't reply back after this. Obviously you are an NRA member because your responses are the same as the NRA:

"And, America does have a critical mental health crisis. Many are sick, too few people are able to recognize their illness, and even less get help. The sad reality is there are too few resources for those who need it. Over the last 60 years, the number of beds available at psychiatric hospitals in America has dropped by 96 percent. In 1955, there were an estimated 340 beds per 100,000 people with mental health illnesses. In 2016, that number fell to 11.7 beds per 100,000 people. We must find a way to reach these people before they hurt themselves or others. And, we must fund places for these people to find refuge and treatment."

"The NRA leader(Wayne LaPierre) also blamed the U.S. mental health system and its inability to track those with mental health problems, and noted that some states fail to include those adjudicated as mentally ill in the national instant check system for gun purchases.
We have a mental health system in this country that has completely and totally collapsed. We have no national database of these lunatics,” LaPierre said."

"Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence” while gun control advocates say mental health is not the problem.

 

[DonTom]

Specifically, red flag laws that allow firearms to be taken away from folks experiencing mental health crisis?

Because of the fact I am pro-2A, many people have said I should not be around guns. So where will this line be drawn?

And do you want the entire US Constitution thrown out, or only parts of it?

How much more of our freedoms should we give up?

Think of the leaders in this world who strongly supported gun control laws of every type possible. Stalin, Hitler, Po Pot, etc.

Now think of those who did NOT support gun control. Washington, Jefferson, or better yet, see here.

Which way do you wish our government to go?

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Isaac-1]

...And that's why the constitution is a living document and also why the 2A shouldn't go untouched to better serve us as Americans. I wanted to add the point as it relates to the original post...I don't think they envisioned the disparity and division, state-by-state, with regard to gun laws.
...

The problem here is that there is a process to revise or repeal the 2nd amendment , and all the gun grabbing groups out there want to skip it, and go straight to banning things in a way that is clearly against any sane reading of the 2A.

 

[Rick1959]

This is very tricky. But if I were going to be traveling withy conceal carry I would obtain a federal conceal carry and you should be be good except in NY. The governor in NY hates guns and people who own them.So before you travel to NYC call the city police and they will advise you.

 

[Skookum]

"Since 1966, the National Rifle Association has urged the federal government to address the problem of mental illness and violence” while gun control advocates say mental health is not the problem.

False. And if you're going to take your toys and go home then nobody cares.

Because of the fact I am pro-2A, many people have said I should not be around guns. So where will this line be drawn?

And do you want the entire US Constitution thrown out, or only parts of it?

How much more of our freedoms should we give up?

Think of the leaders in this world who strongly supported gun control laws of every type possible. Stalin, Hitler, Po Pot, etc.

Now think of those who did NOT support gun control. Washington, Jefferson, or better yet, see here.

Which way do you wish our government to go?

-Don- Reno, NV

There's that slippery slope again, anyone who opposes unabridged rights is akin to Stalin or Hitler and wants to throw out the whole constitution. Not true, Don, and you know it. There's a middle ground, and I'm not sure why you choose such unreasonable and extremist positions.

The problem here is that there is a process to revise or repeal the 2nd amendment , and all the gun grabbing groups out there want to skip it, and go straight to banning things in a way that is clearly against any sane reading of the 2A.

Most people do support reasonable gun control. The government fails to consider and advance scads of bills and when they do, it gets tied up and dies in legal process brought on by the pro-gun lobby. "Any sane reading" of the 2A. Uh, ok.

 

[Ray-IN]

skookum we have reasonable gun control, what we don't have is reasonable people. If all firearms were banned/outlawed, someone with killing one their mind will obtain the next best weapon, be it a knife, sword, club, or rock. Just like the man in China where all private ownership of guns are illegal. He got a knife and entered that school, killing or maiming 30 children.
We learned of background check failures today, a known terrorist was let loose by CBP agents after requests to other federal agencies went unanswered.

 

[Isaac-1]

O

...

Most people do support reasonable gun control. The government fails to consider and advance scads of bills and when they do, it gets tied up and dies in legal process brought on by the pro-gun lobby. "Any sane reading" of the 2A. Uh, ok.

Ok, can we parse these words, it is fairly short, so should be easy:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The first part called the preamble "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State," first off this part has no legal meaning attached to it, this is just to support their reasoning for the right, but lets break it down anyway. A well regulated Militia, at the time it was written regulated meant functioning, not regulation in the modern sense of the word, and Militia meant fighting age men, which is probably a bit sexist, so if you follow the living document view, should probably be read as adult citizens. So therefore the preamble translated into modern English should read something like:

A functional pool of adults who know how to shoot is necessary to maintain a free country, therefore:

Then the second part, which is the actual right:
The right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

Some anti gunners are now arguing that "the people" mean the government, which I think we can agree is grasping at straws, since the term the people is used elsewhere in the constitution, and is generally accepted to mean the citizenry.

That leaves to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The courts have generally agreed that keep and bear implies right to purchase, possess, and that arms are not just guns, but include all the parts of a gun that make it work including ammunition, as well as lots of things that are not guns, for example knives.

This only leaves, shall not be infringed, do we really need to argue over what is and is not infringed?