Gun control in the USA. States and federal laws and what they mean to you.

[Jager]

... Smidgen younger then you eh? Well hopefully you don't have issues seeing the target there granny :P. j/k

Zero if you come down for VIR nicofest in October, We should head up to a local gun range. There is one about 1 hour away thats indoor and another thats outdoor.

Marenta same applies for you, Let me know if you are in the area, I got plenty of targets.

[Cold_Zero]

Actually, I am thinking we need to have NICO Shoot. There is enough of us to do one.

[rn79870]

God, I really do have punctuation, spelling, and grammar OCD!

Blame Webster, he's the one that got all this started.

Okay, we've had a nice trip into off topic land, so would anyone like to address Justin's original thoughts...Quote »This thread is to detail what states we live in require for purchasing a gun, as well as responses to those rules in the positive or negative. This is also to talk about whether you feel the states you live in have the right idea about gun control laws, or seem to have gone to far or not far enough in your opinion.[/quote]

[Marenta]

Blame Webster, he's the one that got all this started.

So, I suppose that means that Oxford, American Heritage, Random House, and Encarta get of scott-free?

If I make my way down to the Virginia NICOFest, I'll at least bring one of my guns.. the problem is choosing which one. Probably be a pistol, never really can tell what kind of rifle a range will let you fire. I'm not sure if I'll be able to go, though.. I'm going to be leaving the Navy that following friday, so I may be swamped as far as getting things done before I move back up to the Land of Lincoln.

FCSK! I have to get a FOID for IL, but I can't because I don't have an address yet. And my DL is expired by 4 years. Oye vey, I'm screwed.

[rn79870]

I think California has more strict gun control laws than probably many states. There are many differences here too. CA is pretty dense when it comes to population areas. Large crowded cities are not uncommon. I can certainly see a difference in ownership requirements for a city dweller and say, a farmer on 1000 acres in the central valley.

Let me touch on a different area of this topic. Even the staunchest NRA member apparently has no problem with the federal no firearms on an airliner laws. (whatever they are called). That's a form of gun control that no one seems upset about. Where are you willing to draw the line?

[Marenta]

Let me touch on a different area of this topic. Even the staunchest NRA member apparently has no problem with the federal no firearms on an airliner laws. (whatever they are called). That's a form of gun control that no one seems upset about. Where are you willing to draw the line?

Well, consider that on 1000 acres, it's pretty fair to say that even if you did discharge your weapon on accident you're not going to hurt somebody. But, in a densely populated area, you're going to more than likely hit somebody. Accidental is still a crime.

And, firing a gun in an aircraft is a no-brainer. Obviously if you have any will to live, you wouldn't want to shoot. The integrity of the aircraft depends upon it's hull, and puncturing it, even minimally, is going to jeopardize the entire plane. So, planes, no. Unless you were using the dissipating bullets that exploded upon impact of something hard like a wall or metal. Those are for personal protection indoors, and they will penetrate a person and not go through walls.

[srellim234]

Some guns with regular bullets are making it onto planes now. On extraditions involving some felony suspects the officers are allowed to have the gun on the plane.

I like the idea of using the "plane-safe" ammo and allowing a duly sworn law enforcement officer who has been through an air marshall/FBI/TSA airline weapons course (let the experts design the course) bring the weapon on the plane with them. Anyone planning a potential hijack will have no idea which or how many people on that plane will be armed. Could be zero; could be a police convention returning home. The uncertainty makes it a great deterrent.

[rn79870]

This is slightly off topic but it represents one of my fears about guns in the hands of the untrained. Look through this thread and see some of the answers offered to the op's question.

zerothread/356519

See 98s14inaz's response as an example.

[Jager]

most are actaully fairly spot on for an interent group that is heavy in the bravado, 98s14 inaz seems so either being misunderstood or actually talking about planting a weapon... which is obviously bad,

however notice how that is setup, somone is trespassing and committing several crimes, is the person allowed to defend themselves, IE you are stealing my stuff can I shoot you.

as each state varies its a tough call, Va says no unless you threaten me with imminent bodily harm then i cannot shoot you, however you better believe there will be a gun in the guys face and the cops on the way.

(side note I am disabled so what constitutes imminent bodily harm and retreating may not be the same for me as it is for you guys. always know your local laws and get legal advice before so you know what happens.)

[rn79870]

Thanks for posting over there. I think that best defines my thought that no one should be allowed to own a gun without proper training, and being fully informed of the moral and legal obligation that comes with the gun.

[smockers83]

I know in a lot of Rural areas, there are a lot of country clubs that actually do firearm safety courses that teach children from ages 6 or 8 and older how do to just about everything with a gun. Including proper storage, upkeep, locking it up, handling, and other provisions. Not just how to fire one.

Yes, although I wouldn't say country clubs, maybe local gun clubs. Where I'm from, which is very rural, hunting is a huge thing. Gun safety is like a religion and kids in families who hunt are more likely than not to be indoctrinated into the church early. Rarely do you get someone murdered through violent crime by gun (due to the ruralness), by accidental discharge, or accidentally shot while hunting. Hunting accidents, for the amount of hunting and drinking that goes on at the same time here, are pretty rare and are usually people from the outside world.

[Cold_Zero]

as each state varies its a tough call, Va says no unless you threaten me with imminent bodily harm then i cannot shoot you, however you better believe there will be a gun in the guys face and the cops on the way.

(side note I am disabled so what constitutes imminent bodily harm and retreating may not be the same for me as it is for you guys. always know your local laws and get legal advice before so you know what happens.)

Typically in Indiana the requirement for use of deadly force is:1. You must have the legal right to be where you are at. 2. You must have the legal right to be doing what you are doing.3. You must be in fear of your life or someone else's

I think I am missing one other item. I will have to look it up.I have seen recently incidents in the news where people have defended themselves during car jackings. One guy got out of his car, gave the car over to the car jacker and blasted the guy before he took off. Car jacker was sent to Wishard ER and the Prosecutors ruled it self defense.

[Jager]

thanks CZ, I was looking for specific clauses, but i picked up a bug and my brain is not functioning well, VA says basically the same thing.

I was going off the situation in the other thread, IE your house your yard, your garage/workarea, so 1 and 2 were met.

yeah the stories about criminals getting a new hole are many, and i can think of very few that turned out to be unjustifiable if they had a CCW....

[srellim234]

From today's Wall Street Journal

http://online.wsj.com/public/a...opbox

What a novel concept! Punishing the criminals instead of turning decent people into them.

[Jager]

project exile works and does so with astounding effect.

I love Virginia for passing this law.

the last major drug bust came down with tons of drugs, but no guns. The reason given, the guys knew they could get 5 years or less on the drugs, but the guns tack on a mandatory 10 years, so they would rather not risk it.

my CWP is sitting downtown so i gotta get it in the morning :P it shall be a great day.

Shall we continue with states besides Va and California and debate their rules for legal gun ownership?

do you all think states like Mass and CT requiring a police chiefs signature to even transport a gun or buy one is excessive?

I think that borders on the unfair, being that a police chief is an elected official, and as such can be extremely biased in order to keep their job.

[szh]

The same effect happened in Massachusetts decades ago ... else my memory is failing me.

Crimes with weapons had mandatory sentences of some length without probabation, or some such thing.

Does anyone else remember this?

Z

[Soravia]

I like the fact that guns can be carried openly except in certain areas and buildings. If someone is carrying a gun openly, others don't have to worry WHO, WHEN, WHERE might start shooting. They know who to keep an eye on.

[skylndrftr]

I think that borders on the unfair, being that a police chief is an elected official, and as such can be extremely biased in order to keep their job.

Thats utterly incorrect. Some are elected, but many many are hired...

[Jager]

Thats utterly incorrect. Some are elected, but many many are hired...

comment still stands when one person who is not always chosen impartially has the ability to make a decision with no ramifications for themselves can be unfair and generally is unfair for someone out there.

I am thrilled i dont have to prove myself to a police chief who is anti gun in my town, as if he had his way not a single person would be buying a gun regardless of their abilities or training,