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

[Marenta]

(Mod note - this should be the second post, but I'm retarded at thread merging and it goes by post times, so shoot me)

Okay, just so we stop littering the other thread.. I decided to start up the Gun thread. I'm sure it's already been done, I just didn't feel like resurrecting an older thread. (But, then that'd mean I'd have to search for it, and it's Saturday morning, and I'm being lazy because I want to be.)

Personally, I think I would go rabid if somebody ever tried to take my guns away. I like the fact that I can own guns.

Don't get me wrong, I like guns. I don't NEED them, persay. But, I like them. And, if we do just so happen to have to start up a militia, I do have my own stock of ammo and weapons to hold out against a zombie attack for at least a good month or so.

Opinions? Is the Second Amendment antiquated or should we keep it around? Are the gun control laws too strict? Not strict enough?

By the way, if you're wondering about how come people get guns that shouldn't have them, it's because they're illegal. Or, somebody had it stolen from them and the S/N got filed off and it's being sold from the trunk of a Merlot Brougham.

Modified by Marenta at 7:13 AM 8/2/2008

[Jager]

Ahh gun control, for those of us who like them it means making sure i hit the target and maybe even using two hands...

for those who dislike guns its a slogan that means controlling access to and rules about how guns are used carried, or purchased.

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.

Posting simply to say you dislike guns or think they are bad or that liberals are idiots for their views IE "flamebait" is asked to NOT be in this thread, I want to keep this very very hot button issue as controlled and open as possible.

A little background on me. I have worked in a gun store since 1999, I am licensed by the FBI to run background checks, as well as fairly knowledgeable on the Laws of Virginia and several other states and the Federal laws concerning gun purchases, and the way the checks are run etc.

Also am a certified NRA handgun instructor since 1998.

None of the above is meant to say im the end all be all expert... far from it actually, as the laws are endless as are the revisions, I say all that simply to show you my background and why i will say the things i type below.

Gun control laws have existed since the NFA act of 1934 the national firearms act or NFA, in response to criminals (specifically warring mafia groups) using fully automatic weaponry in their wars or fights was to get military weaponry controlled. The NFA 's use was soley to force anyone interested in a fully automatic weapon or various "military hardware (silencers certain legths of shotguns) to have to register it and pay a tax. Surprisingly this law did very well in curbing the excessive use of fully auto weapons, however its certainly did not mean they werent still getting in illegally.

in the 1960s and again in the 70's the federal government added more basic laws on purchasing ownership and transport of weapons and codified the basics of what all states follow today.

I dont really consider any of the above gun control as its argued today, this was straightforward easy to comply steps to ensure military grade hardware wasnt being randomly sold to anyone.

now onto modern gun control as we know it today.

the federal government has passed a law requiring all states to run a background check through the NCIC (national criminal instant checks) before purchasing a gun. They have a series of questions on a form that must be answered and 2 forms of ID (1 with a photo) both have to have matching addresses and be current.

The Feds left all implementation up to the states, as well as allowing states to create similar databases if necessary. ALL FFL (federal firearms license) holders have to maintain a paper trail of exactly what the person filled out and hold that for a length no less then 20 years. (I can go back and look up stuff that was bought in 1988 or less on the fly, we could go further but we shred data in accordance with the VA rules here)

Virginia has a similar page of information to be filled out that requires the same 2 IDs as well as various other identifying info. Data is fired off to the stae police who have up to three days to see if you are allowed a gun, if your name is not flagged in the database then instant approval is given, otherwise a human goes and pulls the records and then makes a determination.

If you fill out a form and are not allowed to have a gun and sign that form you get an automatic 10 year jail term for lying on the state and federal form. thats 2 felonies and you can not ever possess a gun again. the police come over and arrest you in the store before you leave. anyone with a domestic assualt charge, a restraning order against them, any felonies, any drug charges, and several other basic crimes are also unable to buy a gun. and will get picked up.

forgot your unpaid parking tickets? the cops wont and they come and pick you up and take you downtown to pay them. VA is serious about its laws.

other rules virginia has.

all guns have no waiting period other then the background check to purchase them.

all non residents may buy rifles or shotguns if the dealer is able to follow the same background check laws that govern the home state of the buyer, You must be a resident to purchase a handgun (live in the state for 90 days and have proof via drivers license issue date or utility bills etc)

all handgun purchases have a 30 day timer after purchase in which you cannot buy another handgun unless you either trade a handgun in, or have a concealed weapons permit.

Thats about it for virginia, we are a shall issue state for Concealed permits, meaning unless they can find a reason you cant have one, you get one as long as you complete a safety course or are former police or military certified with a pistol.Open carry (gun visible in a holster is allowed by anyone able to purchase a gun unless you are in select areas (churches schools fed buildings etc)

recently (after the VT shooting) Virginia added new regulations allowing access to mental records in the database to screen prospective customers, however the man who committed those crimes had not been sent to a mental institution against his will at the time of the incident so he was allowed by law to have a gun and the store itself didnt do anything wrong by selling him one.

Virginia does not record or even know the serial number of the guns being purchased only the type (rifle shotgun handgun revolver) and the quantity.all the gun dealers keep the actual serial numbers on file themselves which the BATF comes and checks over randomly.

I believe Virgina has struck a good balance between citizens rights to own guns, and the states need to control illegal gun purchases from stores. responsibility lies with the gun dealers who are policed by the BATF, and state and local police response to people filing a background check if anything is there is fast (like 20 minutes or less they are there warrant in hand).

Things Id like to see changed? more reciprocity with other states concealed weapon permits and a better enforcement of FFL dealers who have violated the rules in the past and have partners or others get another FFl and still run the business. (thats a federal matter though not a state one.)

I apologize for the wall of text, but if nothing else it should spark healthy conversation.

[Marenta]

Well, I made a thread, and you made a thread.. nice.

Mine is Second Amendment, Posh or Pilgrim? We'll just have RN delete one, though. Probably mine, since my title is silly.

[rn79870]

Okay, I merged two valid and similar threads into one. Feel free to respond to either, however, please follow Jager's request when posting. Marenta, I didn't delete your thread as it really follows Jarer's pattern.

Maybe this wasn't the best way, but they we're so similar.

[Marenta]

Okay, I merged two valid and similar threads into one. Feel free to respond to either, however, please follow Jager's request when posting. Marenta, I didn't delete your thread as it really follows Jager's pattern.

Maybe this wasn't the best way, but they were so similar.

Fixed Post..

Jager, do you have a Class III License for your shop?

[rn79870]

Tell me Jager, how far do you go in checking a person beyond what is required. This is hitting at the VT shooter. Did someone miss something there or do some shops really not follow the law as well as others?

I've owned guns in the past. But frankly, there are so few places around here where it's legal to use them that it's not worth the trouble.

I believe that anyone buying a his/her first rifle should be required to submit proof of completion of a basic firearm safety and permissible use class, with classroom and range instruction. The same for a handgun, except, ore stringent. They should have to have a card to buy ammunition, and that card should be renewed every two years with the same type of check - criminal and mental- that a firearm requires. This would catch those who were legal but fell into the illegal class during that time. Also, I'd like to see a requirement that all weapons not in use, must have a locking trigger device attached to them, and remain unloaded.

I recognize that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens who fully appreciate the inherent danger of their weapons. But, as a citizen, I have a right to be free from the acts and omissions of those who don't fully comprehend their responsibility, even though they are "legal." In that regard, what do you, the gun proponents propose to protect me?

[Marenta]

Actually, in Virginia any Firearms Dealer has the right to deny service to any person for any reason.

So, if I don't like the way you comb your hair, I can deny you the right to buy a gun. And, I can be as blunt about it as I want to be. It is not a customer service industry. YOU are coming into MY shop to buy a DEADLY weapon. And I have to ensure that YOU are reliable enough to use it. So, when you fill out the paperwork, which takes about 10 to 15 minutes.. and I call the police to have them run a background check, they can pull up everything from the moment you're given your SSN, as long as it's a legal record.

Hell, I got caught when I was 4 years old stealing a pack of gum, and that was in my police record when I bought my first gun and went through the security check for my CWP. So, it's pretty thorough. And, as far as getting a Dealer's License, it's even more extensive, they comb every single part of your life for every minor infraction you've ever had. I was asked why I was prescribed some medications, even.

Virginia has gotten a lot more strict since the VT shooting, and the guy that did it was just a guy that fell through the cracks. It happens. He never went to a mental facility, and he did have mental issues. But, he was never institutionalized. Which, is what the paperwork specifically calls out for, is if you've ever been in an institution or mentally disabled. So, just because you see a therapist every 2 weeks doesn't mean you check yes for that question, you get me?

[srellim234]

Question 1: Does the Virginia system cross reference with a thorough database for all 50 states? Is, or should, there be such a national database?

Question 2: What's the reasoning for such a short processing time frame before delivery? Would the system benefit from a longer time period, say, the two week period in California, to dig even deeper into a background check or allow adequate processing time in cases of sheer volume or technical glitches?

[Marenta]

Actually, yes. When I purchased my first gun, it pulled up every single bit of info from every single place possible.

The reason for this is because they actually use the FBI to search your SSN with. And, if there's any sort of federal record filed (e.g. you had a parking ticket) it will be listed in the FBI database and that never gets expunged.

The time limit is random. I've seen a background check take 3 weeks and I've seen it take 10 seconds. It really depends on the person, how clean they are, and where they've been. If you move around a lot, it usually takes a little bit longer. I know that if you have a CCP/CWP it takes less time because they've already dug up so much information on you, they really don't need to dig any further, it's all right there at their fingertips. You don't get a CCP/CWP very easily, they don't just hand those out like candy. I <3 mine.

[srellim234]

I like the random time frame AND the FBI check. It allows people to do their jobs without making mistakes due to an arbtrary time deadline.

In Virginia, do the same regulations apply to sales at gun shows and private sales? Should they? Right now we have a problem here where people who shouldn't have guns go to gun shows and get them because those sales don't have to live by the gun retailers' rules.

[Marenta]

Nope, same rules apply. You have to call in each time. VT really messed the state up pretty badly. But, it's all for the good, at least I think so.

The only thing that is different is a C&R. A C&R is different because you can actually have it shipped to your house vice to a dealer to have it transferred. But, that's really a federal thing.

[srellim234]

You're dealing with a novice on the terminology here. What's a C&R?

[Jager]

I apologize I wrote this out and then ended up at work, so RN and others Ill get to answering questions directed at me when i get back.

as far as the VA daabase its a VA system that is also linked to the NCIC FBI database, so its very thorough.

the others require a bit more of my opinion so Ill be happy to respond after 10pm est.

Thanks

Sr a C&r is a federal collectors license similar to a FFl if i understand marenta. Its a license that says you collect rare or older guns, and depending on their age and your license you can avoid alot of paperwork.

again the FBI does their homework before you get one so its not a work around on the system, just covers people who would otherwise have to be a dealer and get a FFL

Marenta No we are NOT a C3 dealer, too much headache overall, we have however supplied specific weapons to LEO's / nuke power security and let them do the conversions through their c3 gunsmiths.

[Cold_Zero]

You're dealing with a novice on the terminology here. What's a C&R?

Its a type of license the BATF issues for dealers in Curio and Relics. If a weapon is over 25 years old and has been flagged a C&R weapon you are allowed to buy one. Problem within the BATF is that there is a lot of politics involved with determining what is and is not a C&R weapon. Sometimes its pretty stupid. But a lot of good Military Surplus has been flagged C&R.bud

[Cold_Zero]

I've owned guns in the past. But frankly, there are so few places around here where it's legal to use them that it's not worth the trouble.

To be honest, I think that is the aim of the anti gun lobby. Make it so hard to own, use and carry firearms that people just stop doing it. Once the national levels drop in ownership, use and carrying, then it makes their job of banning firearms all that more easy. This is one of the reasons why the NRA has been promoting Hunters and Parents to pass these activities down to the younger generations.

Quote »I believe that anyone buying a his/her first rifle should be required to submit proof of completion of a basic firearm safety and permissible use class, with classroom and range instruction. [/quote] I would think that most people who seeking to buy a firearm would already take classes or already be proficient with it. Is there some imperical data that suggest that there is some out of control problem of lawful firearms owners who are untrained have injured or maimed people due to a lack of proficiency? No offense but this appears to be a distraction from the real problems of criminals possessing and using firearms.

Quote »The same for a handgun, except, ore stringent. They should have to have a card to buy ammunition, and that card should be renewed every two years with the same type of check - criminal and mental- that a firearm requires. This would catch those who were legal but fell into the illegal class during that time. [/quote] I guess you have to ask yourself what would this accomplish? We already DO NOT prosecute and jail people to the fullest extent of the law for breaking firearms laws. So why heap more laws into the books that we WONT enforce? Again, because there is an alternate agenda of the anti gun lobby, not to affect good gun laws, but to harass law abiding citizens so that they give up (much like you have) possession and use of firearms.

Quote »Also, I'd like to see a requirement that all weapons not in use, must have a locking trigger device attached to them, and remain unloaded. [/quote]I keep my handguns loaded, chambered and without trigger locks. Mainly because I keep them locked in a safe. But now you are you going to tell me you know better?

Quote »I recognize that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens who fully appreciate the inherent danger of their weapons. But, as a citizen, I have a right to be free from the acts and omissions of those who don't fully comprehend their responsibility, even though they are "legal." In that regard, what do you, the gun proponents propose to protect me?[/quote] For the most part I agree. But, Bob, how have you been put in danger by lawful gun owners? I mean specific examples not some theoretical scenario.

What do we propose to protect you? Its interesting that you ask that. Mainly because we (conceal carry license owners) ask the same thing to employers and shop owners that disarm us by posting "no firearms" signs and rules. Also, instead of asking lawful firearms owners what they are going to do to protect you. You might want to ask your local law enforcement, state and local municipality what they will do to protect you. They will talk a good game, but when push comes to shove (and this has been backed up by the Supreme Court), they are under NO obligation to protect and keep you safe. Bob, instead of focusing your attention on lawful gun owners, you might focus your efforts on your local/state government(s).bud

[rn79870]

For the most part I agree. But, Bob, how have you been put in danger by lawful gun owners? I mean specific examples not some theoretical scenario.

That's my point Bud. We can talk about your right to own a firearm all day, and I won't deny that. What about my right to be protected from a less educated, less careful gun owner? Doesn't the public have a right to be protected too?

[Marenta]

That's my point Bud. We can talk about your right to own a firearm all day, and I won't deny that. What about my right to be protected from a less educated, less careful gun owner? Doesn't the public have a right to be protected too?

Can you read?Obviously.. you're on a forum.Can you write?Sure.. you're on a forum.

Then, you can educate yourself about the laws in your particular area of the nation, and how to defend yourself against said person. You need to know your rights, and where you stand, and what to say and do in such a situation so that you will ultimately be the winner of the situation.Besides, most people can't even shoot worth a damn and if you're moving it's harder to hit a moving target.You can always take self-defense, if you don't already know some form of it. (It's never too late to do that, don't give me that age bull****, that's NOT an excuse, geriatric or not.) And, you can get a CWP if you feel that having a gun of your own will make the playing ground even, although, with your POV, I would think that you would think the gun would turn into a King Cobra and bite your face off.

There are measures you can take to keep informed and keep aware. Because knowing is half the battle.

[Cold_Zero]

Marenta,I think what Bob was insinuating is that lawful gun owners, who are not properly trained to handle and use firearms, pose a menace to his personal safety. I would like some evidence that other than anecdotal of how much of a problem this is. While I dont doubt that accidental discharges do cause personal injuries, the amount of violent crime far outpace the cases of A/D's either injurying or killing innocent people.

See, this is one of the problems with the Anti Gun Lobby and uninformed citizenry. They always want to fix problems that are not really problems. Now, the agenda of both are not necessarily the same. Typically, the agenda of the anti gun lobby is to disarm the populous. The agenda of the uninformed citizenry is not necessarily to disarm citizens but rather be a pawn of the Anti Gun Lobby. The real problem with gun violence is that criminals use guns to perpetrate crimes. But instead of advocating enforcing the laws that we do have on the books, putting more cops on the streets, building more jails and truth in sentencing, this is all they can come up with. Please correct me if I am wrong, a person who is unproficient with their firearm is more of a threat to you than a criminal with a firearm?

[Cold_Zero]

That's my point Bud. We can talk about your right to own a firearm all day, and I won't deny that. What about my right to be protected from a less educated, less careful gun owner? Doesn't the public have a right to be protected too?

Well then let's have this discussion. I would like to know more about this 'threat' that you perceive.

[rn79870]

Here's one where your legislature thinks as I do...http://davidormsby.wordpress.c...house/

Here's another kid with a gun. If someone had secured the gun, maybe this would never have happened...

http://www.sptimes.com/News/05...shtml

Here's one for the books. 3 yr. old shoots cop father, cop sues gun mfgr.http://www.topix.com/forum/cit...7/p10

These are all examples where my rights as a citizen (in general) weren't protected by responsible gun owners. Where there is a right, there is a responsibility, and I'm asking why I can't insist that people do what you do, that is, secure their guns when they aren't in use. I'm not trying to take them away, I'm trying to make the world a little safer.

We can argue it, but this "safely secure" type of legislation would not be within the protection of the 2nd. amendment.

[Marenta]

Please correct me if I am wrong, a person who is unproficient with their firearm is more of a threat to you than a criminal with a firearm?

Ehhh.. I would weigh each differently.

I would rather go against the criminal, personally, because he's going to be gung-ho, and just plain stupid about things. He's going to tend to be pretty belligerent and wave his piece around and fire it sideways like his Fiddy Cent and stuff, all gangsta. Making dumb *** mistakes, and he's going to be pretty easy to take down.

The citizen with improper knowledge will be the toughie, because he's going to have incomplete knowledge and training of how to use the weapon and what laws will and will not protect him. Normally, this means that they're going to try to be a little bit more cunning and try to out-wit another person. The bad part about playing mind-games with somebody with guns, is that you never know what hairline trigger you're messing with, or the type of person they really are.

So, in that aspect, yes. I will say that a person with bad knowledge owning a gun is a horrible thing. However, very few states have open carry. And, to get a CWP, you actually have to pass a class, be military, or a federal agent or police officer to get a CCP/CWP which means passing an actual shooting class and written test.

Take, for instance, the situation of two men fighting in an alley way. And, just say you had a CWP and you were carrying that night, and you came across these men fighting. What would you do? You actually, have jurisdiction to stop the fight, you have the weapon, as a citizen, you can stop them, and by having the CWP, you have civil authority to call the police and detain them until they arrive. But, whom do you point the gun at? An uneducated person would probably pick a person, or choose a side in this case. Bad idea. With the CWP comes the responsibility of being non-partisan, and regardless of whatever you've witnessed, you have to maintain that non-bias until the authorities arrive. You can submit a statement, but it's your job to ensure that both of them remain apart and non-quarreling, if you choose to get involved.

I can see his point though. However, is it not the same thing with driving? We let stupid people behind the wheels of a car every day, and cars are a much more deadly weapon than guns ever were.

[Cold_Zero]

Umm Bob,That guy (David Dormsby) is not a member of my Legislature. He is from Chicago (which last time I check had not taken over the great State of Indiana). What I find interesting about Chicago is that they have some of the toughest and very restrictive anti gun laws, yet they see to always have a lot of crime and export it to other Midwest cities like Indianapolis. We didnt come up with Gangster Disciples, Chicago did and promptly exported them to Milwaukee, Indianapolis and other cities. Illinois and Chicago has in the past explored launching lawsuits against Indiana for 'trafficking guns" to their state. Maybe we should have launched a counter suit claiming that their gangs have proliferated crime in our cities and sued for damages. While we are at it we can launch a massive lawsuit at LA for their exporting of gangs east. Seriously, let me tell you about the Illinois State Legislature. They put blank bills into the both houses and then attach them to omnibus legislation to try and pass this crap. They do it all the time with firearms. It's an annoying practice that the anti gun lobby and anti gun politicians in IL engage in their state. Instead of letting their ideas go before the Legislature on their own merits, they sneak it in with other legislation. So the NRAILA Rep in Illinois has his work cut out for him, bringing this crap to the attention of politicians, voters and the citizenry.

Bob, What I was looking for was personal stories of how your safety had been infringed. Your first story is about a case in Florida and the other LA? I was looking for people in your neighborhood and city that pose a threat to you. But again, for ever 1 case you come up of an A/D hurting or killing someone, I can come up with 100+ cases of violent crime perpetrated on law abiding citizens and they use firearms to defend themselves. bud

[Cold_Zero]

Personally Marenta, I think uninformed voters are more of a threat to my personal welfare and being than a neighbor or people who own firearms but are not proficient with them. But heaven forbid if we even try to limit their 'Constitutional Right' to vote. bud

[Marenta]

You want to know why I started carrying my Mak around with me?

Because I was being stalked.

This guy followed me around, everywhere. He followed me to work, he followed me home from work. He followed me to do my laundry, he even waited in the laundry mat while I did my laundry and jerked off in front of me. He left me notes on my car, saying how he was going to catch me one day when I slipped up and I was alone, and how he was going to rape me over and over again. He lived across the street from me, I was just rooming with a buddy of mine until I got orders to Norfolk at the time, so I freaked out.

Yeah, so, I got my CWP, I started taking it with me everywhere. It was in my car at all times, and under my pillow at night, loaded, round in the chamber, safety on. I still, to this day, check to make sure my Mak is ready to go before bed. I don't play, not like that anymore.

[Cold_Zero]

Marenta,I hope the hostility in your post isnt towards something that I said. I dont think you 'need a reason' to have a Conceal Carry Permit. I assume that is what a MAK is.

I conceal and sometimes open carry (because my state rocks and so do the law enforcement) all the time. We were just out celebrating our 11th Wedding Anniversary and I had my Glock 27 on me.

For the note, in my subdivision we have more than 10 Conceal Carry License holders and much more lawful gun owners.bud

[rn79870]

We let stupid people behind the wheels of a car every day, and cars are a much more deadly weapon than guns ever were.

Yes, but following with that example, we have a written test and a driving test that a driver must pass before he can drive a car. We have periodic renewal of the license for driving. When a driver is sufficienty bad (infractions), his record is reviewed and his right to drive restricted or revoked. We even have provisions whereby he forfeits his car for certain misdeeds. How much of that do we have for firearm ownership

What I was looking for was personal stories of how your safety had been infringed. Your first story is about a case in Florida and the other LA? I was looking for people in your neighborhood and city that pose a threat to you. But again, for ever 1 case you come up of an A/D hurting or killing someone, I can come up with 100+ cases of violent crime perpetrated on law abiding citizens and they use firearms to defend themselves.

Bud, I buy insurance for my car not because I'm planning on having an accident, or because I've had an accident. I buy it because I realisze there is a potential that I may have an accident. I may be injured by some careless or deviant gun owner. Whatever provisions that can be taken to protect me and my family from this is something that interests me greatly.

[Jager]

Tell me Jager, how far do you go in checking a person beyond what is required. This is hitting at the VT shooter. Did someone miss something there or do some shops really not follow the law as well as others?

Rn (may i call you bob? my name is justin) The VT shooter did not seem abnormal, and his background check passed without issue, the shop did no wrong there as no one short of a pyschic or his therapist/doctor could have known what he may do. Our obligation as gun sellers is to see how you act, what questinos you ask, if you seem to be the actual gun buyer and not doing it for somone else, and a few other minor things like gettign witnesses if you cannot read or write (many older people have this issue the law does have stipulations in place to help them) we also haev a "duty" to fit people with guns that they understand work and how to safely load and operate them.

Quote »I've owned guns in the past. But frankly, there are so few places around here where it's legal to use them that it's not worth the trouble.

I believe that anyone buying a his/her first rifle should be required to submit proof of completion of a basic firearm safety and permissible use class, with classroom and range instruction. The same for a handgun, except, ore stringent. They should have to have a card to buy ammunition, and that card should be renewed every two years with the same type of check - criminal and mental- that a firearm requires. This would catch those who were legal but fell into the illegal class during that time. Also, I'd like to see a requirement that all weapons not in use, must have a locking trigger device attached to them, and remain unloaded. [/quote]I am sorry to hear that you do not have a decent place nearby to enjoy your shooting sports, target practice is a great way to bond as a family I learned from my father and my grandfather from a very early age exactly what was and wasnt allowed to be done with firearms, how i was never allowed to touch one short of an emergency, etc. as well as proper ways to care for and maintain my weapons.What you are asking is a fairly common coment by the anti gun lobby in general, in that guns should be unloaded and with trigger locks on them to keep people from messing with them.Ill be honest if anyone wants my gun they will eventually get it given enough time, no gun lock or trigger guard is gonna stop them, even safes can be broken into. and the trigger locks most commonly forced by california and others can be defeated with a pair of pliers or a decent set of wire cutters/bolt cutters.

What has to be done is what was done to me, teach your kids to respect and treat all firearms as loaded. teach them the basics of how to use them on a range under your supervision, show them how they are fun to use for sports or hunting, but also how to always be safe with how they point them and carry them etc. the values you distill in your kids about other things like drinking smoking doing drugs, guns are no different. those who arent taught veiw them as a means to an end, those who are taught treat them as the tool of last resort, one that is a right to own but a privilege to use.Quote »I recognize that the vast majority of gun owners are responsible citizens who fully appreciate the inherent danger of their weapons. But, as a citizen, I have a right to be free from the acts and omissions of those who don't fully comprehend their responsibility, even though they are "legal." In that regard, what do you, the gun proponents propose to protect me?[/quote]well seeing as this is beginning to get somewhat off topic here, ill give you the statistics from a anti gun lobby who did a study on concealed weapons permit holders and their troubles with the law. or mistakenly shooting the wrong person etc.

the study found that out of 100,000 cases of shooting by CWP holders, that overwhelmingly 97% of the time there was no collateral damage, and the 3% that was was another assailant who was shot as well.

no CWP holder has shot at or killed an officer of the law. and the most common charge out of those 100,000 cases looked at given to the CWP holder was brandishing a firearm (ie pulling the weapon and not actually firing to end the situation. over 99% of those charges were dropped after investigations completed.

If you are afraid of anyone legally carrying a CWP, then you most likely threatened their life or a loved one with imminente danger. or you broke into a house and met them with a gun pointed at you. CWP holders like the military are held to a higher standard of conduct because they have the carry permit, we train go to a class, go to the range, the FBI/LEO do a thorough investigation and we have to reapply every 5 years. (at least in VA on the reapply part)

While i understand you fears partly, the only thing i can tell you is that the reason VT happened was because VT didnt allow several of its students with CWP to carry on campus, the people involved in that shooting said themselves and sued VT in court to try and overturn the campus rule because they could have saved many lives when the shooting started.

ill end with a quote from hitler in 1938 "we have become the greatest nation on the planet, now that full gun registration has been passed no more will our citizens have to fear anything."

[Marenta]

Marenta,I hope the hostility in your post isn't towards something that I said. I don't think you 'need a reason' to have a Conceal Carry Permit. I assume that is what a MAK is.

A Mak is my Makarov.. e.g. 1967 Bulgarian Makarov 9x18. And, there wasn't really any hostility. I just think that it should be clarified that while not EVERYBODY has the best intentions when getting firearms, the majority of the people who do, actually tend to get them because they either feel a necessity or they are genuinely interested enough to learn enough to not be stupid with them.

Yes, but following with that example, we have a written test and a driving test that a driver must pass before he can drive a car. We have periodic renewal of the license for driving. When a driver is sufficiently bad (infractions), his record is reviewed and his right to drive restricted or revoked. We even have provisions whereby he forfeits his car for certain misdeeds. How much of that do we have for firearm ownership.

Not true. In South Carolina, you didn't have to go to Driver's Ed, you didn't have to take a written test, or a driving test until just recently. So, the vast majority of SC drivers have licenses and they've never even seen 95% of the state laws for driving in SC. And, hell, in IL, it's almost the same. Black out days, blah blah blah. The only drawback is that they do get the points taken away and eventually the license revoked or suspended.

(On a side note, how on earth do you guys hit the "Post" button when so many of your words are underlined in red? Doesn't that bother you guys? Or, am I just OCD?)

[Cold_Zero]

Bob, the State of Indiana mandates that drivers have auto insurance. So that is the reason why I buy insurance. But your rational for buying insurance is a distinction with out a difference. "I buy insurance for my car not because I am planning on having an accident... I buy it because I realize there is a potential that I may have an accident." What's the difference?

I have life insurance, if I am heaven forbid gunned down by a criminal or killed in an auto accident, my family is well taken care of by my policy. I was not insinuating that your personal well being is not important, I am trying to gauge how much of a problem unproficient firearms owners are! Other than anecdotal and two examples, it doesn’t appear to be that much of a problem. But then again, this is the same tactic of the Anti Gun Lobby. Advocate more laws against law abiding citizens in order to solve a perceived problem or no major problem at all. I would much rather have my legislature working not to pass harassing laws against lawful gun owners, but to free up money to enforce the laws that we do have, put more cops on the street, build more jails and pass truth in sentencing laws.

[Jager]

Yes, but following with that example, we have a written test and a driving test that a driver must pass before he can drive a car. We have periodic renewal of the license for driving. When a driver is sufficiently bad (infractions), his record is reviewed and his right to drive restricted or revoked. We even have provisions whereby he forfeits his car for certain misdeeds. How much of that do we have for firearm ownership

if you have any convictions of the type as follows, any misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence any drug convictions any felonies, and any restraining orders against you no gun until you are cleared (restraining order) or no gun ever in the case of convictions unless you get the governor or the president to give you your rights back. (this rarely happens) if you get picked up with a gun in the time frame or after a crime you are supposed to get 5 years mandatory, if you use it in a crime its an extra 10 years in VA no if ands or buts.

CWP members are required to reapply for a CWP every 5 years in Va and any time they buy a firearm we have to still do a background check again, there is no way around the checks legally.

you have infinitely more to be worried about from criminals and the shady gun dealers who don't always follow the rules (pawnbrokers are big ones in certain areas however enforcement of gun dealers falls to the BATF so blame failures of that sorta thing on congress for cutting their budgets.)

as far as ways to protect yourself? well first be polite and don't start crap, if you are worried about your safety, file a restraining order against the person and they lose their guns for the time the order is in place. or go through california's 14 day waiting period and get a gun yourself. good luck getting a CWP though cali is about the worst state that issues them to give any out. its as political as Massachusetts and Connecticut.

if i were in your shoes i would be more incensed over the fact that as a legal gun owner your guns in cali have to be registered, however it violates a criminals 5th amendment rights to register his gun, so he cannot be charged with a failure to register his gun if caught. you however can be.

lastly the supreme court has said that it is a right to keep arms , driving is not a right drivign is a privilege not spelled out in the constitution. both however require steps to be taken to be legal owners of a car or a gun.

and for the record ted kennedy's car has killed more people then my guns.