Gun laws or lack there of :)

[1fastredsc]

That thread on the 2nd amendment decision making of the supreme court reminded me of last night when i was rifle shopping.
So i took a trip out to sportsmans, then to walmart browsing at various rifles looking for something to mostly plink with. When i got to walmart, i started drooling over a rifle on the counter that some gentlemen bought. It was a remmington .243 bolt-action centerfire pre pakaged with a scope. So then my wife asks "so what would be required of us to purchase a rifle like this". The lady behind the desk replies "You need a current form of ID, with your current address on it. You need to be 18 or older for shotguns and rifles, 21 and up for hand guns. You also need to fill out this form, and then i'll make a call and if you check out to not be a mass murderer or something, then you'll have the gun in about 5-10 minutes."
For an extreme contrast, a friend of mine who lives in NY, wants to get into the private security business. He's also a big time gun fanatic, and has been waiting since May to get his hand gun license which he still hasn't received. Also some time ago when we lived in NJ, my father applied for his shotgun license. Took about 13 months roughly to get it, and he's ex military.
I must admit, i don't like living here in NM, but then there are times like these when i'm happy to be here.

[Racerbvd]

Remember, states that tend to be the most liberal, are the ones who restrict "REAL" rights while making up others rights that never existed.

[livi]

Funny how different perspectives play out. I read the whole post and at the end I was certain you were going to say the opposite. That it was scary how easy it was for just anyone to pick up a gun or rifle. I don´t care what your position is but the way the story went it very much sounded like you were going the other direction.

[1fastredsc]

Originally Posted by livi

Funny how different perspectives play out. I read the whole post and at the end I was certain you were going to say the opposite. That it was scary how easy it was for just anyone to pick up a gun or rifle. I don´t care what your position is but the way the story went it very much sounded like you were going the other direction.

I've been called a socialist before for my non-fear of social medicine, which to some on this board would make me liberal scum. However when it comes to firearms, it's one subject that i go the total other direction with. I don't think making gun laws stricter does anything to crime, except piss off honest owners. During my "delinquent years" in a couple of interesting situations, i saw how some of these people who shouldn't have guns, have them. They didn't get them the legally registered way i can tell you that.......

Anyhow, maybe we should make this thread into a firearm friendly state thread. If you live in a state that is firearm friendly, and have had great experiences without much drama purchasing and owning firearms in your state, let us know.

As far as i know, NJ and NY suck, NM so far has been outstanding. Although i read in the paper the other day that they are cracking down on people shooting in the desert too close to the city limits. So the cops are asking people to either go to the range or farther out away from the city limits

[Moneyguy1]

fastred:

And just what is there about New Mexico you don't like? Gawd...it is a beautiful state.........

Then again, so is my beautiful AZ........

When I look at the weather back "east", I shudder. The memories........the awful memories.......Snow....Ice......and then there is summer......Humidity.....bugs........

[Danny_Ocean]

Do you know how many murders by firearm there were in Las Cruces so far this year?



Two (2). One involved a guy shooting his wife. The other was a wanna-be gang-banger shooting one of his own.

If you don't like living here, feel free to move somewhere safer...

[RoninLB]

Originally Posted by 1fastredsc

As far as i know, NJ and NY suck,

I assume he's living in a major city? If so tell your bud to join a gun club. It's all political bs in a liberal bs state. After he gets his handgun the club will probably hand him keys to the range which is open 24/7/365 so he's always going or coming from the range.

[Joeaksa]

Originally Posted by livi

Funny how different perspectives play out. I read the whole post and at the end I was certain you were going to say the opposite. That it was scary how easy it was for just anyone to pick up a gun or rifle. I don´t care what your position is but the way the story went it very much sounded like you were going the other direction.

Marcus,

It does not have to be difficult. Only in cities or states where the govt had a political agenda is it really a hassle.

If you are a legal resident of that state and a law abiding citizen, why should you have to wait more than a few minutes to get the background check done?

These politicians and hollywood freaks want everyone else to abide by rules that they break on a regular basis. They want rules and laws for everyone except themselves.

[idontknow]

From about.com on Florida's gun laws

Rifles and Shotguns
* Permit to purchase rifles and shotguns? No
* Registration of rifles and shotguns? No
* Licensing of owners of rifles and shotguns? No
* Permit to carry rifles and shotguns? No

Handguns
* Permit to purchase handgun? No
* Registration of handguns? No
* Licensing of owners of handguns? No
* Permit to carry handguns? Yes

Other Requirements

* Is there a State waiting period? Yes - three-day to five-day (depending on county) wait to get a permit to buy a handgun.*
*According to the NRA, there is a three-day waiting period to purchase a handgun from a retail establishment.

[75'930cab]

I just bought a Sig P239 this week and I was in and out in under 30 minutes. And that was me looking at guns and running to the ATM real quick! You used to have to wait 7 days in MO to buy a handgun but they changed the laws in August 07 that made it faster..

[1fastredsc]

Originally Posted by Danny_Ocean

Do you know how many murders by firearm there were in Las Cruces so far this year?



Two (2). One involved a guy shooting his wife. The other was a wanna-be gang-banger shooting one of his own.

If you don't like living here, feel free to move somewhere safer...

Funny, there was a shooting in our neighborhood not mentioned there. Apparently it was a gentleman who got shot with his back to his door, holding a shotgun. Speculation around was that he tried to screw someone on a drug deal.

The weather is great here, there's no vehicle inspection, and as mentioned purchasing firearms is easier than most states. Having said that, this place is boring, too small, nothing ever going on. I wouldn't mind moving up to ALB this way i can get some snow again, and feel like i'm in civilization. However last year when i interned with honeywell aerospace, i was poking around for information on real estate, and things are getting out of hand up there. I think it has something to do with all the California plates i saw on cars .

Anyhow, back to guns..........

[Danny_Ocean]

Originally Posted by 1fastredsc

Having said that, this place is boring, too small, nothing ever going on.

Sounds like paradise to me!

P.S. - ABQ has smog testing...

[RickM]

For the most part I have few issues with NJ gun laws (except for the "assault gun" ban & impposible to obtain conceal carry permit).

After securing a Firearms ID card I can buy any and as many long arms as I'd like. The ID took me two weeks to receive after application.

Each hand gun requires a permit which I can usually get in 1-2 days...the wait is dictated by the local Police chief's availability as he/she has to sign each permit.

Would a instant check work better? IMO, probably, but not until laws are uniform throughout the states.

[livi]

Fascinating. In adjacent threads we are all buffled with the traditions of for example Saudi legislation. For most of them, the punishing of a rape victim probably seems completely natural and adequate. For us it seems very wrong.

Same thing with the view on guns. What is perfectly right for one region/country is completely wrong for another.

I am, for instance, getting the impression that Americans are 'born with' the conviction that more guns in the street are better and safer than less. Me, I am 'born with' the opposite conviction.

I am not claiming any of the views are better. Just pointing out the fundamental differences in various societies. Who is going to take on the right to decide what is right or wrong?

BTW, are there any Americans with a more 'Swedish' view on the gun subject?

[RoninLB]

Second-Amendment Showdown
By MIKE COX


The Supreme Court has agreed to take up a case that will affect millions of Americans and could also have an impact on the 2008 elections. That case, Parker v. D.C., should settle the decades-old argument whether the right "to keep and bear arms" of the Constitution's Second Amendment is an individual right -- that all Americans enjoy -- or only a collective right that states may regulate freely. Legal, historical and even empirical reasons all command a decision that recognizes the Second Amendment guarantee as an individual right.

The amendment reads: "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." If "the right of the people" to keep and bear arms was merely an incident of, or subordinate to, a governmental (i.e., a collective) purpose -- that of ensuring an efficient or "well regulated" militia -- it would be logical to conclude, as does the District of Columbia -- that government can outlaw the individual ownership of guns. But this collective interpretation is incorrect.

To analyze what "the right of the people" means, look elsewhere within the Bill of Rights for guidance. The First Amendment speaks of "the right of the people peaceably to assemble . . ." No one seriously argues that the right to assemble or associate with your fellow citizens is predicated on the number of citizens or the assent of a government. It is an individual right.

The Fourth Amendment says, "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated . . . " The "people" here does not refer to a collectivity, either.

The rights guaranteed in the Bill of Right are individual. The Third and Fifth Amendments protect individual property owners; the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments protect potential individual criminal defendants from unreasonable searches, involuntary incrimination, appearing in court without an attorney, excessive bail, and cruel and unusual punishments.

The Ninth Amendment protects individual rights not otherwise enumerated in the Bill of Rights. The 10th Amendment states, "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." Here, "the people" are separate from "the states"; thus, the Second Amendment must be about more than simply a "state" militia when it uses the term "the people."

Consider the grammar. The Second Amendment is about the right to "keep and bear arms." Before the conjunction "and" there is a right to "keep," meaning to possess. This word would be superfluous if the Second Amendment were only about bearing arms as part of the state militia. Reading these words to restrict the right to possess arms strains common rules of composition.

Colonial history and politics are also instructive. James Madison wrote the Bill of Rights to provide a political compromise between the Federalists, who favored a strong central government, and the Anti-Federalists, who feared a strong central government as an inherent danger to individual rights. In June 1789, then Rep. Madison introduced 12 amendments, a "bill of rights," to the Constitution to convince the remaining two of the original 13 colonies to ratify the document.

Madison's draft borrowed liberally from the English Bill of Rights of 1689 and Virginia's Declaration of Rights. Both granted individual rights, not collective rights. As a result, Madison proposed a bill of rights that reflected, as Stanford University historian Jack Rakove notes, his belief that the "greatest dangers to liberty would continue to arise within the states, rather than from a reconstituted national government." Accordingly, Mr. Rakove writes that "Madison justified all of these proposals (Bill of Rights) in terms of the protection they would extend to individual and minority rights."

One of the earliest scholars of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, confirmed this focus on individuals in his famous "Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States" in 1833. "The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms," Story wrote, "has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of republics, since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers . . ."

It is also important to consider the social context at the time of the drafting and adoption of the Bill of Rights. Our Founding Fathers lived in an era where there were arms in virtually every household. Most of America was rural or, even more accurately, frontier. The idea that in the 1780s the common man, living in the remote woods of the Allegheny Mountains of western Pennsylvania and Virginia, would depend on the indulgence of his individual state or colony -- not to mention the new federal government -- to possess and use arms in order to defend himself is ludicrous. From the Minutemen of Concord and Lexington to the irregulars at Yorktown, members of the militias marched into battle with privately-owned weapons.

Lastly, consider the empirical arguments. The three D.C. ordinances at issue are of the broadest possible nature. According to the statute, a person is not legally able to own a handgun in D.C. at all and may have a long-gun -- even in one's home -- only if it is kept unloaded and disassembled (or bound with a trigger lock). The statute was passed in 1976. What have been the results?

Illegal guns continue to be widely available in the district; criminals have easy access to guns while law-abiding citizens do not. Cathy L. Lanier, Acting Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department, was quoted as follows: "Last year [2006], more than 2,600 illegal firearms were recovered in D.C., a 13% increase over 2005." Crime rose significantly after the gun ban went into effect. In the five years before the 1976 ban, the murder rate fell to 27 from 37 per 100,000. In the five years after it went into effect, the murder rate rose to 35. In fact, while murder rates have varied over time, during the 30 years since the ban, the murder rate has only once fallen below what it was in 1976.

This comports with my own personal experience. In almost 14 years as prosecutor and as head of the Homicide Unit of the Wayne County (Detroit) Prosecutor's Office, I never saw anyone charged with murder who had a license to legally carry a concealed weapon. Most people who want to possess guns are law-abiding and present no threat to others. Rather than the availability of weapons, my experience is that gun violence is driven by culture, police presence (or lack of same), and failures in the supervision of parolees and probationers.

Not only does history demonstrate that the Second Amendment is an individual right, but experience demonstrates that the broad ban on gun ownership in the District of Columbia has led to precisely the opposite effect from what was intended. For legal and historical reasons, and for the safety of the residents of our nation's capital, the Supreme Court should affirm an individual right to keep and bear arms.

Mr. Cox is the attorney general of Michigan.

[red-beard]

From Michigan? I am quite amazed. OTOH, I do know that Michigan has shall issue concealed carry licenses. I need to write to my AG and see he put in his view to the Supreme Court.

[Tobra]

Originally Posted by Racerbvd

Remember, states that tend to be the most liberal, are the ones who restrict "REAL" rights while making up others rights that never existed.

see New York and California

See Markus, all the gun control laws accomplish is to make it more difficult or impossible for certain folks to get guns in a legitimate fashion. For example, when my wife and I lived in Texas, she would do home nursing visits or work in hospitals in unsavory sections of town, probably better business in those neighborhoods. The security guy walks you to the car at the hospital, and you are on your own. Well in her case, she was not totally on her own, since she had Mssrs Smith and Wesson riding with her.

Here in California, identical work situation, with the exception that it is ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE for her to get a permit to carry a weapon legally. The hospitals are so messed up here compared to Texas(which I attribute to managed care and nursing unions) she refused to work in one. She was doing the home health thing here, but I pressured her to quit when I discovered she was rolling strapped without a perfit for it. Would not have her driving around where she would have to be driving around waving a nail file, and I would not be a bit surprised if you would do time in a state prison if you were carrying without a permit, even if you were a hospice nurse delivering morphine to those dying of cancer in the ghetto.



People who are not concerned with what the law happens to be are the only ones carrying firearms, and they know that they can go to certain places where nobody will have anything stronger than a pocket knife to stop them. See school massacres in Colorado, Oregon, California, and more recently Denmark I believe.

The guns are there already, and the Constitution does say that we were endowed with certain rights by the "Creator"(I know you don't buy the creator thing, and those fellas were not talking about the "Gods of the Christians, Jews, Muslims or Native Americans, they were placing these rights above the rule of "Man", so 230 years later nobody would get any wise ideas)

We do have people here who have a more "Swedish" or "European" outlook here in the US, they generally call them Democrats.