Educate the Issue-Ignorant: gun control

Factual Questions
1

In this thread, a victim of a violent assault is described, and recommendations are made for obtaining a handgun for self-defense. A passing comment references the totalitarian government’s attempts to make doing so difficult.

OK, clue me in. This is General Questions so just the facts, please.

• I’m an adult citizen in the US. If I want to buy a .22 calibre rifle and a Colt .45 handgun, what do I have to do? What’s the process? If it differs depending on locale, answer once for me as a resident of rural Lowndes Country, Georgia and once for me as a resident of Manhattan. If it’s different for the rifle than for the handgun, explain that, too. Oh, and bullets. A couple boxes of ammunition for each, and whatever cleaning rods and cloths and other maintenance equipment I need. In brief, are the gun-control proponents trying to require licensing, or just registering what gun is in whose possession, or what? Would it be like getting a driver’s license where I’d have to take a gun safety course and a test, or are they trying to make it so that I have to prove I have a reason or need for a gun in order to get a license? Would they go prying into my past, and if so to what extent? Or am I way out of the zone of what they want to control and it’s only AK-47 assault weapons and stuff like that that would even be affected?

• What are the various gun control proposals that are floating around out there? The ones with at least marginally significant political support I mean, not Representative Hairupizass’s going-nowhere bill to require all guns in the US be turned in and smelted and turned into garden gnomes. How would passage of these bills affect the answers to my previous questions?

I have no axe to grind, no dog in this fight, contents may settle during shipping, etc. I might support gun control or I might oppose it, depending on what the heck it is they want to do. Frankly the issue hasn’t even been on my radar very much. I am a small game hunter on rarified occasion, mostly squirrel, mostly during camping trips during season, with successes being cooked over the campfire. It’s always a family thing and I use my Dad’s .22 and have never purchased a gun. Never tried to. I think I bought a box of cartridges once or twice.

Thanks in advance.

2

In Michigan you have to get a background check, a check of your criminal record, at the sheriff’s office. They’ll check w/ an FBI database (or is it State Police?). It can be quick, or time consuming. I think there’s supposed to be a “waiting period,” i.e. you have to wait to actually get delivery of the gun—thought I’m not sure how that works. Then the gun must pass a “safety inspection” at the sheriff’s office.

If you want to carry a gun concealed, e.g. hunting or self-defense, you need a CCW permit. Michigan has a shall-issue law, so you must take an accredited gun safety course, then apply and get finger printed for a more thorough background check. Then go to a public hearing. It took me about six months to get mine. I’ve heard that the wait in urban areas is very, very long.

If you have a CCW permit, you can buy a gun and walk out that day. They will call the FBI for a criminal record check, but that’s it. You’ve already been vetted, you see.

Regarding the waiting period, I don’t know what’s up with that. I don’t recall having to wait when I got my first pistol, and that was well after that brady bill stuff.

Before anybody gets wise, if you are rifle hunting and have a pistol for plinking in a holster, your jacket/coat will cover it up and make it concealed. A lot of hunters get a permit just so that they don’t have to put up with hassles for that. It also affords them greater ease in transporting and shooting, since the law is restrictive for non-CCW permit holders.

The gambit of gun-control propositions goes all across the board. Some would affect all guns. Some, like bans on “assault weapons,” are strictly cosmetic and illustrate the ignorance of gun opponents more than anything else. (Assault rifles are, by design, low-powered rifles, not high powered rifles. A rifle like a .30-06 is too powerful for full auto, and most soldiers don’t need to shoot 800 yards. Assault rifles are designed to give less kick and higher firing rates, but still be better than pistol bullets. Semi-auto versions fire no more quickly than hunting rifles, and the bullets are no more dangerous than hunting bullets. They just look cool.)

The range of gun control proposals is so wide that it cannot be characterized simply. Some people want all guns banned, some want no regulations at all, and everybody else wants something in between.

I’d recommend John Lott’s The Bias Against Guns, simply because everything I’ve read or heard from him suggests that his opinions are driven by good data and analysis rather than having his data & analysis being driven by his opinions.

3

Gun control laws vary from state to state. Cities and municipalities may also have gun control laws on the books. So you’ll have to look up the laws for your particular location.

As far as federal laws go, the “biggies” are the [sub](hopefully soon-to-expire)[/sub] Assault Weapons Ban of 1994, the GCA of 1968, and the NFA of 1934.

4

You won’t meet a bigger pro-gun advocate than me. But I’ll be first to say that’s Lott’s analysis is suspect. While the nuts-n-bolts of his statistical analysis are correct, he picks and chooses what and what not to analyze.

Here’s my advice: Forgot about Lott. When trying to determine if gun control is good or bad, do not become preoccupied with statistics. If you believe you have a right to keep and bear arms, then statistics should not matter. If you believe this right to be inalienable, then you must also believe its existance is not contingent on statistics, any more than your right to free speech is contingent on statistics.

5

Vermont has no restrictions whatever upon concealed carry. There may be some restrictions about where you can take it (into a police station, etc.), but there is no overall concealed carry restriction. I believe we are the only state where this is true.

We also have a very low murder rate.

I leave any inferences to the reader.

6

Georgia
New York Note the caveats for NY City.

All purchasers of firearms from a licensed dealer must undergo a background check. You fill out the paperwork, the dealer calls it in. If there are no obvious flags on yourself, ie, arrest warrants, mental illness, then the NCIS will give the ok and the dealer hands you the firearm. They do have up to 72 hours to process this, so you may have to wait. If you are purchasing from a private seller (in the same state) there’s no background check (except in CA, where all firearms transactions must be conducted using an FFL). Most states have some safety classes that are mandatory for you to hunt, not in purchasing the firearm. In states that have CCW, minimum requirements are to have been ex-military or show certification from a reputable school/training course.

I could purchase an AK-47 type rifle with cash and a NCIS check from my licensed dealer today. However, if I want to buy a fully automatic AK-47 “assault weapon”, that falls under the National Firearms Act, which means I would undergo a background check before being approved by the US Secretary of the Treasury, including fingerprinting, to obtain a Class III certification. In addition to the purchase price, I would then pay a $200 tax to the BATFE for the privilege of doing so.

There are a number of bills, both at the federal, and local level, depending on the state. There are a couple of bills at the federal level that would support the 1994 “Assault Weapon Ban” as permanent, and another that would strengthen the ban by including more types of firearms. A CA congressman submitted a bill last year to enact a five cent tax on ammunition. That’s per round.

7

From BF’s link (New York):

The use of the word “may” is rather nonspecific. Can I be refused a license to carry a firearm for…well, which of the following reasons?

• Any damn reason we like. With regards to your application: uh, we don’t think so, dude. We don’t have to tell you why. We found what we think of as a good cause to deny you a license, now go away.

• An investigation shows that you attended sit-ins and demonstrations in the early 1980s, you don’t sound like the kind of person we want to be carrying a gun.

• You wrote down that you were a voluntary inpatient at a psychiatric facility 25 years ago in South Dakota. You’re therefore crazy and can’t carry a gun.

• Your arrests for aggravated assault, forgery, and resisting arrest at various times in the 90s constitutes sufficient cause to think letting you own a gun is a bad idea, although we do note that none of these resulted in convictions.

• You reported that you were last treated for mental illness shortly before escaping without permission from a locked ward where you were diagnosed paranoid schizophrenic, and you’ve avoided contact with psychiatric services since. We regret to inform you that we have decided against licensing you as a pistol-toting schizzy.

• Well, your former parole officer says that your convictions for armed robbery make the idea of a gun in your hands rather disturbing, and your statements here in our office that you’ll just buy one on the black market if we don’t license you have failed to convince us, so we’d like to escort you out of the building as a way of saying that your application is herewith denied.

In short, are there any criteria such that, if I meet them, I am entitled to receive a license if I apply for it, i.e., in the absense of specific factors ruling it out? Or is it considered a privilege that they can offer or refrain from offering, based on a decision-making process and rationale that they don’t have to defend?

8

In short, yes. In NY City, from anectdotal evidence, you have a better chance of getting a hand gun permit if you’re a celebrity. In DC, you have to have a permit in order to purchase a handgun, no permits have been issued since the early 70’s, making for a de facto ban on handguns. In states that have passed “shall issue” legislation, if you meet the criteria (passed a training course, are not a felon, etc) the state must issue you CCW.

From the NRA’s Federal Firearms Law page:

Ineligible Persons

The following classes of people are ineligible to possess, receive, ship, or transport firearms or ammunition:
[ul]
[li]Those convicted of crimes punishable by imprisonment for over one year, except state misdemeanors punishable by two years or less. [/li][li]Fugitives from justice. [/li][li]Unlawful users of certain depressant, narcotic, or stimulant drugs. [/li][li]Those adjudicated as mental defectives or incompetents or those committed to any mental institution. [/li][li]Illegal aliens. [/li][li]Citizens who have renounced their citizenship. [/li][li]Those persons dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces. [/li][li]Persons less than 18 years of age for the purchase of a shotgun or rifle. [/li][li]Persons less than 21 years of age for the purchase of a firearm that is other than a shotgun or rifle. [/li][li]Persons subject to a court order that restrains such persons from harassing, stalking, or threatening an intimate partner. [/li][li]Persons convicted in any court of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. [/li][li]Persons under indictment for a crime punishable by imprisonment for more than [/li]one year are ineligible to receive, transport, or ship any firearm or ammunition.
[/ul]
Under limited conditions, relief from disability may be obtained from the U.S. Secretary of the Treasury, or through a pardon, expungement, restoration of rights, or setting aside of a conviction.

9

Crafter_Man speaks wisely. Either you believe the 2nd Amendment is as important as the rest of the Bill of Rights, or you don’t. if you do, proponents of gun control start to sound pretty absurd. If you don’t, I’d invite you to perform the thought experiment of regulating Freedom of Speech in a similar fashion.

10

Crowded theatre. My own personal tactical nuke in my garage (them’s arms, ain’t they?).

Be that as it may…

I think I’m leaning towards “licensing requirements OK, no overlong processing delays acceptable, ‘shall issue’ laws are good, I have a right to defend myself, reasonable restrictions against tactical-combat rapid-fire or WMD-class weaponry are permissible, otherwise government oughtn’t interfere, & I don’t need to justify wanting a gun”.

(Is that moderately clear?)

Given that kind of position, if I were a politician-type and that were my stance, would I most likely be characterized as a 2nd Amendment defender, a gun-control advocate, or a middle-of-the-roader?

11

Mmm, I’d say “middle-of-the-road NRA supporter.” Certainly a good start. Keep working on it… :wink:

12

Isn’t it true that, although there are background checks and waiting periods when you buy from a dealer, that if you buy from another private individual (like at a gun show), you just hand him the cash and he hands you the gun? No muss, no fuss.

I have this mental image of Homer Simpson, after the waiting period, impatiently jumping up and down outside the door of the gun shop, which wasn’t yet open. As soon as the guy opened up the door, Homer rushed in and headed for the rest room.

13

I am, but that’s not all. For instance, company advertising, incitement to riot, shouting fire in a crowded theatre, etc, are restricted speaches. Do these correspond to nukes? RPGs? autos? anything more advanced than firearms available when the bill of rights was written? That’s the question, isn’t it?

14

Perhaps the right of free speech should be limited to methods available when the costitution was written. Manual printing press, no TV or radio, no internet of course. All note to be taken with quill pen. :wink:

15

I infer that Vermont has about 17 residents. They all live out of range of each other. Pretty place, though.
You can easily buy most guns in CA. There are rules, though. Even concealed, but you have to jump through some hoops. Or bribe the right person.
Peace,
mangeorge

16

Maybe it should; it’d eliminate spam and telemarketing, for instance. :cool:

17

Thanks for the thumb’s up 666[sub]10[/sub], but I take even one step further. I don’t even like bringing up the 2nd Amendment, since our right to keep and bear arms is not contingent on its existence.

18

Ditto what Crafter_man wrote, AHunter3.
As for

It’s always been that way, but the gun-control advocates play it up that anyone can buy a gun at a gun show without a background check. This is their “gun show loophole” that’s been cranked up in the last few years. The bottom line is this, if I want to sell my Dad’s old semi-auto to my brother, he pays me and I give him the gun. In CA, we’d have to go to a licensed dealer, my brother go through the NCIS check, and then transfer of the firearm is authorized, putting another $20-30 bucks into the FFl dealers pocket. If my brother is ineligible to own a gun based on the criteria I posted previously, I am liable for 10 years in jail and a $10K fine, regardless.

If I want to sell my Dad’s gun at a gun show, I can. Without an FFL or background check. If I am selling guns at 2-3 a clip at a gun show on a regular basis, I better have an FFL or I’m in big trouble. Besides, the BATFE’s web site shows that less than 2% of firearms used in crimes originate from gun shows. Another gun-control advocacy fallacy.

19

John Lott’s data & analysis is driven by his opinion. See:
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/survey
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/more_guns_less_crime
http://cgi.cse.unsw.edu.au/~lambert/cgi-bin/blog/guns/Lott/MaryRosh

20

Well, I can see room for requiring a gun-competency test. I’m fine with borrowing heavily from instructional materials promulgated by the NRA. Including their gun safety stuff, which they are good on. I’m fine with it being as stringent as automobile drivers licensing, including retesting x number of years. To a limited extent I can see justification for refusing a license to carry to certain people who have certain things in their present or past, but they should be spelled out, and a license should be forthcoming to anyone not in those categories.

Arbitrary refusals don’t seem justifiable to me. They should have to have a reason for saying “no” and they should not be allowed to invent that reason on-the-fly. Justify every disqualifier, in advance.

I, being a person who has been diagnosed paranoid schizzy, see no reason why previous questions about one’s mental competency should be relevant. Current? Yeah, absolutely. Administer a test. But the person doing the test shouldn’t have access to your prior psych or civil incompetency records.

Likewise, I think that if you’ve done your time for whatever you were convicted for, and are no longer in parole-limbo or anything, your criminal justice history should be irrelevant too. And if you were charged but not convicted of crimes, that should be totally irrelevant.

If they can make it so that each bullet can be quickly identified as having been fired by a particular gun without needing to have the gun on hand, and can do that without lots of admin overhead that slows purchasing and licensing down, fine, go for it.

I’m not upset about being unable to purchase and maintain a personal arsenal of Sarin as long as I can get reasonable effective pepper spray. “Adequate for personal defense against up to a small group of antagonistic individuals” is a reasonable qualifier IMHO. I would not expect to be allowed to maintain a silo of my own personal thermonuclear warhead missiles.

State governments should not be allowed to fuck around and administratively deny by extensive delay a citizen’s request for carry permit.

I think distinguishing between “concealed carry” and “carry” is questionable. Would like to see more explanation from proponents of the distinction as to why the world is a safer place if my gun is visible like I’m a western hero than if I keep it somewhere where it isn’t making a statement until and unless I think I need it. Reciprocally, I’d support harsher penalties for someone misusing a weapon they were carrying concealed if the misuse thereof was enabled in part by concealment. With freedom comes responsibility, yea?

All this I’m formulating as I go. Thank you for your input. I never really paid much attention to the issue, I’m embarrassed to say. I will continue to read and learn. Anyone inclined to do so, please continue to post.