# Gun Laws (Information ONLY please)
**URL:** https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259
**Category:** Factual Questions
**Created:** [October 1, 2000, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259 "2000-10-01T18:22:19Z")
**Posts on this page:** 16
**Page:** 1
### Author:  [@Joe\_Malik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Malik)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2000, 6:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/1 "2000-10-01T18:22:19Z")
Over in GD I have been (accurately) accused of not having a complete and comprehensive knowlege about existing gun-control legislation and its enforcement. I am willing to make a good-faith attempt to aquire such comprehensive knowlege.
I _do not_ want to get into a debate here. What I want are links to the _complete texts_ of the federal laws regarding gun control, as well as judicial interpretations of those laws and information and statistics on their enforcement.
Since I lack the time and dedication to examine the laws for each of the fifty states, I will examine the laws, interpretations and enforcement in two states: Either Florida or Colorado, which have been in the news lately as a very pro-gun states, and either Minnesota or Massachusetts, probably the epitome of stereotypical liberalism (suggestions welcome).
Please do not link to the NRA, HCI or other biased organization except for the _complete_ and unabridged text of federal or state laws. Also, I am only interested in the interpretation of sitting judges presiding over actual cases. I do not have the time or energy to evaluate every legal opinion ever written, hence I will concentrate only on authoritative judicial opinions that establish legal precedent.
---
### Author:  [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2000, 7:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/2 "2000-10-01T19:40:59Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Joe Malik \*
> Since I lack the time and dedication to examine the laws for each of the fifty states, I will examine the laws, interpretations and enforcement in two states: Either Florida or Colorado
Since I lack the time and willingness to do your research for you but still believe in fighting ignorance, here’s a link: [FindLaw](http://www.findlaw.com)
---
### Author:  [@Una\_Persson](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Una_Persson)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2000, 8:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/3 "2000-10-01T20:33:12Z")
All I will add is this.
There are two parts to the law.
1. What is written.
2. What a judge rules the writing means.
Just a warning about judicial precedence. Somtimes a law is interpreted much more strictly than worded, and sometimes less so. One case in point is the Missouri law for what constitutes disabling a fully-automatic weapon for museum or collectors purposes. IIRC, I have a case (somewhere) where even though the collector filled the barrel of the gun with molten metal, a judge ruled that it still was not “disabled enough”, since a machine shop could, in theory, open it up again in 2 8-hour days. Therefore, it was an illegal weapon. IIRC also, it was proven that the machine shop probably could have made a new barrel in the same amount of time, and thus any protection under the law for collectors was essentially meaningless in this judge’s courtroom.
That is, IIRC. ☹
---
### Author:  [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2000, 9:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/4 "2000-10-01T21:51:26Z")
If you want an example of the sort of law objected to by gun owners, check out California’s [AB-273](http://WWW.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/bill/asm/ab_0251-0300/ab_273_bill_20000825_amended_sen.html), which is on hold for the moment but will probably be resurrected next year. A complete list of changes to the bill may be found [here](http://WWW.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/postquery?bill_number=ab_273&sess=CUR&house=A).
From the explanatory text:
> [@](#):
>
> This bill would provide that, except as provided, no person may purchase, or receive through gift, loan, transfer, or bequest, a handgun, as defined, without a handgun safety license, as specified. This bill would provide that no handgun safety license may be issued to any person under 21 years of age. This bill would establish an application procedure for obtaining a handgun safety license, including a written test, safe handling demonstration, and a basic shooting proficiency demonstration. The application procedure would impose various duties on local law enforcement officials, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program. Violation of specified conditions of the license would result in suspension, or revocation of the license, and would be punishable as an infraction or a misdemeanor, as specified. The bill would also provide that the altering, forging, counterfeiting or other falsifying of a handgun safety license, or the use or attempted use of the same would be punishable as a misdemeanor or felony.
Really, who is affected by this law, criminals or non-criminal gun owners?
If you’d like to follow the most significant Second Amendment case since _U.S. v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174 (1939), it’ll likely be [_U.S. v. Emerson_](http://www.txnd.uscourts.gov/PDFs/emers_2.pdf) 46 F. Supp. 2d 598, currently on appeal, but likely to be affirmed. If _Emerson_ is indeed affirmed, there will be a disagreement among the circuits as to the meaning of the Second Amendment, and the Supreme Court will finally weigh in on the subject. Which is, by the way, another reason that this election is significant for pro-gun and gun-control forces alike: about three Justices are likely to retire soon.
---
### Author:  [@Joe\_Malik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Malik)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2000, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/5 "2000-10-01T22:25:32Z")
Max, thanks for the text. If you want to begin a debate over whether this specific law “infringes” on lawful gun owners rights, do it over in GD.
KneadToKnow, Last I checked there were millions of pages of law. I am not a lawyer. When a creationist comes here, we don’t say, “Get a PhD in biology and then come talk to me,” we post to sites giving scientific information. Even lawyers have aides, associates, and expensive legal databases. I have no such resources. Some of you have already researched this issue thoroughly. If you want to be pissy, do it in the pit. I’m asking for a few minutes of some folks time to pare down a daunting task to one that I have a hope of attempting.
---
### Author:  [@Joe\_Malik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Malik)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2000, 10:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/6 "2000-10-01T22:49:03Z")
This is amusing side note, K2K:
> [@](#):
>
> We want people to familiarize themselves with the laws bearing on their activites. But a reasonable opportunity doesn’t mean being able to go to a local law library and read Title 18. It would be preposterous to suppose that someone from ((the defendan’s)) milieu is able to take advantage of such an opportunity. If none of the conditions that make it reasonable to dispense with proof of knowledge of the law is present, then to intone “ignorance of the law is no defense” is to condone a violation of fundamental principles for the sake of a modest economy in the administration of criminal justice.
>
> _United States v. Wilson_, 159 F.3d 294-295 (Posner, C.J., dissenting)
---
### Author:  [@Joe\_Malik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Malik)
#### Post date: [October 1, 2000, 11:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/7 "2000-10-01T23:01:34Z")
Very interesting reading on Emerson. My interpretation of key points of Judge Cummings’ decision (in regard to the 2nd Amendment):
The Second Amendment means what it means. We should not try to interpret its meaning away for the sake of expediency.
The Second Amendment protects individuals’ freedom, not just those of state governments.
The Founders wrote the Second Amendment to make it very difficult if not impossible for the Federal Government to enforce a law over the organized opposition of a large number of its citizens.
I’m not asking if you agree or disagree with these points, just if I am accurately understanding Judge Cummings’ decision.
---
### Author:  [@Max\_Torque](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Max_Torque)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2000, 2:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/8 "2000-10-02T02:03:53Z")
Yeah, your reading seems pretty consistent with mine. Interesting thing about that case: from the circumstances, it seems that Judge Cummings could have decided that the law in question was unconstitutional based on its failure to provide notice and a hearing before a citizen was deprived of a right. Instead, he literally made a federal case out of it.
---
### Author:  [@Joe\_Malik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Malik)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2000, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/9 "2000-10-02T02:28:33Z")
Yes, I noticed that too. Perhaps a case of “Judicial Activism?” 😉 ((ducks))
---
### Author:  [@UncleBeer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/UncleBeer)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2000, 11:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/10 "2000-10-02T11:33:32Z")
Yow! You got some reading ahead of you Joe.
Here’s a link to [United States Code Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 44](http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/ch44.html#PC44), which deals with firearms.
Here’s a link to the [Florida Stautes](http://www.leg.state.fl.us/statutes/index.cfm?Mode=ViewStatutes&Submenu=1). You’ll have to do your own search from there. Here’s [Minnesota](http://www.leg.state.mn.us/leg/statutes.htm), [Massachusetts](http://www.magnet.state.ma.us/legis/laws/mgl/index.htm) and [Colorado](http://www.sni.net/clisc/co_legis.htm). You may find links to other states [here](http://www.sni.net/clisc/legislat.htm). None of this is particularly organized by firearms statutes. Happy hunting.
---
### Author:  [@manhattan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/manhattan)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2000, 2:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/11 "2000-10-02T14:31:19Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by UncleBeer \*
> \*\* Happy hunting.
> \*\*
Heh.
---
### Author:  [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2000, 4:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/12 "2000-10-02T16:39:04Z")
**Joe Malik** , you seem to be upset with me.
In my defense, please let me state that I am simply a smart-ass, as I would have thought would be intuitively obvious from my mocking tone and the fact that I gave you what was in effect a link to the legal profession’s version of People magazine. The difference between a smart-ass and someone who ought to take their comments into the Pit is small but, I believe, widely acknowledged.
Further, am I the only one who finds it ironic that someone with as little time as you have still has time to dig up a legal ruling and post it for the express purpose of belittling another poster who could with much less effort been ignored (as, to date, every other poster on this thread has done)?
Lastly, I am a smart-ass who succeeded in bumping your post back up onto the first page of the list for a while, so cutting me the _tiniest_ bit of slack would seem in order.
---
### Author:  [@Joe\_Malik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Malik)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2000, 10:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/13 "2000-10-02T22:19:12Z")
Sorry K2K. After an unpleasant experience in GD I’m a little on edge. My most humble apologies.
---
### Author:  [@Jodi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jodi)
#### Post date: [October 2, 2000, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/14 "2000-10-02T23:18:50Z")
Coupla things:
> [@](#):
>
> Since I lack the time and dedication to examine the laws for each of the fifty states, I will examine the laws, interpretations and enforcement in two states: Either Florida or Colorado, which have been in the news lately as a very pro-gun states, and either Minnesota or Massachusetts, probably the epitome of stereotypical liberalism (suggestions welcome).
Alrighty, but allow me to tell you that the debate over gun-control almost always either starts or ends with the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If I were you, I’d look at that first and longest. If you are in a discussion about _state_ gun-control law, you will likely be expected to know (or look up and familiarize yourself with) the law of the particular state in question. In my experience, knowing the law of one “conservative” state and one “liberal” state is pretty worthless in a generalized conversation; every state’s laws are different, and every state has a different constitution. You have set yourself a pretty daunting task, and if you want a _quicker_ way to get up to speed, think about just concentrating on the Federal debate.
> [@](#):
>
> Please do not link to the NRA, HCI or other biased organization except for the complete and unabridged text of federal or state laws.
Actually, one of the easiest ways of finding cites to the most up-to-date laws and cases is probably to check these sites. You don’t have to take their _interpretation_ of the law as true; you can go look up the material yourself, read it, and make up your own mind. But it is the organizations that feel they have a vested interest in the debate who do the most to keep on top of it.
> [@](#):
>
> Also, I am only interested in the interpretation of sitting judges presiding over actual cases. I do not have the time or energy to evaluate every legal opinion ever written, hence I will concentrate only on authoritative judicial opinions that establish legal precedent.
All judicial opinions that are not non-cited are auhtoritative and establish legal precedent, and whether or not the judge is still sitting is irrelevant to the status of the case as “good” or “bad” (ie, overruled or severely limited). But I understand that you want to look at the most important law first; for the Federal system, this would indicate that you concentrate on U.S. Supreme Court decisions first and then decisions by the various U.S. Courts of Appeals. The state supreme courts will be the final authrority on purely states-law issues. If you’re close to a law library or have access to one, I would suggest you look up the actual law (UncleBeer gave you the cite to Title 18) and then look at the annotations – the cases citing that law, which are listed in the back of both the U.S.C.A. (the United States Code Annotated) and the U.S.C.S. (the United States Code Service). That is the best resource for finding the actual law and the cases interpreting it together in one volume. Of course, then you have to go look up the cases. Have fun!
---
### Author:  [@KneadToKnow](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/KneadToKnow)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2000, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/15 "2000-10-03T11:58:38Z")
> [@](#):
>
> \*Originally posted by Joe Malik \*
> Sorry K2K.
No hard feelings, sweet cheeks. 😉
---
### Author:  [@Joe\_Malik](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Joe_Malik)
#### Post date: [October 3, 2000, 3:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/gun-laws-information-only-please/35259/16 "2000-10-03T15:14:06Z")
Jodi,
> [@](#):
>
> … whether or not the judge is still sitting is irrelevant to the status of the case as “good” or “bad” (ie, overruled or severely limited).
I meant sitting at the time he or she issued the opinion, regarding a case.
As a non-gun-owner, the two most common criticisms I receive are, “you haven’t memorized every law and opinion regarding guns,” and “you get your information from obviously biased propaganda machines.”
Both criticisms are somewhat specious. I doubt _anyone_ has an unbiased overview of even a majority of gun control legislation, enforcement and statistics. but I should certainly be more informed.
And, of course, in a debate as emotional and polarized as gun control and ownership, _all_ sources are biased. That’s why I’ve decided not to trust _any_ statistical source unless I can see the full experimental and analytical methodology.
Even in citing external material, the problem with biased sources are that they may _omit_ relevant material. Even worse, I have no assurance that I will have all relevant primary sources by combining two secondary sources of opposite bias. The adversarial method may work very well in the courtroom, but I have real doubts about its value in the arena of social policy.
And Jodi, since you criticized my thesis about the factual basis of social policy, I really would appreciate it if you joined the thread I started ([On what basis should social policy be debated?](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=40277)) to discuss that question, so I can defend my thesis without hijacking another topic.