I will probably be receiving my grandfather’s WWII service weapons from my father’s estate. I am not aware that there will be any sort of record of that transfer.
There should be.
No. You can not legally buy a gun in a state where you are not a resident.
26th Ad. Either 18yo are citizens with full rights or they are not. One Judge has already thrown out such a law,
Although I have no real issues with a ban on selling “assault weapons”, this rather runs afoul of the OPs Min/max request. While indeed, it would have a minimum effect on the honest law abiding gun owner, it would also have a minimum effect on violent crime and homicide.
Indeed, it might.
Guns purchased from a dealer from 1968 on are recorded on a 4473. So, say a gun is found at the scene of a crime. The Feds can trace the sale of the gun from the Manufacturer to the Dealer. They can then find out who bought the gun from said dealer.
So, say we pass the law. In 2023, Bob the strawman seller buys a dozen cheap 9mm handguns in Indiana. He sells them to gang members in Chicago. The police bust a half dozen gangbangers, and thus find 6 of Bob’s guns. Two can be traced to shootings by ballistics. The guns are traced to Bob. The ATF can see Bob didn’t do the background check, so they bring him in, ask for records of the sale. Bob has none. Bob goes to prison for 20 years or more. More or less, this would stop strawman sellers from operating, and cut deeply into the flow of guns to criminals.
Really?
So, all Illinois (where I live) needs to do to ban guns is apply a 10,000% tax and then almost no one in Illinois will buy a gun?
If it would have a significant effect on one specific category of violent crime, especially on one that has outsized terroristic effects, that’d definitely fit within the OP’s scope.
Are you making a point or asking a question? Do you have an opinion on this yourself? Are you disputing that you can only buy a gun in a state where you are a resident?
Or is this what I would consider a hijack on gun bans through backhand methods?
Something on the order of 2% of homicides are committed with all forms of rifle, including assault weapons. Thus a very minimum effect altogether. IMHO then, this falls outside the parameters of the OP. However, it would be a legit topic on it’s own, IMHO.
Chicago’s gun ban was famously a failure (before it was stopped by the Supreme Court). The oft cited reason was it was trivial to buy guns elsewhere and bring them into the city.
Are you saying that simply taxing guns so much in the state would effectively make Illinois a gun free state?
To the OP this would be minmaxing. Just raise gun taxes so high almost no one would buy one and they can’t get one anywhere else.
You’re the first person to bring up taxes in this thread.
So? (More words cuz Discourse demands it)
So it’s not clear why you’re asking if someone else is saying something about taxes when nobody else has said anything about taxes.
The OP is about minmaxing gun laws. Why wouldn’t taxing guns be a part of that if no one can buy a gun anywhere other than their own state?
If your intent was to make an argument to that effect, we’re ready to see it, as asking if someone else is making it for you seems not be working.
What? (more words)
Preventing gun owners from purchasing guns is not minimizing the impact on them. I hope you’ll drop this line of inquiry, or else take it to a new thread.
The specific category I’m talking about here is mass shootings in which the victims are unknown to the assailant. Again, that fits within the OP’s scope.
To be clear:
My original point (post #57) was gun laws need to be universal. Basically federal laws and not state laws. If one state has more permissive laws then the regulations will fail. Same as if one state made a 10,000% tax on guns would fail.
This statement is 100% false in many states.
To change the focus slightly… I’ve seen a lot of suggestions about stopping mass murders, but a large fraction of gun deaths are suicides and accidents. And I think we could do a lot more to prevent those.
Accidents:
-
Guns should be kept locked up, except when actually being used. No, you don’t need to sleep with a gun under your pillow. Holy shit, what if you take ambien and sleep walk or something? Get a good lock for your door. By the time someone smashes through your wall, you’ll have plenty of time to fetch that gun from your biometric safe. You like your windows open in the summer? Great, there are solid bars you can use to exclude large objects, like humans, while allowing plenty of breeze. They can also be unlocked should you want to airlift your piano through the window. Seriously, wouldn’t you rather exclude a “bad guy” and not have to face them at all than allow someone to break into your home and then kill them?
-
Everyone should be required to take a solid gun-safety class before being allowed to own a gun.
-
Gun ownership should be restricted to adults, preferably over 25. Teens can hunt or shoot targets in the company of a responsible adult.
Suicides:
This is harder to address, without inconveniencing gun owners. But
-
it should be a lot harder to get a license for a handgun than for a rifle. If you want to kill a bear, or a squirrel, or a clay pigeon, you are probably using a rifle. Handguns are basically designed to kill people. And they are way easier to turn on yourself than a long-arm is.
-
You shouldn’t be able to buy a gun RIGHT NOW. There should be a short waiting period, maybe 3 days, between deciding to buy a gun and actually having it in your home.
Oh, and just in general, all guns should be registered. Yeah, that IS a significant inconvenience, but it’s the way to enforce every other regulation.
AFAIK Federal law prohibits buying hand guns from an FFL in a State where you are not resident. There is no such restriction on long guns or shotguns, so those can be bought across State lines as long as the States involved allow it.
FWIW I think the thread is more about minmaxing policies and their impact on crime vs impact on gun owners. It isn’t intended to be a legal thread disputing the State of the current law, so not sure if this entire line is considered a hijack or not.
Yes, sorta.
The short answer is Federal Laws prohibit buying a handgun (which is the Chicago issue) in another state. Federal laws do allow that deer rifle, sure. But Illinois state law says "Sec. 3a. (a) Any resident of Illinois who has obtained a firearm owner’s identification card pursuant to this Act and who is not otherwise prohibited from obtaining, possessing or using a firearm may purchase or obtain a rifle or shotgun or ammunition for a rifle or shotgun in Iowa, Missouri, Indiana, Wisconsin or Kentucky. So, you must have a Illinois gun permit and only in those selected states, not Indiana. Thus if Illinois banned the sale of handguns, no resident could legally buy one at all, and Illinois could easily limit the purchase of rifles to zero states. So the flow of handguns into Chicago from another state is illegal.
Absolutely. So, back to the OP please.
Modnote: Take this meta argument and your one word question posts out of the thread.