Why in simple terms are gun laws so varied across the USA?

The second amendment of the US constitution is well known, yet gun laws are incredibly varied state by state. In fact some states and even cities like NYC and DC have policies that come very close to is not practically banning firearms, sometimes they use red tape so that they can say it is technically possible. There have even been supreme court cases on this, but it never seems to change anything in reality.

Is there a simple answer to why this is, in legal thinking?

For an example the first amendment, we don’t say *note these topics are banned from free speech in Arizona, Alaska, and North Dakota. *note religious freedom is not present in California and Georgia.

But for the second amendment that is pretty much the case, and has been that way for decades without it being an issue.

It’s possible to make laws that are Constitutionally valid but that vary quite a bit. It is permissible to regulate gun ownership, and that’s what the various states have done. Do you believe that some of the current set of laws don’t pass constitutional muster? If so, which ones?

I contend that DC’s laws, in toto, do not pass constitutional muster.

Emily Miller did a series of columns for a local paper about what she had to go through to buy and legally possess a gun as a DC resident. Her experience are well worth reading in full from the beginning, but this excerpt from her testimony to the DC City Council captures the problem:

This is not some unusual case. Ms. Miller did not have to go through this because her criminal record was lost in the Great Fire of '06. This is the requirement imposed upon every single person who wishes to purchase and possess a legal handgun in the District of Columbia.

Enter the tyranny of the majority.

Just as education laws, abortion rights, healthcare, marriage, and a host of other things are regulated from state to state…‘States rights’ can get ironic.

eta: DC also has a high murder-by-firearm rate.

Because they were made by different people.

But let’s get serious here: listening to Ms. Miller on the travails of registering a firearm in DC is like listening to a 13 year old boy about how hard it is to mow the lawn. Miller, like a pain in the ass teenager, clearly approached the whole experience with a foot-dragging, huffy, non-constructive attitude, with the predetermined conclusion that everything she was asked to do was, like, just sooooooo unfair.

For example, the comment you quoted: “I don’t believe it it right that the DC police require me to go to an armed stranger’s house - in another state - for any reason. I already don’t feel safe. That’s why I wanted a gun in the first place and still do.” This is a grossly misleading statement on several levels, and really should not be read in any other context than totally unreasonable whinging, pure and simple.

Right. And based on her article, it appears that registering her SECOND gun would cost about $25. Seems like a bargain to me.

Whenever I hear someone from D.C. complain about something like this, or about the whole “taxation without representation” thing, my answer is something along the lines of “yeah, that’s why I live in a STATE.” :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m a liberal who knows how to shoot, and enjoys it. I’m all for “sensible” gun laws. But while I understand being frustrated with the myriad state laws, as a pilot I snicker at people complaining about the complexity of regulation and hoops you have to jump through to get a gun. My solution: make it federal.

If getting a gun were like getting a pilot’s license, there would be one set of rules. None of this nonsense about different laws in different states. You could take your gun anywhere. The tradeoff? There would be serious education and testing involved, perhaps on several levels.

Getting your first gun would be like getting a private pilot’s license. It would take x number of hours. I won’t belabor the comparison by setting an actual number because I don’t know what would be appropriate. But I think it should be comprehensive - not something you could do in a day. Becoming certified for concealed carry would be like getting your instrument rating. It’s another course, and another test at a much higher standard.

Never mind that this has nothing to do with the Constitution. I just think it has possibilities for standardization of rules, and more importantly setting a high standard for gun education and safety. Getting a private pilot’s license required a minimum of 40 hours of training, a knowledge test and a practical test. It’s serious, and I think getting a gun should be similarly serious. Once the license is in hand, it comes with privileges - most of which don’t exist in today’s world of gun laws.

Yea, I don’t really have any opinion one way or the other about DC gun regulations, but I read the Miller article a few months ago when someone posted it in another thread and thought it was pretty dishonest. She goes out of her way to make minor tasks seem Herculean.

For how long has DC had these “strict” (if they are) gun laws? I got a new colleague some 25 years ago who had migrated from DC and USA because he didn’t want to live in a town where his female colleagues had to carry guns in their handbags to feel secure.

Yep, what a cry-baby. Apparently DC requires you to take a gun safety course, those fiends, and pay fees.

The funny thing is, I could have written a similar article about getting a “free” rescue dog from Fairfax county. Similar costs, classes, forms. Its almost as if some sort of bureaucracy is involved.

Miller did hype the inconvenience factor quite a bit, but there was one huge issue that really shocked me - you cannot find out if you’re approved for a gun license until you’ve actually paid for the gun & it’s at the DC dealer. So if you find out that they didn’t approve you, you’re screwed - gun purchases are generally non-refundable. I don’t believe any other state has this ass-backwards requirement.

There’s also the fact that you can’t, by law, take a DC-approved gun safety class inside DC.

The Supreme Court ruling forcing DC to allow gun ownership is very new. When people point out that DC has a high rate of gun violence, but has strict gun ownership laws, they ignore the fact that DC borders Virginia where is is very easy to get a gun. I am not aware of Washingtonians, regardless of gender, who feel the need to carry a gun to feel safe. Neither my wife or I feel the need to be armed and we feel perfectly secure in DC.

Your analogy is flawed. Different jurisdictions do have different speech-related restrictions, just as different jurisdictions have different gun-related restrictions.

The urbanization of America has outpaced most of the existing gun laws and has created a dramatically different landscape than when most firearm regulations were conceived. However, a uniform federal policy would be uniformly bad. What would be sensible and reasonable for an urban dweller in DC would be wasteful and overbearing for someone in rural Montana. Firearm regulations as with many legal issues should be crafted by the states to reflect the realities of those states.

A bare bones minimum federal policy reflecting current general concerns would be an acceptable base for the states and individual municipalities to build more restrictive regulation upon that reflects the realities of their specific situation.

ribbit

Since we had discussed those stories about registering firearms in DC some time ago, I just looked up DC’s current rules on guns. As of July 1, 2012, no training program is required, applicants only have to watch a video on firearm safety at no cost. The DC website for gun registration now makes specific mention of the $125 fee to transfer guns through a licensed dealer. And the fees for the application have been reduced to $48. Cite.

There has been very little constitutional law interpreting the second amendment. Heller was, I think, only the second time a second amendment case has been heard by the Supreme Court.

Why does her “passport photo” cost $20? ANY photo can be a passport photo as long as it is in color and 2"x2". I took my passport photo with a cell phone camera and printed it at home.

And a 30 minute drive? Sorry there isn’t a gun training facility on every corner!

When I was a teenager, I had to spend hours driving around in a car with a creepy strange man in order to get my license.

To go back to the OP: the reason gun laws are so varied is (1). Until very recently the Second Amendment was held to be solely a restriction on the action of the Federal government. (2.) Until roughly the New Deal, the states retained most sovereign powers regarding local laws.
The idea of the federal government protecting citizens from oppressive state governments is a fairly new role-reversal.