Arizona to allow concealed weapons withOUT permit

41 posts / 0 new

You know when your state passes these sorts of laws, it is really that surprising when gun violence begins to escalate and take on a whole new dimension...

Gov. Jan Brewer signed Senate Bill 1108 into law Friday afternoon. It eliminates the requirement for a concealed-carry weapons permit, but does require gun owners to accurately answer if an officer asks them if they are carrying weapon concealed. It also allows officers to temporarily confiscate a weapon while they are talking to an individual, including during a traffic stop.

"I believe strongly in the individual rights and responsibilities of a free society, and as governor I have pledged a solemn and important oath to protect and defend the Constitution," Brewer said in a news release. "I believe this legislation not only protects the Second Amendment rights of Arizona citizens, but restores those rights as well."

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Comments

The new law may not be so safe for Congress Critters and judges in that state.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Once again I hear the Republicans using the meme "it happens on both sides". This time referring to the hate speech that leads these right-wing nuts to shooting and killing innocent people in support of their misguided ideology. Both sides? Who are they kidding?

I hope to hear Thom address this on Monday's show because the fact of the matter is I cannot think of a single time when the shooter is a left-wing nut job. What we consistently hear from the left is, "how do we resolve this," not "who do we 'take out' ". While we left-wing nut jobs attempt to work within the confines of civil society to raise awareness and legally, legitimately move the nation in a better direction within the system of our government, the right chooses violent rhetoric and actions like the shooting of Rep.Gabrielle Giffords on Saturday. Naturally, every Republican will now use this "both sides" BS argument to play down their role in this disgusting act which they do nothing to prevent and, as in the case of Sarah Palin, even promote, that resulted in the killing a little girl and others whose lives were equally precious.

kmcdonald
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Starts to escalate AFTER the loosening of the gun laws? Please elaborate. See, the violence has ALREADY esacalated, that's why the freeing up of firearms laws. It isn't the other way around. BTW, the extreme violence is almost always committed by repeat violent offenders. And we hear all these dirges about the horror of gun ownership. We hear nothing about the gross stupidity of judges and/or parole systems who turn these predators loose on society. Instead we get the gun whine and inanities like "prison's not the answer."

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

From what I read and hear, all the violence is coming from the white Conservatives in Arizona.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

From what I read and hear, a hekll of a lot of the violence is coming from gang-cartel related narco violence. That ain't mainly conservative males. All the violence coming from conservatives. LOL! Close but no cigar!

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

From what I read and hear, all the violence is coming from the white Conservatives in Arizona.

I'm not sure if they're conservative, but the MSM is committed to that meme.

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote kmcdonald:

I hope to hear Thom address this on Monday's show because the fact of the matter is I cannot think of a single time when the shooter is a left-wing nut job.

Nevermind that the recent Times-Square bomber was a registered Democrat.

Of course I'm not saying that you have to be leftie or rightie to go on a shooting rampage, but these things do happen on both sides of the fence.

Cheesebone's picture
Cheesebone
Joined:
Sep. 1, 2010 9:18 am
Times-Square bomber was a registered Democrat.
We disposed of that one quite a while ago.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Okay fellows (boy where are the rational women who used to post frequently here). This is a thread about Arizona and its VERY lax gun laws. It does not discriminate against Republican or Democrat.

It allows for any person in the state to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. If you make gun laws easier for everyone, then why is it surprising when a gun ends up the hands of some person who uses it to kill innocent people?

What else is the purpose of a gun, but to kill? Make it easier to obtain the instrument which kills, and it really doesn't take a genius to figure out eventually an innocent person(s) is going to get killed.

Sometimes I think Americans just like to play the blame game. No one wants to take responsibility for anything which is a problem in society.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I finally came across a story in the American media which focuses on the gun laws of Arizona.

Even the sheriff of Pima County believes the gun laws in Arizona were a factor in this tragedy.

Sheriff Clarence W. Dupnik said the state's gun laws contributed to the shooting. He singled out the law passed last year that allows those 21 and over to carry a concealed weapon without a permit.

"We're the Tombstone of the United States of America," Dupnik said, referring to the Arizona town known for its gun-slinging past. "I have never been a proponent of letting everybody in the state carry weapons wherever they are. That's almost where we are."

He mentioned a proposed law that would allow college students to carry concealed guns on campus.

"That's the ridiculous state to where we have become," Dupnik said.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

And like so many sheriffs and chiefs of police, they say what they think is politically expedient. I can tell you from first hand experience that the crime rate is through the roof in most places with strict gun laws, Washington, D.C being a classic example. Criminals aren't allowed to possess guns, by law, but they do. Tightening the gun laws affects them not one iota. Never has. It does affect one's ability to defend oneself. I'd like the good chief to explain how Arizona's loose gun laws contributed to the shooting. Exactly how would tighter gun laws have kept this McVeigh wannabe from acting out? It wouldn't have. This is the same lie that upper level law enforcement and politicians try to feed to Americans. A much better focus would be on why so many violent offenders are running around, having been "cured" of their mental problem(s) or paroled/on probation for violent crime. They, not firearms, are the problem. But too many people don't want to grapple with reality.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Probably policies that promoted the domestic tranquility suggested in the Constitution would be the way to address our gun problem.

Repression, poverty and a sense of hopelessness among the lower socio-economic groups doesn't do that.

People in my neighborhood get very clearly there are two nations. They are excluded from the one flying the U.S. flag. Out of sight, out of mind until they rob a bank or thrash out in anger..

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote cpp224:

I can tell you from first hand experience that the crime rate is through the roof in most places with strict gun laws, Washington, D.C being a classic example. Criminals aren't allowed to possess guns, by law, but they do. Tightening the gun laws affects them not one iota. Never has.

Funny you should mention that. I spend a lot of time traveling to major American cities, and Washington DC after dark is one of the most threatening American cities IMHO.

PeeWee Returns's picture
PeeWee Returns
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, it's no different than in Mexico where guns are illegal. 30,000 deaths in one year..

The problems here, as there, are in the social constructs.

Well fed, well housed, well clothed, well paid people don't tend to bop one another over the head to pay the rent. They don't tend to misdirect their anger over the lack of such things with a bullet.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Wow, the counter argument to having too lax of gun laws, is it's more dangerous in drug cartel Mexico, and inner city DC (which has some of the worst poverty levels in the entire USA).

Come on. Someone tell me why it's a good idea to allow any person to carry a concealed weapon without a permit. But comparing it to Mexico and DC is a weak debate at best.

You want to allow everyone to carry guns, then you have to expect there will be consequences. That's the price you pay for such gun "freedom".

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Probably the Founding Fathers didn't take into consideration that the nation would devolve into social constructs that drove people wacky.

Retired Monk - "Ideology is a disease"

polycarp2
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Sir, your opinion not humble It is dead on correct. There are areas there where you would be well advised to visit during the day. It could cost you your life at night.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

In general I agree with you, especially for Mexico. THAT is a problem that very, very few people are willing to confront head on. The U.S. government certainly isn't, regardless of who's president and who controls Congress. If you want a look at the stark reality there, read DOWN BY THE RIVER and MURDER CITY, both by Charles Bowden. DESPERADOS, by Elaine Shannon is also good. As for here, in generally well off areas people don't bop each other over the head to pay the rent, but they do it for other reasons. Booze, drugs, serial infidelity, a GROSS inability to cope with the stress of life. The last is of particular worry because youngsters today seem to be lacking in coping skills. Also - and this is what many don't understand - there are more than a few career criminals who are that way by choice. They LIKE it, chose it, and consider incarceration as part of the price they pay for that choice. Surprisingly, such criminals - and there are a lot - don't tend to whine and make excuses for themselves. Poverty plays its role, but is certainly not the be-all in terms of the roots of crime.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, some of the consequences tend to be less street crime in terms of innocents being mugged, beaten, car-jacked, etc. Because the criminals know what to expect. However, the criminals commit violent crimes against each other, regardless of the strictness or laxness of the gun laws. They don't care about the gun laws, they care about protecting themself from their predatory ilk. Don't confuse the issue of crime against civilians with crime commited by crooks against crooks. That's not an argument for letting the fools kill each other off. But loosening the gun laws doesn't tend to increase violent crime. States that have eased up on concealed carry laws have NOT experienced increased crime as a result.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I think guns are an appropriate obsession for the Right. They have a phallic fascination and are about lethal power, so they are the perfect symbol of macho insecurity. The absurd idea that untrained, uncoordinated armed citizens are going to stop lone nuts or violent gangs is right up there in Libertarianworld adolescent psychology.

All this because the Founders did not want a Standing Army. But that never gets stated as the reason for anything by these warmongers.

DRC's picture
DRC
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes DRC, I agree there is something a bit machismo in gun ownership. I also believe too many Americans have a rather Hollywood(ish) attitude towards guns. In other words, only the "bad" guys will get killed.

I don't believe the gun laws will change in America. I suspect it's a Pandora's box, which once open can't be shut. I also expect that more and more of these heinous gun crimes will be committed as society continues to break down.

Are you safer if you can walk around with a semi-automatic weapon strapped to your hip? Perhaps? But when did the USA become such a place where we have absolutely no trust in our fellow citizens? What an awful place to raise children. It's really a mess.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

Are you safer if you can walk around with a semi-automatic weapon strapped to your hip? Perhaps? But when did the USA become such a place where we have absolutely no trust in our fellow citizens? What an awful place to raise children. It's really a mess.

Allowing people their right to walk around with guns is a huge display of trust. Taking the guns away because someone might do something you don't like is the sign of distrust. I would rather live in a society where people trust one another, than a nanny state where the citizen's are considered incapable of making sound dicisions.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Paleo-con:

Allowing people their right to walk around with guns is a huge display of trust. Taking the guns away because someone might do something you don't like is the sign of distrust. I would rather live in a society where people trust one another, than a nanny state where the citizen's are considered incapable of making sound dicisions.

That's why I don't live in the USA any longer. And am very happy to NOT be raising my son there.

Walking around with a gun is not a trust issue, its a fear issue. Why do you need a gun unless you fear the people around you? (BTW, if you are so trusting of your fellow American, does that mean you never lock your car doors or your house door?)

You see I don't like the idea that the man (or woman) standing in line in front of me at the store can legally have a semi automatic weapon strapped to his (her) hip. You call that "freedom". I call it barbaric. Give me the nanny state any day, if it comes without armed and nutty citizens.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
I would rather live in a society where people trust one another, than a nanny state where the citizen's are considered incapable of making sound dicisions.
It seems to me that the burgeoning prison industry tells us that our "nanny state" does not consider a sizable population capable of making sound decisions.

I think it's probably pointless to try to assign blame for this shooting beyond the person directly responsible. I have a terrible feeling that we are in a true civil war, and that this war is still just barely in the "words" stage. I also feel that a parallel with the NAZI regime is entirely appropriate.

Will the Jerod Laughners, the Timothy McVeighs, the Scott Raeders, the W.A.R. goofs, the Tom Metzker desciples usher in a new and viable cadre of Brown Shirts?

No doubt the Jews had some incendiary things to say about the Aryans, but they had no Brown Shirts. To pose an equivalency between the utterances of the Jews and the Aryans would be laughable. It would even be problematic to draw a clear direct link between the rhetoric of the Party leaders and the Brown Shirts.

I think we have reached a point where increased gun control laws would only make matters worse, exacerbating an already dangerous situation. I think these civil wars have a natural pattern of progression, and it may be too late to derail it. We may be at a point where the left has to recognize that a cooperative approach toward the right is equivalent to capitulation. Playing "nice" will not work.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote meljomur:

That's why I don't live in the USA any longer. And am very happy to NOT be raising my son there.

Interesting mel... You would prefer to raise your son in a country with a higher crime rate than the US because he might (gasp!!!) see a man legally carrying a gun. I am sure there must be some sort of logic going on with that thought, but trying to figure it out is making my head hurt.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

The UK does not have a higher crime rate than the US. Do you fellows really think just because you tell yourself something (or read it in your "highbrow" publications) it makes it true?

I swear if I didn't post on this MB, I would not believe the capacity of some men to be so easily manipulated.

I live in London (a city of 8 million people). I feel far safer walking around at night here then I ever did when I lived in Minneapolis (a city of 300,000). I am not worried about getting gunned down at my local shop.

You want to live amongst the armed and dangerous that is your choice, but don't attempt to spew some garbage that it makes you safer. Clearly it doesn't.

I expect these types of massacres to increase in America (especially as civil unrest increases, and guns are not controlled). I hate to say I told you so.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

mel, do you know what a fact check is? it takes less than a minute to find crime rates. I didn't know that Interpol and the United Nations web sites were "highbrow" publications; that is where I went for the statistics. Why would you deny something so easily proved and then accuse the other person of making things up? And then to ice your post with anti-male venom; did that make you feel better?

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
it takes less than a minute to find crime rates.
Why don't you show us these crime rates? It's customary for the presenter of a "fact" to provide a URL so that we can all see it. You shouldn't be making Mel do your work for you.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Art, your chivalry is commendable albeit misplaced. If one wished to scroll up to the original post, they would see mel wrote:"it is really that surprising when gun violence begins to escalate and take on a whole new dimension..." and offered no support for the statement; I am just following her president. As most of us are adults here, we do not need others to do our homework for us; especially for information as easy to find as crime rates. If it still proves too difficult, I have no problem stepping in with a link to help out.

I don't have a problem per se with posting links, as everyone has seen them on many of my post. The biggest problem with providing links is the partisan nature of readers on this site. People will always find what they are looking for; including facts to support their own position. Therefore, sites I provide are dismissed by liberals just like I dismiss liberal sites. The best way to circumvent that situation is to look up a fact before I post it, so I have a leg to stand on, then let others fact check against their own favorite sites.

The US versus GB crime rates is a prime example. I said the US has lower crime rates because I checked it out. And as you noticed, mel, who post a lot of links to prove her points, came back this time with something akin to "is not, and men are stupid" instead of a link to support her position.

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

So Paleo, I can conclude that you are not willing to provide a source. Now it's just a he-said, she-said thing. Fine. It's hard to take either side seriously. Personally, I did a perfunctory look at crime statistics at NationMaster. I guess the facts here are destined to remain one of those mysteries of the universe.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Thomas Sowell wrote in 2002 about gun control myths. In fact, that was the name of his article. He cites Professor Joyce Lee Malcolm of Bentley College and her research on the subject of gun control. They point out that "the rise of the intervensionist state in in early 20th century England included efforts to restrict ownership of guns." This in a country that experienced very little firearms violence. The increased gun restrictions did not restrict violent crime. Violent crime grew. A key point in this is that, as in the U.S., "drastic crackdowns on gun ownership by law-abiding citizens were accompanied by ever greater leniency to criminals. In both countries, this turned out to be a formula for disaster." After the latest English gun crackdown ('97 I believe it was), the violent crime rate rose even more. Currently, it is down but the rate fluctuates, as it does here. Violent crime is up for 2010, but that is partially affected by an approximate 46% jump in law enforcement officer deaths. To quote again, "In both countries, facts have no effect whatever on the dogmas of gun control zealots." Most guns used in crime are not legally purchased. Horrific gun crimes are used here and in England to beat the band for more gun control, while doing nothing about criminals. "American zealots for the Brady Bill say nothing about the fact that the man who shot James Brady and tried to assassinate President Reagan" ended up "walking the streets on furlough." When people want to get SERIOUS about crime re4duction, they'll undertake serious efforts to do so. That would include that prison is most certainly a big part of the answer. Longer range efforts are needed for our youth. Howver, in the present state of affairs where multi-convicted violent felons are paroled early (so as not to violate their constitutional right to not be overcrowded in jail) and then visit their violent selves on the innocents, it makes no sense to deprive the innocents of the means of security that the courts should provide, but don't.

cpp224's picture
cpp224
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

So Paleo, I can conclude that you are not willing to provide a source. Now it's just a he-said, she-said thing. Fine. It's hard to take either side seriously. Personally, I did a perfunctory look at crime statistics at NationMaster. I guess the facts here are destined to remain one of those mysteries of the universe.

Nope, wrong conclusion. This is far from a he said, she said thing. You yourself have not hesitated to post links that you feel counter my points. Yet, on this point you do not. By mentioning NationMaster, I can see that you did take the time to verify the facts, and I thank you for that. But like mel found out when she checked the facts, the facts did not fall in a line with the preconceived notion. Therefore, liberal doctrine was followed, and an attempt is being made to misdirect the topic away from crime rates in the US and UK and onto whether or not someone should post links. I don't blame anyone for trying as sometimes the truth hurts.

And just to show there are no hard feelings, I'll post your reference..

Total crimes (per capita) (most recent) by country

#6 United Kingdom 85.5517 per 1,000 people

#8 United States 80.0645 per 1,000 people

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Kinda neck-and-neck, but you win. The English seem slightly less honest than Americans.

Unfortunately, I wanted to find the stats for violent crimes, and the UK didn't even show up on the table. However, there was a pretty good comparison of murder rates (per capita).

USA .043 per 1,000

UK .014 per 1,000

I think we were discussing violent crimes, weren't we?

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm
Quote Art:

Kinda neck-and-neck, but you win. The English seem slightly less honest than Americans.

Unfortunately, I wanted to find the stats for violent crimes, and the UK didn't even show up on the table. However, there was a pretty good comparison of murder rates (per capita).

USA .043 per 1,000

UK .014 per 1,000

I think we were discussing violent crimes, weren't we?

Nope, just crime. I also tried to go the violent crime route, but the more I investigated, the more it made my head hurt. There doesn't seem to be any international standard for crime definition. For instance, if drug use is a crime in one country, but not in another, should an adjustment be made in the crime rate, and if favor of which country? If one country considers rape with a weapon a violent crime, while bare handed rape is not violent; and another country considers any rape violent, isn't the violent crime rate skewed? Some countries consider abortion a violent crime, some consider it legal. The disparities go on and on. Comparing country to country proved to be difficult at best, so I ended up using the easy term which was just "crime".

Paleo-con
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Well, yes. "Violent crimes" is probably a difficult category to get a handle on, although the list for "violent gun crimes" seems simple enough for a lot of countries. Just not England. So, it comes down to "where are the big numbers for 'crimes' in the UK coming from?" Stats for "assaults" really are neck and neck for USA and UK. Maybe if you give UK a little edge in drug crimes, terrorist acts and theft, you might come up with the slightly higher numbers for the UK in "crimes".

It seems you would have to consider that the dramatically lower numbers for "murder" in the UK might be attributable to England's very strict gun laws. The Brits like to beat each other up as much as Americans (maybe that's because of soccer fans), but they don't seem to be able to kill each other nearly as much.

Art's picture
Art
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Yes, how amazing that one can go to the internet and find exactly the stats they are looking for. It's truly stunning.

I know gun crime in the UK is almost non-existent. But spin away my little American friends, spin away. Doesn't change my opinion of which is a better, safer society in the least (UK). Even living in a city of 8 million.

Don't you folks ever get tired of having life be dictated to you by what you read online?

There is a world beyond the computer screen. Believe it or not in many parts of this great planet you don't even need a gun strapped to your hip to safely enjoy it.

meljomur's picture
meljomur
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

AKA The "Vermont Carry". Vermont allows residents and non-residents to carry unconcealed and concealed with out a permit. But its illegal to carry concealed or unconcealed into schools or governmental buildings or other places where the owner or manager forbids guns in the premisis. Seems like AZ is trying to follow VT. Not all of rural New England has the vermont carry, but all do enjoy a similar low crime rate. I believe one of the deciding factors is people here are less fearful of crime.

This issues has less to do with guns and gun control and more to do with the fear of harm. Example the state of Maine. Strangely, the new republican governer of Maine pleaged in his compaign to build more prisons to reduce crime. Maine only has one state prison and it runs at about 70% of its capacity and enjoys one of the lowest if not the lowest crime statistics in the nation. Now that he is in power, he is planing to outsource the management/operation of his new prison to the private sector. First he has to convince people here there is crime wave spreading through Maine. My guess is when the first homocide comes along, the local media will have wall to wall coverage and whole bunch of speacials in how to protect oneself.

shalwechat's picture
shalwechat
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I think NRA is missing the boat on the issue of high volume magazines. If you have to reload twice after unloading 10 shots to get the 30 rounds fired, wouldn't the shooter be more likely to buy 2 more guns with 10 rounds each. Reduce the ammo capacity and you sell more guns, more profit.

douglaslee's picture
douglaslee
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Permits and registration are nothing more than for the government to soak you for money for having a 2nd Amendment Right.

They have never stopped any crime and has been used for gun confiscation by fascist governments in the past.

Rebelitarian's picture
Rebelitarian
Joined:
Nov. 15, 2010 2:40 pm

<!-- @page { margin: 0.79in } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } -->

Vermont never required a CCW. The problem with Arizona is that there are a lot of scared people who normally would not buy a gun let alone carry it around town and Brewer is pandering to the really crazy people. That said, since our side pride itself by being logical and nuanced we should be consistent in all issues including guns. Fear mongering and moralizing is wrong not matter who it is. This includes emotionally loaded terms like assualt weapon (going by the real, technical definition they were effectively banned by the National Firearms Act of 1934) and Saturday night special, with its racist origins. This also includes knowing what the present laws are be they federal or local.

According to criminologists, gun laws have no effect on crime either way. Brady and Lott are both wrong. Not being rational and totally fact based pits rural progressives (like me) against urban progressives. It also pushes away people who would be on our side on economic and other issues. That is what the Grover Norqests in the world want their allies that make up the NRA leadership wants. Divide and conquer. That is one reason why NRA leadership is out of step with the vast majority of their own members and other gun owners. I think the best way to deal with it is have a committee made up of rational anti-gun people, law enforcement, rational pro-gun/shooting sports community review present laws and work out a system that works for the US. While we are at it, have some subject area experts look making the insta check system work better.

Some things could be something as simple giving ATF more money and manpower to enforce current federal law, to not only give timely advice to responsible dealers but also go after people at gun shows that are obviously engaged in business without a FFL (which is different than one time buy and trade). You could even have a system where someone with NCIC's phone number could do background checks for one time individual sales) gun show loophole filled. Estate sales and auctions? Make a rule that the gun collection can be consigned by FFL holder. That way, ensuring compliance with federal and local laws.

As for the large capacity pistol magazines, which I never saw until Ronnie's war on education and the middle class, this is what I would do: Amend the NFA 1934 to include pistol magazines to hold more than what the pistol was designed for be in the same category as silencers and pen guns. Give current owners time to register them and maybe waive the forms etc for current owners. If the sell or give them away or new sales, all NFA rules apply. I would write it by saying that no rounds or magazine spring can extend beyond the heal of the grip once the magazine is secured in the pistol. That would mean that my Mauser Hsc would be limited to seven rounds, the Glock 19 would be limited to something like ten or 13. Rifle box magazines, pick a number below 30. Since the M-1 Garand held eight so that sounds like a good number. Worked for our troops in WW2 and Korea, a real hunter can hit a deer with that many rounds. Or make it an even ten. Sarah Palin is the only I saw take more than one or two.

Canada's 15 year old law would have serious due process and 4th Admendmet problems here. I also think allowing 12 year olds to buy rifle ammunition would really be a bad idea here. I'm guessing we agree on that.

garyej's picture
garyej
Joined:
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Currently Chatting

Time to Rethink the War on Terror

Thom plus logo

When Eric Holder eventually steps down as Attorney General, he will leave behind a complicated legacy, some of it tragic, like his decision not to prosecute Wall Street after the financial crisis, and his all-out war on whistleblowers like Edward Snowden.

Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system