State-by-State Gun Laws

[DonTom]

And also, are you saying you're fine with illegal immigrants from Mexico having free access to the firearms market in America?

Talking about Mexico, they have very strict gun control laws.

It is already illegal for a non-US Citizen to own a gun in the USA. People used to check driver's licenses and ID cards before states had UBC laws. Now it's sanctuary areas (because cops do not like to enforce unconstitutional laws--it goes against their oath to the Constitution--the very highest law of all) or else it's now "no questions asked" in UBC areas.

Guns are very easy for criminals to get, just like illegal drugs are easy to get.

Stupid feel-good laws are not the answer in a country that already has more guns than people.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

because the "gun control" position is to ensure the seller is also legitimate,

Can you even prove the normal BGC works?

How much has gun related crime gone down since we first had BGCs in 1998?

Seems to me the more gun control laws we pass, the more gun related crime we have.

Most who do not pass the BGC it is for non-violent reasons.

Not only that, many with a perfectly clean record, such as with the Las Vegas mass shooter, could pass any BGC that anybody could come up with. What good did it do?

I cannot say I have a big issue with the normal BGC. It's the UBCs that are designed to harass the good guys only, not the normal BGC. But I am NOT convinced ANY BGC does any good, regardless of how many are refused the firearm.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

position is to ensure the seller is also legitimate,

If the seller knows he is not legitimate, why would he bother with the UBC? The UBC law is IMPOSSIBLE to enforce in a face-to-face gun sale. Just sell the gun as fast as you receive the money from the buyer wherever they have the UBC law.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Isaac-1]

Don I have to disagree with you there, UBC is a tool designed to have a complete list of gun owners, so when that day comes that they want to confiscate all the guns, they will know which doors to knock on. Just look at the current background check law as an example, when the law was passed there was a requirement that all electronic records of who bought when be destroyed after a certain amount of time, a requirement that the federal government has since ignored by getting around it on a technicality. They delete the record from the background check data base, but not before transferring the information into other databases, which they don't delete.

 

[DonTom]

The gun control position is to go to an FFL gun dealer pay them a fee to transfer the gun, and have them run the free to them background check.

It costs the FFL $25.00 to make the phone call for the BGC to the state, which checks the state records before they check with the feds. NV has a good normal BGC system where they check mental hospital records, very recent crimes (even very recent DUIs) and more. Stuff that may not yet be at the federal level. I have no issue with any of this, but the Las Vegas mass shooter had no problem passing all of it.

They do NOT have to make this phone call for CCW holders such as myself---Except for the NV UBC. The gun control people made sure there was no such exception for CCW holders on the UBC, which only proves they are out to harass the legal gun owners. So now almost every county in NV is a 2A Sanctuary. I wonder why . . .

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

Don I have to disagree with you there, UBC is a tool designed to have a complete list of gun owners,

Perhaps it can be used for such later, but I doubt anybody in government has such a plan at this time.

FWIW, a retired x-coworker of mine has a brother in Napa CA who is a cop. Cop was asked by his brother what he would do on an order to confiscate guns. He said he would turn in his badge ASAP.

Of course they will never get a "complete list". The UBC law is mostly ignored, even in CA. Many guns sold/traded in gun show parking lots, all no questions asked, unlike before their UBC law. They tell me the local cops know and do not care to try to enforce it. The CA cops have plenty of other things to do.

To think the feds will get a "complete list" of 400 million guns is ridiculous, IMAO.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Skookum]

So story us to death. I'm going to leave you to your circle jerk with the other gun nuts.

 

[DonTom]

I'm going to leave you to your circle jerk with the other gun nuts.

You decided you lost this debate already? I was just starting to get warmed up a little.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Skookum]

You decided you lost this debate already? I was just starting to get warmed up a little.

-Don- Reno, NV

Absolutely. Engaging wasn't a good use of my time, and now I'm certain it's a waste of time. Take your victory lap, whatever makes you feel good, man.

 

[DonTom]

now I'm certain it's a waste of time.

Nope. The loser in a debate learns the most. I have no doubt you learned a few things here.

But I am still not sure if it's enough to straighten you out on this issue.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[DonTom]

It is already illegal for a non-US Citizen to own a gun in the USA.

I need to correct that statement. If they have a residence in a state, they may legally buy a gun without being a US Citizen.

The form 4479 used to have a question about US citizenship and that was why I made an incorrect assumption. Since the last time I purchased a gun, the form has changed. Not sure if the law has on this issue. Since I am a US citizen, I had no reason to be concerned with this law.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Skookum]

Nope. The loser in a debate learns the most. I have no doubt you learned a few things here.

But I am still not sure if it's enough to straighten you out on this issue.

-Don- Reno, NV

That's the most disappointing part. I don't think I learned anything new. But such is usually the case when talking with people with such extreme viewpoints. There's no reasoning, and a lot of flat out lies.

 

[DonTom]

There's no reasoning, and a lot of flat out lies.

Who on the pro-gun side has said a "flat out lie" here?

I agree there is no reasoning with the gun control side. All they want is more and more useless laws and prevent anything useful from being done such as mentioned here.

At least that doesn't harass anybody, and most private gun sellers wouldn't mind doing such.

But instead, the gun control nutz cause the largest guns sales of all as well as more and more 2A sanctuary areas. What good is that doing?

I don't think many have an issue with doing the BGCs, it's the way they are done with the UBCs.

Nevertheless, I am not really and truly convinced any BGC really does anything useful, but I would still do the Isaac-1 method on a BGC and have no issue with doing such. It's a great idea, but that does NOT harass the gun nuts enough for the gun control nutz.

One thing I am sure of is that the gun control debate is NOT really about public safety. It's more political than anything else.

But with me, it's just common sense, has nothing to do with politics.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Oldgator73]

Nobody won or lost. Each side has their agenda and their opinions. The fact that gun ownership is enshrined into the Constitution makes an all out ban impossible. The problem lies in the interpretation of the 2nd amendment. Right now it’s pretty much stalemated at semiautomatic assault type weapons. Sure, we have a mental health problem. But so does the rest of the world. Nobody in this conversation has answer as to how to quell mass shootings. Thoughts and prayers.

 

[DonTom]

Nobody in this conversation has answer as to how to quell mass shootings.

I did, but it is also unconstitutional if forced.

If the news media would NOT mention the names and show the photos, or even better yet, not even mention a mass shooting happened, it would put an end to copycat crime. They can do this voluntary. But I realize this will not happen with a business that makes its profit by selling news of violence.

But at least put the blame where it belongs, copycat crime. That would be a great start to reduce the mass shootings, by not barking up the wrong tree and trying to fix every one of our problems with our legal system. People do NOT get arrested before the crime, it's after. You have to first break the law. I do not call that prevention, do you?

"The 1999 Columbine High School massacre inspired numerous copycat crimes,"

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Isaac-1]

While it may not be a perfect solution, my thoughts are a better solution than the current gun free zone system, would be to allow at least certain individuals to carry in these so called gun free zones, if there is not a strong police presence. That way there is a chance of someone being able to stop these rampage killers. Time and time again we see these rampage shooters choosing locations where they know everyone will be un-armed, and if there is police presence it is minimal. Take schools for example, thousands of students, and if you are lucky a single police "resource" officer, who is often either a new hire, or an older officer nearing retirement. Now sporting events in stadiums where alcohol is served with dozens of police officers on site at any given time during a game, I can see as being gun free zones. That same stadium on a random Tuesday morning, with no police presence it makes a lot less sense.

 

[DonTom]

The fact that gun ownership is enshrined into the Constitution makes an all out ban impossible.

Nope, only difficult. There is a procedure to change anything in the US Constitution. Very difficult, but very difficult for good reasons. But still possible.

In fact, there is a good example. Countless problems caused by booze in this country, kills a lot more people than by all firearms combined.

So we pass the 18th amendment to make booze illegal. So what happened? Serious crime, such as murder, went sky high with that feel-good law. It caused such a mess we had to pass the 21th amendment to cancel the 18th so the murder rate would drop. The ONLY amendment that we had to cancel with another so far.

We can do the same with the 2nd amendment with a 28th amendment. And after that causes countless problems, we can pass the 29th amendment so people can again have firearms for defense.

However, there is one more issue. Most states have gun rights mentioned in their state Constitutions. So getting rid of the 2nd does little good.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Oldgator73]

Nope, only difficult. There is a procedure to change anything in the US Constitution. Very difficult, but very difficult for good reasons. But still possible.

I think you just like to hear yourself talk or in this case see your thoughts in print.

 

[DonTom]

I think you just like to hear yourself talk or in this case see your thoughts in print.

Then here are some thoughts from Canada on their very strict gun control laws.

-Don- Reno, NV

 

[Oldgator73]

Then here are some thoughts from Canada on their very strict gun control laws.

-Don- Reno, NV

So by your train of thought there shouldn’t be any gun laws at all. Folks can purchase whatever the gun manufacturers can think up. Thought and prayers.