ChrisA
Member
Senior Forumite
Posts: 1,240
|
Post by ChrisA on Jul 26, 2018 17:31:49 GMT
You cannot just walk into a Walmart and buy a gun without processing. Here in Virginia: How to Buy a Firearm in Virginia Determine the firearm you want to purchase. The Virginia age requirement for purchase of handguns is 21, and 18 for rifles and shotguns. Discuss your firearm selection with the dealer and provide 2 proofs of identity. •The main proof of identity must be an unexpired vehicle operator's license with photo or any other identification that has been provided by the government. •The ancillary means of identification must match the identity of the person that appears on the photo ID. An example of an acceptable ancillary form of ID is a current passport, a utility bill, or a current voter registration card. Agree to a background check by signing the necessary consent form. Pay a small processing fee if you are a Virginia resident. The fee is slightly higher for out-of-state residents. Wait for the dealer to enter your information in the computerized National Instant Background Check System (NICS). If the dealer does not have access to the Internet, the dealer will call NICS directly. NICS will investigate your criminal history (if any) by accessing state and national criminal databases. If approved, the purchase of the firearm will be completed. If you do not receive approval, the purchase will be delayed until further review of your profile. Bill,
(Per my friends) New York (outside of NYC) is very similar, but we only need one form of ID and we do not have to pay a processing fee.
Of course, to get a pistol requires a permit, which takes about a year to eighteen months (here on Long Island) and a forfeit of your right to due process and privacy.
|
|
|
Post by William Swiger on Jul 26, 2018 18:04:57 GMT
The only loophole I am aware of is if you sell a firearm privately to another person. In VA you have to verify age and do a bill of sale with the persons taxpayer identification number, address, drivers license number. gun make/model/serial number and other information. You both keep a copy for your records. That is the only way in my state someone who might not be allowed to buy one at a store could get one other than stealing one.
Honestly though, most private sales are to family and friends and not strangers. Most people would just place their firearm on commission at their local dealer which I have done a few times. People buying it there have to go through the total process.
Different States will have different laws on private sales.
|
|
|
Post by Adrian Jordan on Jul 26, 2018 21:43:12 GMT
Here in CA you have to go through an FFA licensed dealer to conduct even private individual sales. You have to do the same when gifting a firearm to a family member. Our process as per the last time I purchased a rifle(Henry .22), which was about two years ago, went thusly: Go to FFA licensed dealer. Provide photo ID and proof of address. Take written exam outlining gun safety. Take physical exam with firearm to prove you are aware of safe gun laws and handling. Submit to DOJ screening($25) Grounds for denial are history of mental illness, history of physical or drug violence, any felony crime or crime involving drugs, having a medical marijuana card. There were several more, but that's all that I have off the top of my head, and more have been added since then. Pay store price plus CA sales tax(usually between 8.25 and 8.75%) as well as a small fee if you don't already have a gun license. Wait mandatory 10 day "cool off" period. If in that period you run afoul of any of the prior listed reasons for denial you will be denied and not be able to pick up your firearm. You must provide a DOA approved lock for firearm when you show up to take it home should one not be provided by the manufacturer. If you fail to do so you will have to wait until you can to take your firearm home.
Only legal CA state residents can purchase a firearm in CA. You cannot buy a firearm at a physical store outside of CA. You can buy one online, but it must be delivered to an FFA in CA and you must provide usual proof of residence and proof of ownership of gun license, as well as pay "handling" charges to FFA dealer. If this is your first firearm, you must submit to the full process detailed above. A private citizen cannot legally take a firearm into another state, nor can a resident of another state legally bring one into CA. I imagine there are ways to legally get around this for certain people, but I'm only referring to private citizens.
|
|
|
Post by RufusScorpius on Jul 26, 2018 22:31:58 GMT
Looking at the issue in a broad sense, banning the tool does nothing but encourage a person to use another tool. What is never discussed is the intent of the person doing the harm.
Look at England. They banned guns so effectively that now they have the need to ban knives. Why? Why didn't the gun ban stop the killings? Wasn't that the intent of the law: ban the guns and the killing will stop? As if the gun does the killing on it's own. Banning guns didn't solve the problem that the law was created to do. No. It's the human that does the killing, the weapon is only the tool.
Punishing the law abiding for the misdeeds of the criminals only serves to create more criminals. For example, if I legally owned a certain weapon today, I am law abiding. If it's banned tomorrow, I become a criminal through no action or intent of my own. Whereas, on the other hand, if I was a criminal with an illegal weapon today, then I will still be who I am tomorrow no matter what laws are passed. Instead of reducing the number of criminals, the ban simply made more of them.
Society needs to look at the "why" of criminal behavior, not simply focus on the tools used to commit it and hope that is good enough to change human nature. Only then will we be able to manage the violence in our society.
|
|
|
Post by Croccifixio on Jul 27, 2018 6:54:43 GMT
Ease of use is a valid point I think, but not so much for homicides. Blades are equally efficient at killing when it’s done with the element of surprise or against unarmed people, and usually are the preferred weapon in developing countries and countries with strict gun laws (most asian countries come to mind, with soaring knife crime rates). If you were to ask me which country would I deem safer, the UK or the USA, I’d probably say the USA mostly because the ratio of gun crime isn’t nearly as high as the UK’s knife crime ratio. You all know of England’s supposed knife problem (London is particularly problematic at 137 knife crimes per 100,000 population). Assume for a moment that the only regulation that exists is a total ban on guns (and assume that it actually works). You would have me defend myself and my family from someone using a knife, who will likely ambush me, with my bare fists? Or hey even if I bring my own knife for defense, I’ll be getting into a knife to knife close quarters fight with a hardened criminal? I do a lot of knife vs knife training and I’m telling you, no one wins in a knife fight. So I much prefer having the ability to carry a tool that can more quickly end a fight from a safe distance. Besides, if the guy doesn’t want me dead, I’m less likely to get shot than stabbed (even gun control advocates will admit that amp.businessinsider.com/images/5a860c28d0307219008b45d4-750-872.png). So for violent crime, I’d say knives lead guns worldwide because they are less restricted, easily hidden, and encourage more physical contact between criminal and victim. Heck if it’s ease of killing, cars are far more efficient (and in fact, more dangerous and fatal). The bigger problem relating to guns in my book is the ease of suicide, which also directly relates to mental illness. And that, in my view, is the issue the US must face. They far and away lead suicide by gun stats, and that’s troubling. While suicide rates are overall higher in asian countries, their lead is significantly reduced by the USA’s free access to firearms. It’s a more complex problem that isn’t as strongly pushed for solving by both left, right, center, and everything in between. I agree with you completely that knife crime is higher around the world, mainly due to strict gun laws in Eastern societies. I also agree that it's harder to defend against a knife attack either bare-handed or with a knife instead of a gun. That's compounded when you consider the frequency of younger, armed criminals seeking to rob/harm an older person, with much less strength and reaction time. For many, a lightweight small/medium caliber handgun is their only effective means of defense after arthritis and age catch up to them.
I disagree with the suicide comment though. Just a few months ago, a relative of a relative was placed on a psychiatric hold because he threatened to kill himself. They confiscated the guns in his home and within a few days of being released, he hung himself. I don't say this to upset anyone on here and if I have, I'm sorry for that. I'm just saying that if someone wants to kill themselves, in my experience, they will. I think the statistics behind guns as a means of suicide is just a byproduct of their availability. Again, we can look to Eastern cultures where guns are rare, but suicide is high by many other means. The issue is mental illness, not the tools used.
I agree that truly suicidal people will find another way to kill themselves (easiest is hanging, but also OD, CO2 poisoning, etc.). That's why Japan and Korea - countries where it's nearly impossible to buy a gun - have the highest suicide rates. What I meant was that guns make the execution of the suicide itself relatively easy and mostly final. One of my first cases dealt with the son of my godfather by marriage who had tried to kill himself twice in the past due to debt (I lawyered for him against the bank, but the case isn't important for this discussion). Twice, he tried to overdose. Twice, he was saved by family. And both instances, he regretted the attempt tremendously, to the point that during his second attempt, he was trying to open the door of his room that he had locked (but failed to do so) and was only really saved because his sister left her car keys in his room and went back for it. If he had access to a gun (and thankfully he did not, although his father owned a handgun), there would have been no second chance. It's pretty rare for suicides by gun to be unsuccessful. Of course, the gun is not to blame for any of this, in the same way that a belt or rope is not to blame for those who commit suicide by hanging, but the ease by which you die overrides the "chances" given you through other means of suicide. It's sad to think how many young people, in their final few moments of consciousness, regretted pulling the trigger to end their lives. The solution is not to ban guns of course, but to ensure compliance with whatever restriction of access to firearms is in place for those with mental issues. This could be aimed less at the mentally ill person but more to their guardians who will likely be the actual owners of the firearms in the first place. Mandating the purchase of very good gun safes that can only be opened by select individuals, for instance might curb gun suicide rate. It will push up other forms of suicide, but that's better in my book because there's more room for intervention in those instances. But again, that's a far different issue from the one at hand, which is a ban on weapons due to human criminal intent. In any case, it still makes no sense to me how banning weapons (be it guns or knives) will deter criminals, because by definition, they are wired or have convinced themselves that the law is not something they should follow. And while the state having some means of regulation is something I agree with, prohibition is not the logical solution. From the point of view of law, regulatory legislation is there to restrict the abuse of a right but not the exercise of the right itself, in which case it comes down to a matter of contextual restrictions (such as mental health checks, drug tests, background checks, proficiency checks, age limits, privacy waivers, etc.).
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 10, 2018 15:37:34 GMT
A lot of Americans seem to be concerned about Canadian politics, I can't help but notice. Will I be banned for criticizing American politics? I don't care for our desire to up our gun control after an isolated incident, but we can always compare the number of mass shootings if ya want I also notice the mods only step in once trump it criticized, but will leave the thread going as long as possible if its against the left. No politics my *ss Sorry, but have to call BS on that. I got a warning for supporting Trump.
Jul 26, 2018 7:28:28 GMT -7 elbrittania39 said:
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 10, 2018 16:09:17 GMT
I think stupid is pretty accurate. There are other words to use as well, but I like stupid.
Because a tool is more efficient at a task, does not make the misuse of it the tool's fault. A soldier with a job to do hardly equates to a serial killer. The issue is with the user, not the efficiency of the tool.
Of course this does not mean there should not be controls in place to keep firearms out of the hands of the wrong people, but controls must be in place to allow the right people to own them. Right people, of course, means law abiding citizens.
And since this bit of logic is lost with many politicians, the media, and many of the rank and file of the population, I consider them stupid.
And for the record, I am a non-gun owning New Yorker, but I support the second amendment (as well as the other amendments).
Im not sure killing with a gun counts as misuse. Thats the primary function of a gun after all. Also the "everyone is stupid but me" mentality is a great way to perpetuate a debate without swaying anybody. Both sides should be able to see the points of the other side even if they dont value those points as highly. For example, I can appreciate that current gun laws in America do provide high levels of personal freedoms, while also personally placing a higher value on public safety and new regulations that can foster it. The primary function of a gun is not killing. The primary function of a gun is to fire a projectile. What you're aiming at determines if the shot is fatal, injurious or just punching a hole in paper. To say that the primary function of a gun is to kill is like saying the primary function of a spoon is to make someone fat. A gun can kill, yes, if it is misused.. A spoon can make someone fat, yes, if it is misused.
Is a gun a weapon? Sure. Is shooting a gun a way to pass-time, peacefully, safely and responsibly? Sure. Do I really expect to change the opinion of anyone here who doesn't see guns in the same light I do? Not really.
Guns frighten a lot of people. Some people I have seen firsthand are so reactionary to guns that they don't even want to be in the same room as a gun.
Guns disgust other people who have no fear of them, and cannot see why we need them. Consider this though, if you live in the US, Canada or Mexico, you live on land that was secured by the sword and/or the gun.
This being a sword forum, a lot of our collective history was dictated by the edge of the sword and we discuss that time sometimes romantically, sometimes with amazement, etc. As we evolve, so do the weapons. These days, the gun has replaced the sword as a currently used and common weapon.
Weapons have and will always be part and parcel to the forward movement of mankind. Like it or not. Weapons are here to stay. No amount of political pressure, no amount of public outcry or feigned or real disgust will ever change that. Humans are killers, consumers of the dead and builders upon the ruination of their victims. It is just our way. Nearly every society on the planet today was built upon a conquered people at some point.
Point is, don't blame the weapon one chooses to express their humanity or lack thereof. I own several guns and swords, and knives, and axes. I even have a slingshot somewhere. None of them have ever been used to kill anything other than my bank account. Even in countries where guns are not allowed there is violence. People everywhere use anything they can to kill each other. Guns are certainly more efficient at it, but in the end, they are just things that have absolutely no will of their own.
|
|
|
Post by nerdthenord on Aug 10, 2018 16:33:46 GMT
While I agree that it is usually the person behind the gun and not the gun that kills people, saying the purpose of a gun isn't to kill is just arguing semantics. Its like saying a sword doesn't kill someone, it just slices through their flesh and bone and they somehow end up dead. Lets be completely honest: The primary purpose of a gun is to kill things, with a secondary purpose being target shooting. A gun is not meant to wound, it is meant to kill. There is no such thing as a non-lethal shot. Anywhere you hit someone has a good chance of killing them. Swords, guns, maces, polearms, it doesn't matter. They are all weapons designed to kill things, not wound them or scare them. As for a scientific reason for man's violence towards man, there are two personality types that are considered by sociologists to be the most destructive. The authoritarian personality type, which is basically the old fashioned father personality, where the authority figure has absolute power and demands absolute respect, and is never ever wrong. He can do anything he wants, but when someone else does something he doesn't like, he goes ballistic. This trait is the most dangerous bully personality type and is disturbingly common among police officers. The second personality type is the Manichean personality type, which simply views everything in a self centered black and white morality. If anyone is even remotely different than they are, then they are pure evil. This is what drives religious extremists, at least the ones who actually believe their own crap and aren't in it for money and power.
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 10, 2018 17:18:17 GMT
While I agree that it is usually the person behind the gun and not the gun that kills people, saying the purpose of a gun isn't to kill is just arguing semantics. Its like saying a sword doesn't kill someone, it just slices through their flesh and bone and they somehow end up dead. Lets be completely honest: The primary purpose of a gun is to kill things, with a secondary purpose being target shooting. A gun is not meant to wound, it is meant to kill. There is no such thing as a non-lethal shot. Anywhere you hit someone has a good chance of killing them. Swords, guns, maces, polearms, it doesn't matter. They are all weapons designed to kill things, not wound them or scare them. As for a scientific reason for man's violence towards man, there are two personality types that are considered by sociologists to be the most destructive. The authoritarian personality type, which is basically the old fashioned father personality, where the authority figure has absolute power and demands absolute respect, and is never ever wrong. He can do anything he wants, but when someone else does something he doesn't like, he goes ballistic. This trait is the most dangerous bully personality type and is disturbingly common among police officers. The second personality type is the Manichean personality type, which simply views everything in a self centered black and white morality. If anyone is even remotely different than they are, then they are pure evil. This is what drives religious extremists, at least the ones who actually believe their own crap and aren't in it for money and power. I appreciate your well written response. I do have to disagree with on the primary purpose of the gun, though. The primary purpose of the gun, other than firing a projectile, is decided by the user. The Marine Corps taught us "Aim to maim." One wounded combatant takes up to three more off the battlefield. In that light, the purpose of the gun is absolutely not to kill, but to wound, and therefore end a conflict faster by depleting the enemies resources. Keep in mind we are talking about the United States Marine Corps, still widely held as one of the finest fighting forces in the world. Our purpose was to win a conflict. Our purpose was not to kill indiscriminately, despite what Hollywood and a few Drill Instructors might say. Those that do kill indiscriminately end up in the brig, just ask William Calley.
In that light, it could be said that the ultimate purpose of any weapon is in enforce one's will on others. There are many non-lethal shots, equally, there are just as many lethal shots. The mace was designed to defeat plate armor, just as thrusting swords. Where you smash someone or thrust into someone may just hold sway on the lethality of the blow. These days, watching police dump full magazines into perpetrators, it is easy to believe that the purpose of their guns is to kill. And if that is their objective, and by the video evidence it seems to be, then they are efficient in meting out death.
To chalk it up to semantics is to deny that men have the ability to think for themselves. Many battles and/or conflicts have been decided by the perception of military might, with nary a shot fired. The purpose of those weapons was not to kill, but rather to impress upon the enemy to ability to do so if the wielders so decided. Or, to enforce their will.
As far as the psychology goes, I agree with you about how that personality type is disturbingly common among police officers. But on the other hand, I have never been a police officer so I have no firsthand experience doing that day in an day out. It may be that the day-in day-out of the job creates that personality in some of them.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 18:11:16 GMT
A hunter shoots to kill the prey, not maim the prey. I think we are beyond simple semantics here and have entered bantering about ideology. One can dig a hole using either guns or spoons. In all humor youse guys being silly
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 10, 2018 19:37:50 GMT
While I agree that it is usually the person behind the gun and not the gun that kills people, saying the purpose of a gun isn't to kill is just arguing semantics. Its like saying a sword doesn't kill someone, it just slices through their flesh and bone and they somehow end up dead. Lets be completely honest: The primary purpose of a gun is to kill things, with a secondary purpose being target shooting. A gun is not meant to wound, it is meant to kill. There is no such thing as a non-lethal shot. Anywhere you hit someone has a good chance of killing them. Swords, guns, maces, polearms, it doesn't matter. They are all weapons designed to kill things, not wound them or scare them. As for a scientific reason for man's violence towards man, there are two personality types that are considered by sociologists to be the most destructive. The authoritarian personality type, which is basically the old fashioned father personality, where the authority figure has absolute power and demands absolute respect, and is never ever wrong. He can do anything he wants, but when someone else does something he doesn't like, he goes ballistic. This trait is the most dangerous bully personality type and is disturbingly common among police officers. The second personality type is the Manichean personality type, which simply views everything in a self centered black and white morality. If anyone is even remotely different than they are, then they are pure evil. This is what drives religious extremists, at least the ones who actually believe their own crap and aren't in it for money and power. Defense wise, the gun is used to INCAPACITATE (stop) the threat as quickly as possible, NOT kill. Death is actually quite a negative consequence, legally (for obvious reasons) and psychologically, as you would have to live with taking a human life no matter how justified in your reasons for having used the gun (or knife, hammer, bare hands, etc...).
|
|
|
Post by nerdthenord on Aug 10, 2018 20:07:43 GMT
While I agree that it is usually the person behind the gun and not the gun that kills people, saying the purpose of a gun isn't to kill is just arguing semantics. Its like saying a sword doesn't kill someone, it just slices through their flesh and bone and they somehow end up dead. Lets be completely honest: The primary purpose of a gun is to kill things, with a secondary purpose being target shooting. A gun is not meant to wound, it is meant to kill. There is no such thing as a non-lethal shot. Anywhere you hit someone has a good chance of killing them. Swords, guns, maces, polearms, it doesn't matter. They are all weapons designed to kill things, not wound them or scare them. As for a scientific reason for man's violence towards man, there are two personality types that are considered by sociologists to be the most destructive. The authoritarian personality type, which is basically the old fashioned father personality, where the authority figure has absolute power and demands absolute respect, and is never ever wrong. He can do anything he wants, but when someone else does something he doesn't like, he goes ballistic. This trait is the most dangerous bully personality type and is disturbingly common among police officers. The second personality type is the Manichean personality type, which simply views everything in a self centered black and white morality. If anyone is even remotely different than they are, then they are pure evil. This is what drives religious extremists, at least the ones who actually believe their own crap and aren't in it for money and power. Defense wise, the gun is used to INCAPACITATE (stop) the threat as quickly as possible, NOT kill. Death is actually quite a negative consequence, legally (for obvious reasons) and psychologically, as you would have to live with taking a human life no matter how justified in your reasons for having used the gun (or knife, hammer, bare hands, etc...). That's legal semantics, not hard facts. Guns are deadly. If you aim at someone, you intend to shoot them. if you shoot someone, you should expect them to die. There is no such thing as a purely non-lethal weapon. If you use a weapon on someone, any weapon, you should be prepared for them to die. Tasers, Rubber bullets, tear gas, clubs, nightsticks, all of these weapons can and have killed people. Another key point is that in a real combat situation, NEVER try and do a "Non-lethal" trick shot. You stand a good chance of missing the bad guy and killing a bystander. In truth, there are places you can be shot that are more likely to kill you than others, but there isn't a single "safe" spot to get shot in the entire human body. You get shot in the hand? Major blood loss and shock. Get shot in the thigh? You just broke one of the largest blood vessels in the body, and may be dead in minutes. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, and I'm not at all saying you said this, but it always frustrates me when people think that you can shoot someone at close range and expect them to live. There was even an incident a few years back in my city where some gangbangers shot each other with .22 Saturday night specials and the one that was hit died from a single gunshot from a cheap .22.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,759
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 10, 2018 20:10:17 GMT
It's not the nuke that kills a city, it's the man. Free nukes for free men!
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 10, 2018 20:18:48 GMT
A hunter shoots to kill the prey, not maim the prey. I think we are beyond simple semantics here and have entered bantering about ideology. One can dig a hole using either guns or spoons. In all humor youse guys being silly A hunter shoots to kill an animal. A police officer shoots to kill a criminal. A battlefield infantryman shoots to maim the enemy. A marksman shoots paper.
Same tool. 4 completely separate purposes.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 20:22:34 GMT
A hunter shoots to kill the prey, not maim the prey. I think we are beyond simple semantics here and have entered bantering about ideology. One can dig a hole using either guns or spoons. In all humor youse guys being silly A hunter shoots to kill an animal. A police officer shoots to kill a criminal. A battlefield infantryman shoots to maim the enemy. A marksman shoots paper.
Same tool. 4 completely separate purposes.
aka ideologies
|
|
|
Post by solaris on Aug 10, 2018 20:37:50 GMT
A hunter shoots to kill an animal. A police officer shoots to kill a criminal. A battlefield infantryman shoots to maim the enemy. A marksman shoots paper.
Same tool. 4 completely separate purposes.
aka ideologies Semantics!
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 10, 2018 20:40:04 GMT
Defense wise, the gun is used to INCAPACITATE (stop) the threat as quickly as possible, NOT kill. Death is actually quite a negative consequence, legally (for obvious reasons) and psychologically, as you would have to live with taking a human life no matter how justified in your reasons for having used the gun (or knife, hammer, bare hands, etc...). That's legal semantics, not hard facts. Guns are deadly. If you aim at someone, you intend to shoot them. if you shoot someone, you should expect them to die. There is no such thing as a purely non-lethal weapon. If you use a weapon on someone, any weapon, you should be prepared for them to die. Tasers, Rubber bullets, tear gas, clubs, nightsticks, all of these weapons can and have killed people. Another key point is that in a real combat situation, NEVER try and do a "Non-lethal" trick shot. You stand a good chance of missing the bad guy and killing a bystander. In truth, there are places you can be shot that are more likely to kill you than others, but there isn't a single "safe" spot to get shot in the entire human body. You get shot in the hand? Major blood loss and shock. Get shot in the thigh? You just broke one of the largest blood vessels in the body, and may be dead in minutes. I'm not trying to be rude or anything, and I'm not at all saying you said this, but it always frustrates me when people think that you can shoot someone at close range and expect them to live. There was even an incident a few years back in my city where some gangbangers shot each other with .22 Saturday night specials and the one that was hit died from a single gunshot from a cheap .22. No human on Earth would say firearms aren't potentially deadly. They (guns) are an awesome responsibility that cannot be taken lightly, so I understand your respect of their great power. I have a firearm in my home to as quickly INCAPACITATE (stop) the threat as possible if the trigger must be pulled. Firearms are effective defensive tools, which is why many folks own them. Death is a regrettable potential consequence of center mass shot placement, but not the goal and reason for use of the weapon. In fact, if brandishing of the weapon made the bad guy run off...all the better. Many criminals have survived being shot by police, citizens only to receive extended stays in the "Grey Bar Hotel".
|
|
|
Post by howler on Aug 10, 2018 20:48:49 GMT
It's not the nuke that kills a city, it's the man. Free nukes for free men! I believe items beyond semiauto firearms are classified as "dangerous devices" and thus (obviously) highly regulated and controlled. There will always be eternal friction and debate as to how much power the individual should wield vs the state/collective. "Is that a 20 megaton bomb in your pants or are you just happy to see me". Gulp, drink.
|
|
AndiTheBarvarian
Member
Bavarianbarbarian - Semper Semprini
Posts: 9,759
Member is Online
|
Post by AndiTheBarvarian on Aug 10, 2018 20:53:22 GMT
So semiauto firearms are no dangerous device?
(sip)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 10, 2018 20:55:02 GMT
At any rate...........
RI is the littlest big state in this here USA and the regulations fairly straightforward. Rather than quote chapter and verse, I'll say simply that all of the US states and jurisdictions are not by any means equal. Even in RI, there are differences by locality. Some parts of the state allow open carry, some cities almost impossible to get an LTC. I grew up in several pro gun states in the US and the general safety guidelines often mentioned to not point a gun at anything you weren't ready to kill.
By and large here, aside from age. Rifles require a seven day background check, no registration of the arms. Pistols (including black powder) a fifty question safety test, then the same seven day wait for background checks (not just the once) and again, no registration of the firearm. Mailorders bust be processed through an FFL. Airguns are not listed as firearms. Typical transport laws. Unloaded and secured (including no loaded magazines) unless holding an ltc. Transport for proper uses (range, hunting) and sales/repair, etc. License to carry in RI is generally "shall issue" in most cities and towns here. Providence and I believe Warwick must go through the state attorney's office but the local police chief processes other district's applications. This has changed in that it used to be a state wide regulation to process all ltc applications through the state attorney's office. One must range qualify with the largest caliber expected to carry. No capacity limits. Castle law somewhat recently enacted here.
Compare to Massachusetts just over yonder. Must retreat, darn difficult and expensive to get an ltc. Limited capacity self loaders.
|
|