Its always in the news about how easy it is to get a handgun in the USA i try to explain that most of the states have different laws when it comes to gun law and its easier in some states than others. Is it right that in some states there is a limit on magazine capacity for handguns. ?
Gun Laws in America.
- Thread starter manta49
- Start date
sigcurious
New member
Correct, individual states and municipalities have the ability to set their own rules. The restrictions are also not only limited to handguns but oft times apply all guns.
lee n. field
New member
Yes. California is what comes right to mind. 10 round limit. Other states, some of them, have other limits.
You are right. It's all over the board on handgun rights in the United State.
Some municipalities. It depends on if the state had a firearms "preemption" law or not, whether cities have the right to do that.
Last edited:
Many of our gun laws are up to the elected officials of those individual states. If the people of a particular state don't agree with the gun laws the state elected official supports then its up to the people of that state to show up at the election polls during election time and get that official voted out.
moose_nukelz
New member
California has some of the most, if not the most restrictive gun laws in the country. Fortunately for me my job gives me a nice exemption...
Well, I guess it's fair.
We vote our elected officials into office, and they set the rules by which we live. If we don't like the rules, then we better vote for someone else.
The majority rules, whatever the case may be. Mostly, you'll find things getting better as you go west. There are exceptions, of course.
But I like Az's gun laws just fine.
Daryl
We vote our elected officials into office, and they set the rules by which we live. If we don't like the rules, then we better vote for someone else.
The majority rules, whatever the case may be. Mostly, you'll find things getting better as you go west. There are exceptions, of course.
But I like Az's gun laws just fine.
Daryl
Not only magazine capacity, but what makes & models are restricted in some states also.
Its a complete mish-mash of contradictory rules at local, county, state & federal levels that sometimes you are in violation of one rule to comply with another.
Here some rifles are legally pistols for administrative purposes for example.
Its a complete mish-mash of contradictory rules at local, county, state & federal levels that sometimes you are in violation of one rule to comply with another.
Here some rifles are legally pistols for administrative purposes for example.
manta49;
The United States of America is set up a bit different than the rest of the world. Note the word “state” in the name.
The true and historical meaning of a state is that it is a geo-political entity with no higher secular authority. It is sovereign. France is a state. Italy is a state. Spain is a state. That’s why we call the ruler of these, elected or by decree or by heritage, a Head of State.
Some countries call their political divisions states: Mexico, Brazil, even Australia which is not itself a state calls its divisions states. This is not correct. Canada calls its divisions provinces which is more correct, but even that is a bit iffy because Canada itself is an autonomous territory of England and might more correctly be called a province.
Our Declaration of Independence did not create the USA. Our Constitution did not create the USA. We have only one document which created us: The Articles of Confederation. Without that the USA does not have a name, does not have defined boundaries, has no explanation of what it is, and does not even exist.
The Articles of Confederation declares in its title that it is an agreement between states. It also declares that each state shall retain its freedom, independence, and sovereignty. It was this declaration which allowed our Southern States to secede from the Union and which the Union ignored to start our States War; referred to by the Union as a civil war, which it wasn’t. The only civil war we’ve had was the American Revolution.
However, the Articles of Confederation gives our states more power than that held by other political divisions of most countries; and there’s the rub. Our states, supposedly, can make their own laws as long as these do not violate the Constitution. Yeah, right. Well, almost every state has violated the Constitution and it’s a hard task to get back the freedoms our Founding Fathers gave us.
Through the first half of the twentieth century we kept loosing more and more freedoms as “bad laws for a good reason” were enacted. The National Rifle Association (NRA) helped do this by its attitude that guns should be for sporting only. It took the Cincinnati Revolution to turn around the NRA and it’s now fighting to reverse what it helped cause. (The Cincinnati Revolution was when the old bosses got kicked out and a new bunch took over.)
The words of our Second Amendment “shall not be infringed” means that not only shall our gun rights not be changed but legislation shall not even get close to changing these.
We’re slowly getting our rights back and it’s at least changed from “One step forward and two back.” to “Two steps forward and one back.”.
Now for your question (after my long rant about history):
No, it isn’t right because “shall not be infringed” means the same thing today as it meant back then and regulating anything about the armaments of our citizens is infringement.
The United States of America is set up a bit different than the rest of the world. Note the word “state” in the name.
The true and historical meaning of a state is that it is a geo-political entity with no higher secular authority. It is sovereign. France is a state. Italy is a state. Spain is a state. That’s why we call the ruler of these, elected or by decree or by heritage, a Head of State.
Some countries call their political divisions states: Mexico, Brazil, even Australia which is not itself a state calls its divisions states. This is not correct. Canada calls its divisions provinces which is more correct, but even that is a bit iffy because Canada itself is an autonomous territory of England and might more correctly be called a province.
Our Declaration of Independence did not create the USA. Our Constitution did not create the USA. We have only one document which created us: The Articles of Confederation. Without that the USA does not have a name, does not have defined boundaries, has no explanation of what it is, and does not even exist.
The Articles of Confederation declares in its title that it is an agreement between states. It also declares that each state shall retain its freedom, independence, and sovereignty. It was this declaration which allowed our Southern States to secede from the Union and which the Union ignored to start our States War; referred to by the Union as a civil war, which it wasn’t. The only civil war we’ve had was the American Revolution.
However, the Articles of Confederation gives our states more power than that held by other political divisions of most countries; and there’s the rub. Our states, supposedly, can make their own laws as long as these do not violate the Constitution. Yeah, right. Well, almost every state has violated the Constitution and it’s a hard task to get back the freedoms our Founding Fathers gave us.
Through the first half of the twentieth century we kept loosing more and more freedoms as “bad laws for a good reason” were enacted. The National Rifle Association (NRA) helped do this by its attitude that guns should be for sporting only. It took the Cincinnati Revolution to turn around the NRA and it’s now fighting to reverse what it helped cause. (The Cincinnati Revolution was when the old bosses got kicked out and a new bunch took over.)
The words of our Second Amendment “shall not be infringed” means that not only shall our gun rights not be changed but legislation shall not even get close to changing these.
We’re slowly getting our rights back and it’s at least changed from “One step forward and two back.” to “Two steps forward and one back.”.
Now for your question (after my long rant about history):
No, it isn’t right because “shall not be infringed” means the same thing today as it meant back then and regulating anything about the armaments of our citizens is infringement.
Great point
Consider the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Colt cannot sell a new firearm here. They have decided that MA laws are so vague and contradictory that they will not submit firearms for MA testing- they purposefully avoid the issue because they feel that MA laws are designed to be, well, vague and contradictory. So MA prohibits the sale of these untested and therefore "unsafe" firearms
But I can buy a used Colt that's been here and registered before a certain date that's had 30 years of home gunsmithing.
brain hurts Most gun laws are at the state level, and they vary wildly at their extremes.
For example, I live in Arizona. Here, state gun laws are about as minimal as it gets. There are no limits on capacity here. I could choose a handgun, show ID, get run through the instant background check, pay, and be out the door in 10 or 20 minutes. It would also be lawful to carry it concealed without a permit, if I wished.
In my state, it would also be lawful to purchase a firearm privately from another individual, and skip the instant background check entirely.
In 1994, the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" came into federal law. Part of it banned civilians from owning magazines produced with a capacity greater ten rounds after it was enacted, but not ownership of magazines produced prior to that. It expired in 2004, but a few states mirrored the "Assault Weapons Ban" in their state laws and it is still in effect in those states. There's only something like 5-7 of those states, but they tend to have high populations, i.e California and New York.
For example, I live in Arizona. Here, state gun laws are about as minimal as it gets. There are no limits on capacity here. I could choose a handgun, show ID, get run through the instant background check, pay, and be out the door in 10 or 20 minutes. It would also be lawful to carry it concealed without a permit, if I wished.
In my state, it would also be lawful to purchase a firearm privately from another individual, and skip the instant background check entirely.
In 1994, the so called "Assault Weapons Ban" came into federal law. Part of it banned civilians from owning magazines produced with a capacity greater ten rounds after it was enacted, but not ownership of magazines produced prior to that. It expired in 2004, but a few states mirrored the "Assault Weapons Ban" in their state laws and it is still in effect in those states. There's only something like 5-7 of those states, but they tend to have high populations, i.e California and New York.
"...how easy it is to get a handgun in the USA..." Only for criminals. Mind you, compared to some countries it is easy, Stateside.
"...whether cities have the right to do that..." Some municipal governments don't care if they have the right or not too.
"...Canada itself is an autonomous territory of England..." Absolute nonsense.
"...whether cities have the right to do that..." Some municipal governments don't care if they have the right or not too.
"...Canada itself is an autonomous territory of England..." Absolute nonsense.