The rising tide of gun rights in America

[ghbucky]

I am fully aware that there are states and localities where it is hell to obey the law and own and carry a gun.

But, the overall tide across America is overwhelmingly moving toward less and less restrictions.

In 1986, there was only 1 state (VT) where there were no restrictions on carrying a gun. Today, there are 21 states. A further 21 states are now 'shall issue' states. It is quite the movement!

https://donsurber.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-gun-revolution.html

 

[DaleA]

I like it when people actually do some work and research stuff and don't just throw their opinions around. Thank you for posting that link.

Stil....
Colorado is passing more new gun laws:
https://www.businessinsider.com/bou...ons-ban-colorado-allows-local-gun-laws-2021-6
And California is just going goofy with San Jose requiring you be video taped to buy a gun. Personally I think video taping gun purchases must be one of the most useless laws out there. It's suppose to stop straw purchases but for the life of me I can't understand how it would do this.

https://ktla.com/news/california/san-jose-approves-law-requiring-videotaping-of-all-gun-purchases/

San Jose is also trying to force gun owners to carry liability insurance on their guns which someone has said is just like you have to have auto insurance. Phhhhhft.

 

[ghbucky]

And California is just going goofy with San Jose requiring you be video taped to buy a gun. Personally I think video taping gun purchases must be one of the most useless laws out there. It's suppose to stop straw purchases but for the life of me I can't understand how it would do this.

Stuff like this isn't intended to stop anything. It is just harassment intended to discourage people from buying guns.

But, at the same time as some localities are being idiots, TX signed Constitutional Carry. The wins are much, much bigger than the local attempts to find a way around SOCTUS.

My point here is that on this board, the focus is always on the negative side. But what is happening is very positive. Like the thread the asks how do voters really feel about gun control. The polls mean nothing in the face of the avalanche of gun rights laws being passed.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

My point here is that on this board, the focus is always on the negative side. But what is happening is very positive. Like the thread the asks how do voters really feel about gun control. The polls mean nothing in the face of the avalanche of gun rights laws being passed.

I don't agree that the focus here is always on the negative, and I also don't agree that there is an "avalanche" of gun rights laws being passed.

I think on this forum we discuss pro-gun laws when they are passed, and we discuss anti-gun laws when they are passed. If it appears to you that there is a preponderence of anti-gun law discussion, that might suggest that there is a preponderance of anti-gun laws being passed.

I'm happy to see Texas (my native state) finally enact constitutional carry. I think it's long overdue. But I don't currently live in Texas, I live in a state that is overwhelmingly anti-gun at the government and legislative level, and every year we have to gird our loins and do battle at the legislature in the hope of derailing or at least toning down some of the multiple anti-gun laws that are proposed EVERY ... SINGLE ... YEAR.

If you live in a state where you don't have to deal with this, God bless you. You're a fortunate man. But there are many states (unfortunately, many of the more populous states) that continue to pursue an anti-gun agenda. As a result, I don't see events such as Texas going constitutional carry as evidence that the tide is turning. I see it as [more] evidence that the United States of America is careening on a path of bifurcation, with the ideological gap between "liberal" and "conservative" states widening every year rather than shrinking.

 

[5whiskey]

If you live in a state where you don't have to deal with this, God bless you. You're a fortunate man. But there are many states (unfortunately, many of the more populous states) that continue to pursue an anti-gun agenda. As a result, I don't see events such as Texas going constitutional carry as evidence that the tide is turning. I see it as [more] evidence that the United States of America is careening on a path of bifurcation, with the ideological gap between "liberal" and "conservative" states widening every year rather than shrinking.

AB I think you are absolutely right. But... 2 points on this...

First point, you can always move to another state if things just get so bad you can’t take it. I get that moving to another state isn’t always easy, involves risk and expense, and to do so for a single political issue isn’t often feasible. Admittedly, if my state were anti-2A, it’s also highly likely that there are other things about that states politics that don’t settle with my preferences. I would look for somewhere else. I understand sometimes there are intangibles that can’t be ignored. I own land that has been in my family since 1909, and I know of a family in my county that has land that was patented to their ancestors after the revolutionary war. These are big deals, and good arguments for why constitutionally guaranteed rights should apply to states. NY, IL, CT, CA, and others shouldn’t get to play games with a constitutionally protected right. At the end of the day, however, if they do there is always the option to move to a more free state. This is a powerful argument for states rights (not the “we should own slaves unencumbered type of rights” that were en vogue during the civil war).

Second point, yes the polarization of America seems to get worse and worse. I don’t like it. There shouldn’t be that type of divide between large urban areas who provide the majority of tax revenue, and large rural areas that provide the majority of the food for said urban areas. If you think about it, it’s a symbiotic relationship and the great divide we see shouldn’t exist. What really worries me is the urbanites moving from large cities to more rural states to enjoy a lower cost of living... yet they bring their political ideas with them. I’m not at all sorry that I don’t care how they do it in LA, NYC, Jersey, or a number of other places. When you move to another state, bear in mind you’re often moving there to get away from high cost of living and taxes. Much of that is a result of the politics of that home state, so be open minded to the poor dumb southerners and midwesterners. After all, they were smart enough to keep taxes and cost of living down. Plus they can own firearms, use them, and enjoy other freedoms to boot.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

First point, you can always move to another state if things just get so bad you can’t take it. I get that moving to another state isn’t always easy, involves risk and expense, and to do so for a single political issue isn’t often feasible.

That's an easy answer and you are not the first to have suggested it on this and other forums. Unfortunately, sometimes life intervenes. It is not "always" possible for people to just pick up stakes and relocate to another state, no matter how much they might wish to do so.

1909, eh? What's it like to be a newcomer to the neighborhood? One (and only one of several) things keeping me where I am is that I live on land that was granted to an ancestor by the king of England about 50 years before the Revolution. 300 years of family history is not easy to walk away from even if there weren't other factors that also make it impossible.

 

[Geezerbiker]

What I always thought couldn't happen is going on here in Oregon. The leftist are fully in control and trying to turn OR in NY...

Once more I regret me decision not to leave Oregon for Idaho years ago when I was up to the move...

Tony

 

[BarryLee]

I realize things have gotten better in some States. In Georgia gun rights have been protected and more freedom to exercise those rights granted. However, we are only an election or two away from seeing the tide turn. Also, I believe, this is true on a national level as one Party tends to support gun control and that Party will continue to gain power unless Voters vote based on the actual issues and not tribalism.

 

[ghbucky]

If you live in a state where you don't have to deal with this, God bless you. You're a fortunate man. But there are many states (unfortunately, many of the more populous states) that continue to pursue an anti-gun agenda. As a result, I don't see events such as Texas going constitutional carry as evidence that the tide is turning. I see it as [more] evidence that the United States of America is careening on a path of bifurcation, with the ideological gap between "liberal" and "conservative" states widening every year rather than shrinking.

This more or less makes my point.

The US is moving toward a more uniform level of gun rights. Not away from it.

In 1986 there were 8 shall issue states and 1 unrestricted state.
In 2021 there are 21 shall issue states and 21 unrestricted states.

In 1986 there were 16 states where you could not even apply to carry.
Today there are 0. The other 8 states are may issue.

 

[zukiphile]

One who finds the scope of freedom too narrow locally can move. That was once the most effective solution for eastern europeans and cubans. It's a sad thing that people would leave an american state for a similar reason. As Geezerbker and BarryLee illustrate, that isn't a lasting fix.

Second point, yes the polarization of America seems to get worse and worse. I don’t like it.

It does seem so in government, and it is often said to be so about the population. I wonder whether people are more polarized, i.e. they typically hold more extreme positions, or whether it seems so because of a shift in etiquette.

Is the normal rule of etiquette that we discuss topics in a cool and reasoned way with people who would like to discuss it with us, or do we screech our points to those we suspect may dissent from our positions? I discuss these sorts of thing recreationally, and I've noted a shift over the last half decade or so.

If even very well educated and generally sophisticated people harangue you about the "Truth" rather than discuss a matter with you, what changed? Did they always have very strong emotions on a topic that they successfully suppressed until recently, or do they think things are so much worse that more volume and less listening is the remedy? Boorish conduct isn't new, but the sorts of people from whom I've seen increasingly is new.

I suspect, but don't know, that we see a shift in the model for discussion because people see the success of the harangue and yell model. Even rather small and unpopular factions can be seen as consequential if they are just louder. People may be modeling success.

I'm not happy about it if I am correct about the cause. I think the harangue and yell model is uniquely unsuited to 2d Am. advocacy because of the ease with which anger can feed into a prohibitionist trope.

 

[TomNJVA]

What really worries me is the urbanites moving from large cities to more rural states to enjoy a lower cost of living... yet they bring their political ideas with them.

This is now going to get worse. After a year of Covid, both companies and employees have learned that working from home is feasible and economical, and many large companies are allowing more employees to continue working from home as Covid restrictions are lifted. This liberates the employees to be mobile and move to more attractive states with a lower cost of living. The real estate agents in our rural area are seeing this now.

The people who seem to want to move here tend to be from large cities, and most of them are liberal. Hence I expect to see a gradual increase in liberal infiltration into traditionally conservative regions, and more red states going purple as we go forward.

 

[DaleA]

If it was possible for the "Left" and the "Right" to go to a marriage counselor for help I have no doubt that after just a single one hour session the counselor would advise them to divvy up the assests and arrange for who gets the kids on Thanksgiving and Christmas.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The US is moving toward a more uniform level of gun rights. Not away from it

Once again, I respectfully disagree. From where I sit, I see nothing uniform about gun rights and gun laws across the fifty states and DC.

Someone who lives in Maine, which now has [mostly] permitless carry, can't get out of New England without disarming.

 

[ghbucky]

Someone who lives in Maine, which now has [mostly] permitless carry, can't get out of New England without disarming.

That is true today. In 1986 I could not have carried a gun from KY to TX. Today I can legally travers every state between TX and KY while carrying without a permit. I could not even get a permit in 86, and now my KY CCDW is recognized by 35 states.

 

[zukiphile]

Once again, I respectfully disagree. From where I sit, I see nothing uniform about gun rights and gun laws across the fifty states and DC.

Someone who lives in Maine, which now has [mostly] permitless carry, can't get out of New England without disarming.

The rights in the states are less uniform, but mostly more liberal. 40 years ago, a person leaving Maine and Vermont was mostly going to cross jurisdictions that treated a conceal pistol as a serious crime, like a rifle with a 14 inch barrel.

 

[Tom Servo]

Heller saved our butts in 2009. Without it, we probably would have seen a raft of onerous gun-control laws during the first two years of the Obama administration.

But we're really just in a holding pattern. The prior administration gave the ATF carte blanche to redefine bump stocks as NFA items and make it impossible to legally keep them, even if purchased legally prior to the ban. The current administration is encouraging them to do the same with those silly "pistol braces."

I could shrug and say, "well, I don't own one of those so it doesn't hurt me." But it will. If they can do those sorts of things via executive fiat, we're in very real trouble.

Right now, the biggest and most effective pro-gun organization is in total disarray. Gun-control groups have been honing their message and raking in cash. I wish I could be more optimistic, but things aren't looking good.

 

[shurshot]

The long term Agenda is the total disarmament of the American people. They haven't given up. Quite the contrary.

The population must be disarmed before you start taking away property rights and garnishing assets to "redistribute the wealth for the greater good".

They have a global long term plan, don't ever forget that, no matter how good it is to see a pro-gun law passed here or there. They MUST disarm the US population in order to make their plan work. It's that simple. One step and one generation at a time... that is their strategy.

 

[Aguila Blanca]

The rights in the states are less uniform, but mostly more liberal. 40 years ago, a person leaving Maine and Vermont was mostly going to cross jurisdictions that treated a conceal pistol as a serious crime, like a rifle with a 14 inch barrel.

And that's still true today. To get out of New England from Maine, New Hampshire, or Vermont it is necessary to travel through New York, and possibly Massachusetts and/or New Jersey. Other than California or Hawaii, it's hard to think of any states that are less gun-friendly than those. [In New York state, you can't even legally pick up a handgun unless you have a New York permit that has the specific gun listed on it. And New York doesn't issue non-resident permits.]

In theory, of course, the FOPA will get you through NY, NJ and MA -- but I still hear stories suggesting that even if you comply with the FOPA 100 percent, police in NYC will still arrest you -- which means people entering or leaving New England shouldn't use I-95 through NYC, but take a more northerly route to avoid the Big Apple by as wide a margin as possible.

 

[44 AMP]

But, the overall tide across America is overwhelmingly moving toward less and less restrictions.

This appears to be the case, but only when looking primarily at handguns and carrying them for personal self defense.

for all those places that have relaxed their laws about having/carrying pistols, the opposite is happening in many places when it comes to "assault weapons".

There's a huge difference in the perception in the public and in our lawmakers between carrying a defensive pistol (especially in urban areas these last couple years) and owning (let alone carrying) an "assault weapon".

Since the anti gun folk discovered how to demonize military look alike firearms (ARs AKs, etc.) they have pretty much stopped beating their "ban pistols" drum, and are focused, FOR NOW, on "bigger game".

In WA, a couple years ago, they legally labeled every single semi auto rifle in the state a "semiautomatic assault rifle". Every one. Doesn't matter if it was made last year or over 100 years ago. Doesn't matter if they have a detachable magazine or not. Doesn't matter if its rimfire or centerfire. They ALL fall under the law, which requires "enhanced background checks" (which no one seems to know what that is) there is a 10 day waiting period, an extra fee, you must also present proof you've taken a special safety class within the last 5 years (the actual required class does not exist, so any proof of safety training is being accepted at this time).

And, also in the law, though as far as I know, not yet being enforced is a requirement that the medical community turn over your records to the police (or designated agency) so THEY can determine if you are fit to own a semiautomatic assault rifle. AND, that review is periodic, in the law, though no time is specified. In other words, they get to review your mental health reconds periodically, to determine if you are STILL allowed to own the rifle.

I am waiting to see that one challenged in court, but until it happens, it IS the law.