Gun control laws. Reasonable or stupid?

[Excalibur]

Politics aside since we all know a lot of times gun laws are made for stupid reasons, but let's focus on the laws themselves and do they seem reasonable.

Like the Full auto restriction to civilians. In America, you can get full auto weapons in some states bear in mind with a class 3 license, background check, stamps, etc.

But do you think it's a reasonable gun law?

What about states or countries like Canada that have magazine capacity limits to no more than 10 round magazines despite how in a lot of crime, suspects with illegal possessions of guns have them anyway or uses guns that are below 10 rounds.

Do you think it is a reasonable law for magazine limits?


What about flash hiders? Telescoptic, retractable, or folding stocks?

Barrel length restrictions?

What do you think about these restrictions?

There's a ban on "military ammunition" like 5.56 NATO the military uses, but there is no restriction on buying .50 BMG or even rounds that are just a bit more powerful than the standard military weapons that are called "Armor piercing".

So tell me your opinions on gun laws. Do you think any of them have some merit or that most of them are stupid.

[predator20]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Like the Full auto restriction to civilians. In America, you can get full auto weapons in some states bear in mind with a class 3 license, background check, stamps, etc.

But do you think it's a reasonable gun law?

I think it's good that they have to registered. But the Pre-May, Post-May is bs. All that did was raise the prices of the pre-may samples (the ones civilians can own without a class 3 license).

Originally Posted by Excalibur

What about states or countries like Canada that have magazine capacity limits to no more than 10 round magazines despite how in a lot of crime, suspects with illegal possessions of guns have them anyway or uses guns that are below 10 rounds.

Do you think it is a reasonable law for magazine limits?

No. You can reload so what's the point.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

What about flash hiders? Telescoptic, retractable, or folding stocks?

The only time a flash hider is going to do it's job is at night, it's hard enough shooting at night as it is. Retractable stocks make it nice for different size users.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Barrel length restrictions?

hmm. That's a tough one. I guess anything shorter than a 16" barrel has to be registered is okay. But a tax stamp, no.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

What do you think about these restrictions?

There's a ban on "military ammunition" like 5.56 NATO the military uses, but there is no restriction on buying .50 BMG or even rounds that are just a bit more powerful than the standard military weapons that are called "Armor piercing".

So tell me your opinions on gun laws. Do you think any of them have some merit or that most of them are stupid.

I not sure what you mean by this one are you taking about other countries that have a ban 5.56mm?

But my most hated restriction. A 3-day waiting period on a handgun. Some states even longer. (3 days in FL) but I can walk out with an AR-15 with no waiting period that will do way more damage than a handgun

[Excalibur]

Indiana has no waiting period to get a gun. You buy it and get it on the same day.

People would ask why do you need a full auto weapon? And some would say why not?

[Nyles]

Things about our gun laws I agree with:

-Liscense to own a firearm - I don't think anyone should be able to walk into a gun shop and walk out with a gun, and I think in the long term liscensing is less onerous than a background check every time.

-3 classes of gun liscense - Non-restricted = long guns; restricted = handguns; prohibited = full auto & other "scary" guns. This is an oversimplification, but it'll do for discussion. I don't think that a handgun is the same thing as a deer rifle, or that a submachine gun is the same thing as a handgun and it makes sense to have different levels on control on them.

-Storage requirements - I'm sorry, but I don't agree with storing a loaded gun in an unlocked area.

-Antique firearms - Our antique laws aren't perfect, but they're pretty rational. An antique firearm isn't treated as a firearm, but still has to be stored properly and when used in a crime it becomes one.


Things about our gun laws I'm indifferent to:

-Registration of firearms - the program is mismanaged and a huge waste of money, but it's not particularly onerous and done right it could be cost effective. I don't think it's necessary, but it doesn't bother me.

-Authorization to transport restricted firearms - same deal, it's not onerous so I don't really mind. I have a standing ATT for the range, anywhere else I need to take them I phone it in and they fax it to me. Takes 10 minutes.

-Lack of handgun carry - done responsibly I think concealed carry is a good thing, but working in a gun shop you deal with WAY too many people who should NOT be allowed to carry a handgun. And most of them would.


Things about our gun laws I dislike:

-Prohibition of certain firearms - if you owned one before they were prohibited you still can, but otherwise you're SOL. I can kinda see the rationale behind prohibiting full autos, but when they can be purchased by properly-liscensed individuals they become so expensive that criminals don't use them. I'd rather see prohibs just become a more-regulated class of restricted.

-Barrel length / caliber requirements on handguns - Unless you owned one before 1995, you can't own a handgun with a barrel under 4.1" or in .25 or .32 caliber. That's just stupid. Even if you're worried about concealability, make it based on overall length, not barrel length. I own guns a hell of a lot more concealable that a P.08 Luger or Bolo Mauser, but those are both prohibited. At the very least, I'd like to see a full exemption for pre-1945 pistols - we already have a partial in that they can be passed directly along the bloodline.

-Wilderness carry only for liscensed trappers - The average person cannot carry a handgun in the woods, and that I actually disagree with. I like to hike in grizzly country, my mom likes to pick blueberries in grizzly country. I don't want to carry a shotgun hiking and she definately wouldn't. I'd like to carry a pistol in that case, but because I'm not a "wilderness professional" I can't. I don't consider this the same thing as carrying in a city.

-Magazine capacity limits - this bothers me more as a collector than a shooter. I like that there are exemptions for rare and historically significant magazines, but its a very short list (off the top of my head, Luger trommel mag, Bren anti-aircraft drum, Huot automatic rifle spool mag, and maybe a Lewis pan mag) and I hate putting a pin through ANY collectible. Of course, once you start allowing vintage, why not modern, and so on until to be rational everything has to be legal.

[MT2008]

In general, my attitude is that any gun law that actually bans something is not even worth contemplating.

If it's a law that's intended to weed out the criminals and mentally ill from the responsible, law-abiding citizens, then I am willing to consider the law objectively (it doesn't mean I'll endorse said law, necessarily, just that I'm willing to discuss it in terms of its merits).

Originally Posted by Nyles

-3 classes of gun liscense - Non-restricted = long guns; restricted = handguns; prohibited = full auto & other "scary" guns. This is an oversimplification, but it'll do for discussion. I don't think that a handgun is the same thing as a deer rifle, or that a submachine gun is the same thing as a handgun and it makes sense to have different levels on control on them.

I agree with this. For years, I used to get into fights with other pro-gunners who swore up and down that there was no difference between an assault rifle and a hunting rifle. I think it's the most embarrassingly inept argument that comes from our side, and I hate it when people try to make it.

Speaking of which...

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Like the Full auto restriction to civilians. In America, you can get full auto weapons in some states bear in mind with a class 3 license, background check, stamps, etc.

But do you think it's a reasonable gun law?

Yes. The FOPA is the only thing I disagree with.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

What about states or countries like Canada that have magazine capacity limits to no more than 10 round magazines despite how in a lot of crime, suspects with illegal possessions of guns have them anyway or uses guns that are below 10 rounds.

Do you think it is a reasonable law for magazine limits?

There should be no magazine capacity limits. That being said, I hate it when pro-gunners argue, "There's no 'practical' difference between a 30-round magazine and three 10-round magazines", which is a retarded argument to make. There's a huge difference, and I should know.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

What about flash hiders? Telescoptic, retractable, or folding stocks?

Barrel length restrictions?

What do you think about these restrictions?

I disagree with them all. Well, maybe the barrel length restrictions, except that I'd ditch the arbitrary 16" minimum limit.

[Markost]

Originally Posted by predator20

But my most hated restriction. A 3-day waiting period on a handgun. Some states even longer. (3 days in FL) but I can walk out with an AR-15 with no waiting period that will do way more damage than a handgun

3 days? Here you must wait for 5 months or more for a "civilian" weapon (.22lr, you must register it and have the permission to buy the ammo) or "conditional" weapon (semi and single shot shotguns, bolt-action and fixed magazine rifles). And if you want a semiauto rifle with detachable magazine, you must wait at least 2 years to get a civilian Fal, thanks to the post-1995 ban.

First, for use a gun you need your CLU (Legitimate user credential). Then, you can go to the gun shop and buy the gun, but you can´t take it to home. First you need to send the gun´s papers to the RENAR (National register of firearms) and wait for the gun´s credential. That´s... emm... 5 months or more.

Come on guys, your gun laws are one of the most flexible in the world.

[Excalibur]

Originally Posted by Markost

Come on guys, your gun laws are one of the most flexible in the world.

I wasn't saying comparing US gun laws to other countries, US laws are cake but we're here to discuss if some gun laws are reasonable or just plain stupid, like England and Australia completely banning guns

Waiting periods. I think that's stupid. Maybe a day so that the store can do background checks on the person if the law requires that, but if a law that requires a license to already allowing the person to own a gun, then there's no need for waiting period and certainly should not wait more than a day.

People say that some laws are made because some criminal had set precedences by doing something. So before the restriction on gun barrel lengths, someone was totting a 10in barrel AR-15 around to shoot up a place? Perhaps someone was using a sawed off shotgun and when the restricted barrels on that gun, they say why not all guns?

Then there's loopholes like you can get an AR pistol that doesn't have a stock and it has a very short barrel, but the moment a stock is put on it, it's a rifle again? Then a weapon like the PS90, the civilian FN P90 needing a long 16in barrel sticking out. The weapon by itself is expensive and most crooks wouldn't even save enough money to get more expensive guns like that. They'd be too busy with booze and drugs or trying to feed themselves. Most criminal don't even go the extra mile in getting good guns to commit crime, they just get whatever they can get their hands on.

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by Excalibur

So before the restriction on gun barrel lengths, someone was totting a 10in barrel AR-15 around to shoot up a place? Perhaps someone was using a sawed off shotgun and when the restricted barrels on that gun, they say why not all guns?

Basically, yes. Barrel lengths were another provision of the National Firearms Act of 1934, which was long before AR-15s existed. Sawed-off shotguns and some rifles had a reputation for being gangster weapons. So they made it mandatory to have a 16" barrel (or 26" over length) for long guns.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Then there's loopholes like you can get an AR pistol that doesn't have a stock and it has a very short barrel, but the moment a stock is put on it, it's a rifle again?

Yes. And technically, it's not illegal to buy a 10" AR upper and get it sent in the mail. But if you own an AR-15 lower with a stock attached, and it goes on the lower, then you've committed a felony. It seems ridiculous, but that's because, again, the NFA was passed before AR-15s existed. In 1934, nobody would have figured that in the future, somebody would invent a rifle that can easily be converted to another version by simply replacing the upper unit and stock.

Originally Posted by Excalibur

Then a weapon like the PS90, the civilian FN P90 needing a long 16in barrel sticking out. The weapon by itself is expensive and most crooks wouldn't even save enough money to get more expensive guns like that. They'd be too busy with booze and drugs or trying to feed themselves. Most criminal don't even go the extra mile in getting good guns to commit crime, they just get whatever they can get their hands on.

What's your point? They can't pass a law that reads, "All long guns must have a 16" barrel, unless it's an expensive gun which costs over $1,000, because criminals can't afford them." They have to just say ALL long guns.

[Excalibur]

I'm just saying, some of the laws as you have pointed out can be kinda stupid. What was that one politician that wanted to ban barrel shrouds but didnt even know what they are?

[MT2008]

Originally Posted by predator20

But my most hated restriction. A 3-day waiting period on a handgun. Some states even longer. (3 days in FL) but I can walk out with an AR-15 with no waiting period that will do way more damage than a handgun

Here in NC, we have to get purchase permits to buy handguns from the local Sheriff's Department. Typically, it takes them several days to process your application. I wouldn't mind it so much if it wasn't for the fact that you have to get two "references" (people who live in your county) to sign the permit application. It's a real pain in the ass, and it's the reason I've never bought a handgun in this state.

But just like you guys, we're able to buy AR-15s and AKs over the counter with no problem. I think it's retarded that I can't buy a 9mm Glock-19 without a purchase permit, but I can buy as many assault rifles and 30-round mags with almost no effort besides the 5 minutes it takes to fill out the 4473 and pass the NICS.

Originally Posted by Markost

Come on guys, your gun laws are one of the most flexible in the world.

Yeah, I admit, no sense getting too greedy. It could be worse.