2015 State Gun Law Trendwatch

Smart Gun Laws


Positive Trends



Negative Trends

The NRA Doesn't Hate All Gun Laws

NGVAC

The NRA has also pushed laws to make it illegal to publish the names and addresses of gun owners even though the information is considered in the public domain like real estate transfers. Guns make them so safe–owners don’t want anyone to know they have them. What will the neighbors think? What if bad guys break in and steal them? Maybe they need more guns to protect their guns.

Of course the NRA’s favorite law is the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act which gives gun makers, gun dealers and trade groups complete legal immunity from negligence and product liability lawsuits. Passed after Columbine and Red Lake, but before Virginia Tech, Tucson, Aurora and Newtown, maybe the gun lobby knew what was coming.

Gun Store Owners Challenge California Law in Federal Court

Local news reports

A handful of gun store owners are challenging state law in federal court, arguing a gun advertising law infringes on their First Amendment rights.

On the outside of Tracy Rifle and Pistol, in Tracy, several large pictures are displayed, showing firearms. These cover sections of the windows.

Store owner Michael Baryla said Monday he posted the photos to make the building look better and to show the public what type of guns he sells.

Baryla said he was recently cited by the Department of Justice for having the pictures of the handguns up.

"It’s kind of silly, because if you look right outside on the window, we have an AR-15 rifle right next to a handgun," Baryla said. "The AR-15 is 100 percent fine -- the hand gun, on the other hand, isn’t fine."

Baryla is referring to a state law, penal code 26820, that prohibits using handgun ads that can be seen from the outside.

Baryla and three other gun store owners are challenging the law in federal court. A suit was filed Monday.

Baryla argues the California law infringes on his First Amendment rights.

"We, as a business, have the right to fairly advertise and speak our minds," Baryla said. "There’s no justification for banning the advertisement of something that is constitutionally protected."

Other States Hamper N.J.'s Tough Gun Laws

North Jersey dot com

Under New Jersey law, Robert Leonardis is exactly the kind of person who never should own a gun. And the .45-caliber handgun police say he fired, nearly killing a Hackensack police officer, never should have wound up in the state.

Leonardis is a member of the Sex, Money, Murder set of the Bloods gang with a long criminal record, according to police. On July 22 he allegedly opened fire on three Hackensack police officers, missing Officer Joseph Ayoubi by inches.

Like most guns used for crimes in New Jersey, the handgun Leonardis used was trafficked illegally from another state, police say. His gun was mailed from Florida via UPS, said Bergen County Prosecutor John L. Molinelli.

New Jersey’s gun laws have long been and remain among the toughest in the nation. But almost every day, New Jersey residents are shot and killed in gun crimes. Statistics indicate that the vast majority of those cases involve guns purchased in other states and transported to New Jersey illegally.

Of more than 2,000 guns used in New Jersey crimes that were traced to their state of origin, fully 80 percent originated elsewhere, according to the U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF). More than half — 55 percent — were imported from just seven states: Pennsylvania, North Carolina, Virginia, Georgia, South Carolina, Florida and Ohio, all of which have weaker gun-control laws than New Jersey.

That fact of life hampers efforts in New Jersey to limit the number of guns illegally on the street. The importance of state law is seen in states that take a more lax approach to gun control. In Pennsylvania and Florida, for instance, 79 percent of all crime guns originate in the same state as the crime, according to the ATF.

No surprises from Gov. Martin O'Malley

I've mentioned that I know Martin O'Malley and my connections to him.

If you think I'm anti-gun: Martin makes me look like one of you lot!

Anyway, he has just signed into effect some of the strictest gun laws in the nation, which comes as no surprise to me.  I'm not sure where Maryland fell in the gun law pile, but I thought they were somewhat strict.

Now, Gun magazines will be limited to 10 bullets, gun ownership by people who have been involuntarily committed to a mental health facility will be banned, and Maryland State Police will be able to suspend the licenses of gun dealers who fail to comply with recordkeeping obligations.

This says several things to me with the main one being that there is the political will to get stronger gun laws in place.

Martin is a politician (I'm too smart to be one).  He wouldn't do something if it were going to cost him political points.  And I think he wants to emulate the Kennedys and take a stab at the presidency.

Well, with some politicians seeing the blowback from failing to vote for background checks--he may have a point.

The real question is where will gun politics go in the US?  Especially now that there may be an end to the Public Health research ban.

Well, they say I know the law:

Take this test here

And while we're at it:

Remember--people who are naturalised citizens have to pass a test before they can become a citizen.

MSNBC Discussion

Visit NBCNews.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Prof. Simon Chapman's Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and the Fight for Gun Control - Australia's last gun massacre is now a free E-book

Prof. Simon Chapman's Over Our Dead Bodies: Port Arthur and the Fight for Gun Control - Australia's last gun massacre is now a free E-book and available at the following link:

http://bit.ly/YZtHQ2

I strongly suggest that anyone who is involved in the US gun violence/gun control movement read this book.  Australia's political climate surrounding this issue at the time of the Port Arthur Massacre was eerily similar to that of the US, yet the Australians were able to cut through the non-sense and enact serious and effective gun control laws.

This is a valuable lesson for people who want to see similar laws in the US.

This book is really about the workings of the media, the use of lobbying, and the skills of advocacy. So pick a day when you are tired of dealing with the aftermath of ignored public health issues and read this ripping yarn, arm yourself with the tools it offers, and be ready to go into battle.

NRA Lie Number 27: There are 20,000 Gun Laws Already on the Books

The Fact Checker

 "Senator, there needs to be a change in the culture of prosecution at the entire federal level. It's a national disgrace. The fact is, we could dramatically cut crime in this country with guns and save lives all over this country if we would start enforcing the 9,000 federal laws we have on the books.”
 
— National Rifle Association Chief Executive Wayne LaPierre, testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Jan. 30, 2013

Many readers have asked us about this claim of 9,000 federal gun laws, which was later repeated by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday when LaPierre appeared on that program. When we checked with NRA spokesman Andrew Arulanandam for the sourcing, he said that LaPierre had misspoken.
“If anything, he understated the number of laws,” Arulanandam said, noting that the NRA generally refers to “20,000 laws.”

The Pinocchio Test

By any reasonable measure, this is suspicious figure. Its origin is murky, and it is inconceivable that the same number of gun laws would exist now as some five decades ago.

 Moreover, even experts who favor the NRA’s agenda have their doubts about the figure or its relevance. It may well be the case that there are “thousands” of laws, but what does that mean? What does counting statutes, or local regulations, say about the quality or effectiveness of those laws?
 We don’t play gotcha here at The Fact Checker, so we accept that LaPierre misspoke when he said 9,000 federal laws rather than 20,000 laws across the nation. But that slip of the tongue actually points out the fuzzy nature of the claim.

This 20,000 figure appears to be an ancient guesstimate that has hardened over the decades into a constantly repeated, never-questioned talking point. It could be lower, or higher, depending on who’s counting what.

UPDATE: Anthony, and a number of other readers, asked why this merited Three Pinocchios. The Pinnochio rating is always the hardest part of the column and certainly is subject to debate.
In this case, the rating is based on the fact that the figure had been used for almost five decades, without much research or diligence to back it up. Both sources cited by the NRA--Wright and Halbrook--said the figure was not particularly credible, with Wright saying it was not relevant and Halbrook labeling it as hyperbole. Korwin outlined a number of issues with the figure in his essay.
Ultimately, it comes down to the fact that the “20,000”--or “9,000”--amounts to false precision. The argument the NRA wants to make is no less credible if the talking point was that there are “many, many laws,” rather than 20,000 or 9,000. We wavered between Two and Three Pinocchios, but the fact that this factoid had been repeated so often and for so long is ultimately what tipped it to three.

 Three Pinocchios 

What are the Chances for Gun Law Changes?

Ammoland's Take on the Proposed Virginia Gun Laws

Ammoland

8: New: OPPOSE: HB 2235, Delegate Lingamfelter, increases the penalties for using a gun in a crime. This is a “feel good” measure that will not make anyone any safer and it, yet again, villainizes guns. What this bill says is that the penalty for a crime should be determined by the tool the criminal uses. So, if a criminal uses a knife to murder someone, that’s not a big deal. But if they use a gun to murder the same person, then we’re really going to go after them! Why don’t we go after them equally anytime they commit a murder or other violent crime? Dead is dead and murder is murder, irrespective of the tool the murderer uses.

The others are interesting too, but this one especially caught my eye. What do you think?

Please leave a comment.

Georgia Wants to Loosen its Gun Control Laws

AJC reports

Georgians would be allowed to carry concealed weapons in bars, public schools, most government buildings, college campuses and other locations under a sweeping gun bill filed in the House.

In addition to banishing many current restrictions, House Bill 981 would prevent police or the National Guard from disarming people during states of emergency, and it would allow citizens to sue if that occurred.

Rep. Sean Jerguson, R-Woodstock, one of the bill's co-sponsors, said Thursday that it strikes a balance between the Second Amendment, which guarantees the right to bear arms, and personal property rights. For instance, any church or business, such as a restaurant or bar, would be able to decide whether to allow concealed weapons, he said, and regulations that limit the right to carry, such as when consuming alcohol, are still in place.

I'm sure the Congressman knows that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with concealed carry, and surely he remembers that the recent Heller and McDonald decisions spoke about home defense only, yet he's making this push.

The gun-rights crowd is like that.  They pretend that their proposals make sense and align with the Constitution when they don't.  Then they try to tell us how much better off we'll all be, another lie.

What's your opinion?  Please let us know.

Revolving Door

More on hoplophobia

It was made up by Jeff Cooper who gave us the four rules of gun safety and the combat mindset. So, is he saying that we shouldn't be concerned if we see someone carrying a firearm? I think this goes to point of VPC's study Unintended Consequences where Pro-Handgun Experts Prove That Handguns Are a Dangerous Choice for Self-defence. In other words, the candid voices of pro-handgun experts and exposes through expert opinion the gun industry's lies about the illusory benefits of handguns for self-defence.

First off, this “condition is not recognised in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (AKA DSM). It is probably unlikely to be recognised as a condition as well, despite the efforts of the people who like to use this terms efforts to get it in there. This would be due to the fact that most of the medical community is aware that the risk of harm from pistols and revolvers that is demonstrated year after year in America's unparalleled handgun death and injury rates.

Irrational Fear? This term came from Jeff Cooper the person who gave us the four rules of gun safety and the colour coded combat mindset. The first two rules of gun safety are:

1. All guns are always loaded. Even if they are not, treat them as if they are.
2. Never let the muzzle cover anything you are not willing to destroy. (For those who insist that this particular gun is unloaded, see Rule 1.)

Rule number 2 is the most important for this critique since it concedes that guns are destructive devices. Unfortunately, the fact that guns when used properly can cause serious injury or death is one of the things the folk who tend to use this term would prefer to neglect—in particular, the person who created the term.

Is he saying that we see someone we don't know carrying a firearm and not see the possibility of a threat? Is he saying that guns don't deserve at least a shred of respect for their capacity to cause injury or death?

Spot the inconsistency!

Before I leave this, I should say that no one has addressed Cooper's inconsistencies in that he has his little colour coded combat mindset and points out that guns are indeed lethal, or at least destructive with his four rules of gun safety.

YET...

He would call people who are concerned about those who would carry firearm in a civilian setting hoplophobes.

Instead he wants people to walk around in condition white about someone carrying a deadly weapon:

"Unaware and unprepared. If attacked in Condition White, the only thing that may save you is the inadequacy or ineptitude of your attacker. When confronted by something nasty, your reaction will probably be "Oh my God! This can't be happening to me."

But the ultimate absurdity is that Cooper taught COMBAT firearms use. In fact, the colour coded mindset was expounded upon in a book called Principles of Personal Defense and refers to the states of awareness in combat, or the combat mindset

People who have served in the military, especially in combat arms and are quite used to the presence of weapons know the difference between war zones and civilian life. Being in the military is different from being in a civilian population. And that is a rational consideration, not mental illness. The civilian environment does not have life threatening danger around every corner. It is not a combat zone.

Civilian life is not combat. You would have thought a battle hardened marine like Cooper would have caught on to that fact. One usually does not encounter weapons in a Civil Society which is at peace.

So,which is it, are you tryiing to create a society where it is considered normal to be in a combat state of awareness?

Or do you live in a society where there is peace and laws?

Are you a hoplophobe?

Cross post from my blog:

I have to admit this is one of the most idiotic terms I have ever heard, yet it is repeatedly used to castigate those who support gun control. I have devised this simple test to determine if you are a hoplophobe or not:

A madman is pointing a large firearm at you (e.g., 12 Bore riot-shotgun with 00 buckshot, Desert eagle .44 with hollow points and laser sighting device, or something else of your choice which would most likely seriously harm, if not kill, you). He is far enough away that any attempt to disarm this person would be futile. Likewise, any attempt to pull a weapon would be met with his (or her) getting in at least a shot that would probably result in your being hurt, if not killed.
Are you:

1. Afraid
2. Not at all scared since you know full well that guns are not harmful in anyway, especially not in the hands of the insane or criminals, and you could not be hurt no matter how lethal the weapon or good the person’s holding its aim.

I am sure those gunloons out there will say that they have no fear and fit squarely into category 2.
Whereas anyone with a shred of sense would be afraid and say 1.

This is why the discussion of gun violence in the United States makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. “Gun rights” advocates place themselves and others in this situation through their policies, yet want to imply those who oppose them are in some way not sensible.

Is It Sufficient to Simply Remind Gun Owners to be Safe?

via Ammoland where they believe enough gun owners are actually going to take this stuff seriously that the problem will be solved.



My opinion is this kind of self-correction is good as far as it goes, but it doesn't reach the ones who really need it.  That's why gun owners need to be constrained by law to do these things. Too many ignore these common sense suggestions and when caught doing so there needs to be legislation in place with which to charge them.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.

Richmond VA Man Arrested in NYC With a Gun

The Richmond Times-Dispatch reports

Police say they have arrested a 26-year-old Richmond man who was trying to enter a Times Square subway station with a loaded handgun tucked into his waistband.

Travis Marks was arrested at 42nd Street Friday evening during rush hour after New York City officers Mohammed Ahmed and Adam England say they saw him enter the subway station illegally.

Police say Marks tried to toss a plastic bag with a white powdery substance, possibly drugs, and they arrested him. Police say they found a loaded, 9mm semi-automatic handgun in his waistband.

Marks was arrested on charges of criminal possession of a weapon.

In spite of all the crying on the part of gun-rights activists, Bloomberg's New York City works pretty well with regards gun laws. Remember the Tennessee nurse and the Indiana Marine who got slaps on the wrist for the same charge?

How much you want to bet this Virginia boy does a little time?

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

Tennessee Woman Arrested at 9/11 Site With a Gun

The New York Post reports

A tourist from Tennessee waltzed into one of the most secure sites in the city — and politely asked a cop if she could check her weapon.

Instead, she was dragged out in cuffs.

Now, Meredith Graves, 39, is facing at least three years in prison for thinking New York’s gun laws are anything like those in the Bible Belt.

Graves, a fourth-year medical student, showed up at the memorial on Dec. 22 to pay her respects during a trip north for a job interview.

She didn’t realize that the loaded .32-caliber pistol in her purse would be a problem until she saw a sign at the site that read, “No guns allowed,” sources said.

It doesn't sound to me like she was guilty of anything beyond stupidity. She may even be a very safe and responsible gun owner, for all we know.

I agree with what the lawyer who successfully defended a man in a similar case said.

“There may be technical guilt in some of these cases, but the law is not designed to deal with them,” he said.

I say send her home to TN with a slap on the wrist secure in the knowledge that she'll never do that again.

What's your opinion? Please leave a comment.

The Solution

1. licensing of gun owners, requiring criminal and mental health background checks.
2. registration of all guns bought.
3. no transfers without the recipient being a licensed gun owner and submitting to another background check - every time.

Safe storage laws, magazine capacity limitations and waiting periods may be eventually added, but the big three above will solve most of our problems.


What do you think? Please leave a comment.

Bizarre Florida Gun Law Blocked by a Federal Judge

The Washington Post reports

A federal judge on Wednesday blocked enforcement of a first-in-the-nation law that restricted what Florida physicians can say about guns to their patients, ruling the law violates the U.S. Constitution’s free speech guarantees and does not trample gun rights.

U.S. District Judge Marcia Cooke said it was important to emphasize “the free flow of truthful, non-misleading information within the doctor-patient relationship.”

“This case concerns one of our Constitution’s most precious rights — the freedom of speech,” said Cooke, appointed to the bench by Republican President George W. Bush. “A practitioner who counsels a patient on firearm safety, even when entirely irrelevant to medical care or safety, does not affect or interfere with the patient’s right to continue to own, possess or use firearms.”

This was truly one of the most bizarre gun laws, it barely made sense. Yet the support was as strong as if we'd been discussing gun registration, which every gun owners knows leads directly and inevitably to confiscation.

The NRA pushed this nonsense which amounted to a gag order, actually presuming to tell doctors what they can and cannot say to their patients. Governor Rick Scott signed off on it, of course, which contributed to his reputation as one of the worst.

The whole weird story could only have happened in a state like Florida, which as everyone knows is The Most Baneful State of the Union.

What's your opinion? Isn't there an obvious First Amendment contradiction in this legislation? Wasn't it bound to run into trouble in practice?  The suggestion that gun talk during a medical exam is inappropriate is ridiculous, but even if it were, certainly should not require a law prohibiting it.

This seems to be another example of the flip-flopping which gun-rights activists often do, always depending on what best supports their agenda.  Normally they bristle and resist government interference and unnecessary laws.  In this case, they wanted exactly that.

What's your opinion?  Please leave a comment.