« The 50 Best Guns Ever Made, Revisited | Main | Gun Myths, Part II: Rough barrels, expensive binoculars, and "knock-down" power »

May 01, 2006

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

Gun Laws: What Would Happen If ...

This is a short rant, but requires some thought on your part. What would happen if, tomorrow, all gun laws save one were eliminated? The only restriction would be that you had to be 21 years old, but aside from that you could buy anything you wanted as long as you could pay for it. No more carry permits, no nothing. Go to it.

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b54869e200d83486f36453ef

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Gun Laws: What Would Happen If ...:

Comments

tom

I think we have to have some laws. Only if you are currently allowed to posess a gun should you be able to carry one. What I mean is:
Convicted felons should not carry guns, People dishonorably discharged from the Armed Forces, Known Drug Users,........blah blah. All the people you say you are not when you fill out the background form. After you can leagally buy one, it would be nice to be able to carry. This would reduce crime because the thugs now know there is a chance their soon to be victim is packin.

Cory

What would happen? Felons who can't legally buy a gun would walk into a store and buy auto pistols with no limit on clip capacity and go nuts.
I'm not in favor of this idea.

Eric

I really can't see a huge change other than sales swinging upward initially. Despite today's laws, the felon or addict who wants a gun bad enough will buy one black market or steal one.

Matt

What would happen? First, I would try even harder to get a better paying job so I could afford a few goodies on my wish list. Second, all the felons, druggies, blah, blah will still buy their weapons in back allies because A) they are probably cheaper, B) it would still be easier, and C) no gun store owner in his right mind would sell a weapon to a person would, while legally allowed, looks like they are going to hold up a 7-11. Another thing that would happen is that crime would practically evaporate as muggers now know that everyone they see just might be packing heat. If y'all don't believe this part you must be wondering why the crime rates in New York or D.C. are so high, what with all their "common-sense" gun laws. Those who should not have guns (murderers, rapists, etc) should not be allowed out of prison, thereby making background checks a moot point. And even if they do help prevent crime (and I seriously doubt they do), that still does not excuse the fact that it is a gross violation of my rights. We could stop crime overnight if every American had an electronic microchip implanted in them and had to take regular polygraph tests, but should we go about doing that?

Mike Diehl

There are plenty of people -- the usual suspects that you claim you are not when you buy a firearm and fill out the form -- that really should not have firearms. Ever.

Having laws that prohibit such people from possessing firearms means that in theory we can send them to jail for more crimes and give them longer sentences... and that is a very, very good thing.

As for the proposal to eliminate the permitting process for people otherwise allowed to carry.... years ago I found no barriers to obtaining an FID card in Massachusetts. Now I live in a more or less regulation free state. You need a concealed carry permit but otherwise nothing. It is, well, refreshing not to have the added bureacracy. I myself don't carry a firearm for protection. It's not necessary in my field, I don't go to places where I might need one for protection, and I try to avoid being around hotheads.

Chet Kendall

Sounds interesting. I would suggest an age of 18 instead of 21; although, I would like to see convicted felons have to go through long probationary periods before able to purchase a firearm. More thought needs to go into it but otherwise I think it is great that the 2nd Ammendment is essentialy a carry permit for a law abiding citizen.

Brian

Having no gun laws means that there are also no laws protecting our right to bear arms. Having only one law that allows for an -at this age ownership- provides the enemies of gun ownership a fixed and delicate target.As backwards as it sounds, I believe that the miriad of gun laws already on the books are the only real time barrier we have left. Thank you

TEH

Food for thought indeed.

I've found myself speculating about an end of gun laws all weekend and I think I could ramble on forever on the subject. What follows are a few of my best guesses.

There would be an initial period of confusion where a lot more firearms were sold. Some to bad guys who had always wanted a gun but were prevented from obtaining one by the laws, and some to good guys who had never thought of owning before but are suddenly afraid that the streets are going to be full of armed marauders.

There would be a hasty assemblage of carelessly written and confusing gun laws put on the books at every level of government to fill the void.

As the dust settled more and more wrongful death lawsuits would place the responsibility on the seller of the firearm. Gun dealers, in self defense, would require even more extensive (& expensive) background checks on potential buyers.

Pro-gun extremists would buy up all the .223 ammo they could find and anti-gun extremists would call for the confiscation of all privately owned firearms.

craig

im sure most of us would go buy a bigger gun safe for that new banelli and the saco,tika,oh and that beutifull rifle craig reported on oh yea kimber (270) of course .oh and the baretta in this issue but in reality i guess ive got to be happy with my 5 handguns and minimal collection of assorted shotguns and rifles ,truth be told theyll never get em and i couldnt afford a bag of brass with these gas prices %[email protected]@#$% but its fun to dream happy shooting cjc

Bobby

That is about as dumb as saying we are getting rid of all vehicle laws except you have to be 14 to drive.

Joe

I've got to confess, I'm happy to live in a "shall issue" state that allows you to carry unless you've proven you're not to be trusted. That notwhithstanding, if this ill-advised day were to happen..

Pre-repeal:

Threatened mass exodus of the hysterical to Canada.

Post-repeal:

First: a period of elevated unrest while criminals feel less of a need to hide their weapons.

Second: a settling down period while the less intelligent and more violent of that faction are weeded out by each other, and by a police force that now is dealing with a greater percieved threat by criminals.

Third: a balance is struck in an armed society that is generally more polite, but where trespass and given offense has harsher consequences.

Lastly: I agree with an earlier post in that new laws would be proposed.

tommie caldwell

when i was growing up in southwestern missouri, all of my friends had guns. we use to hunt squirrels, rabbits and quail, we never concerned ourself with hunting and having guns. in my home we had 3 guns one shotgun one 22 rifle and one 22 pistol. i guess it is the changing of times and the liberals who are stirring up the trouble for us gun nuts.

Tom

I grew up in New York City in the 50's and 60's when there WERE no laws against mail order sales, no permits, no paperwork, no 4473 forms, no record keeping, nothing. I bought my first rifle through the mail at age 15. I have photos of me in my Bronx high school with my target rifle--every high school in the city had a rifle team in those days. THERE WAS NO PROBLEM.

I also was a resident of the District of Columbia when you needed no permits or paperwork to buy any kind of firearm, and watched the transition to the current state of affairs where only criminals are armed. Which was the better situation for decent people?

Crime rates of all kinds were FAR lower before 1968 than they are today, in every part of the country. In every jursidiction that has liberalized gun laws since 1989, the crime rates have dropped dramatically.

Gun laws serve no purpose but to provide excuses for more laws and eventual confiscation. What would happen if all gun laws were repealed? We'd recover a lot of the liberties we lost in 1968 and subsequently, and we would be a safer and saner society. I'm all for it. ALL gun laws of any kind that restrict the right to keep and bear arms in ANY way are clearly unconstitutional. Repeal all of them, at every level. There will be no bad consequences. None. GUNS SAVE LIVES.

Dillard

I have no problem with the current firearms laws. I own several handguns and various rifles and shotguns. I own most of the guns i want and I buy the others that i want as I can afford them. In my home state of Kentucky you must have a permit for concealed carry, but thats no big deal, I can carry. Keep the laws, just don't get stupid with them.

Dave Petzal

To Tom:

Then you can probably remember Stoegers, Continental Arms, Abercrombie & Fitch, Harry L. Moss & Sons, John Jovino, and Ed Agramonte. Those were the days. These are not the days.

tom

Many interesting and thoughtful comments here. One further one occurs to me. If you had to be 21 in order to own/use a firearm, what about the years prior to turning 21, during which you gained no familiarity with guns and did gained no expertise in using them? We all know the younger a person is when he or she begins to learn a subject, the more likely it is that he or she will become very proficient at doing whatever it may be. The best hunters and shooters typically start very young, the younger the better. With the 21 year rule in place, I would fear that far fewer persons would take up shooting for whatever reason in the first place and those that did would be far less able. Beyond that observation, yes, let's do away with all gun laws. I've had enough of corrupt old men telling us whats best for us. These old men have turned me into a cynic and a budding anarchist. Tom

Bill

Things might go a little crazy at first but when the dust settled we would all be better off.......

John La Voie

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't see anything in your "new law" that says I cannot teach my son once he is big enough to keep a 22 on target, I just can't give him the 22 until he is 21.

Seems to me if we did away with all of the insane laws, we would have less insanity on our streets, as the NRA put it, The 2nd Ammendment is the Original Home Land Defense Bill.

Have fun on the range.

Tom

Dave!!

One of the coolest things my dad did was give me an 18" barrel 20 gauge/22lr O/U made by savage model 24. This was the best gift as an 8 year old. Technically my dad owned the gun. This gun made me into the hunter that I am now. I think it is important for a young person to have an adult who is reponsible to purchase a gun for them to use. My dad has tought me alot. The only problem is his taste in Sako rifles, when he was stationed in West Germany (Frankfurt) he was buying Sako Deluxes at a price of $150. He has past on to me the appreciation in fine firearms, its just to bad to buy a new Sako Deluxe it cost me $2000. I am glad a person over 21 was able to pass on the tradition of shooting and hunting on to me.

Tom

Dave!!

One of the coolest things my dad did was give me an 18" barrel 20 gauge/22lr O/U made by savage model 24. This was the best gift as an 8 year old. Technically my dad owned the gun. This gun made me into the hunter that I am now. I think it is important for a young person to have an adult who is reponsible to purchase a gun for them to use. My dad has tought me alot. The only problem is his taste in Sako rifles, when he was stationed in West Germany (Frankfurt) he was buying Sako Deluxes at a price of $150. He has past on to me the appreciation in fine firearms, its just to bad to buy a new Sako Deluxe it cost me $2000. I am glad a person over 21 was able to pass on the tradition of shooting and hunting on to me.

Ralph Bernieri

In the past, in a different time, there were very few gun laws in America....and living with minimal crime was the norm. I agree with you Dave, that was a different time that most of us will only read about in History books.
Keep the laws, and punish the criminals.

Tom

Yes, indeed, I remember all those places, most especially Ed Agramonte's in Yonkers on South Broadway. International Guns was just up the road on Warburton Avenue, another of my regular haunts. In those days MACY'S sold guns.

Ed Agramonte! A name to conjure with. He was good man: patient with a dumb kid, willing to teach, and patient as all get out with someone who undoubtedly was a pest he didn't need. I took my Hunter Ed class in the room over his shop. Wherever he is, I hope he's doing well and selling guns by the trainload.

Came the weekend I'd hop the bus there and spend hours drooling over the stuff in his shop. When I bought my first rifle through the mail I took it to Ed for a headspace check. On the city bus, because I was far too young to drive. Nobody said anything or so much as turned a hair at the sight of a 15-year-old kid with a rifle on a bus. Try that today!

I bought several guns from Ed--all before I was 18, by the way--and consider his passing a great loss.

Stoeger's, yes, indeed. In those days if you didn't have a pistol permit in New York you went over to new Jersey, where you didn't need a permit, to buy your pistol. Today you'd end up in Leavenworth for that.

True: these are not those days. And one reason they aren't is BECAUSE we have stopped trusting the people to take care of themselves and their country, one manifestation of which is the plethora of useless, pointless, and stupid gun laws we have to deal with. Total Repeal would go a long way towards returning this nation to a state of sanity and balance and towards ending the entirely justified suspicion and distrust of government by gun owners.

In Switzerland there's a machine gun in virtually every home, and there is ZERO violent crime. Ditto in Israel, where the only violent crimes committed are by enemies of the state--not a few of whom have met Allah through the agency of privately owned firearms. Having guns around is not, never has been, and never can be a source of crime. The sources of crime are complex, but guns aren't one of them. No how, no way.

We were better off in many ways before the accursed year of 1968, and we will be better off when we repeal it and all the rest of the laws. This may happen: if the Supreme Court rules the right way in the Emerson case (as they will) then all the various state laws will be struck down, too. Won't THAT make Chuck Schumer grind his teeth!

john

if i remember from reading the federalist papers the founding fathers thought it would be better for all people to have access to firearms. they felt it would be better for the bad to get firearms than the good not to have access.
in any enviroment the bad will get weapons but the good need them as protection against the bad and their gov't.

Tom

Oh God forbid there be no gun laws, the Safety People would cower in there homes afraid of what "might" happen. Laws keeping felons from buying guns are ok. but the gun control nuts can keep the rest. Change the laws and let law abiding people have the right to defend themselfs. Not the criminals right to do what they want till they get caught.

David Wright

Sounds good to me. I'll vote for any nut who tries it.




Our Blogs

Categories



Syndicate