Firearms rule in U.S

[Patrick5087]

QUOTE (Drakonis @ Sep 18 2008, 05:20 PM)
Monsta, you are confusing offensive/defensive with lethal/nonlethal. I can most certainly go on the offensive with a canister of pepper spray as surely as I can defend myself with a gun.

Yep, why do you think COPS carry mace with them, spray them with the mace which will make them "defenseless" so they can arrest them (which is btw an attacking action), by restraining them so that they can't attack or defend themselves. Which gets into how can COPS beat someone up.

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (Drakonis @ Sep 19 2008, 12:20 AM)Of course in a society with fewer guns there will be fewer crimes committed using guns.  But does that mean there will be fewer crimes over all?  The answer is a resounding "NO!".  After guns were banned in Britain and Australia violent crime increased.  Criminals are only emboldened when they know their prey is defenseless.
The number of gun crimes in Britain/Australia is lower but more importantly the rate of gun crime (crimes per 100,000) is lower. If guns were truly effective in reducing gun crime then the rate of gun crime should be less if guns are present. As this is not the case it does not help the situation and may even contribute to the whole problem. It is true the rate of gun crime has risen since gun laws were tightened (I believe this happened in 1997 after the Dunblane massacre) however the rate of crime had been rising prior to this incident so it is unlikely the tighter gun laws contributed to the increased gun crime. At least in this case.


QUOTE (Drakonis)Likewise, they are also more likely to commit crimes when they know the only penalty will be therapy.  Criminals SHOULD be demonized and thrown away for a long loooong time.  I have no (zip, zilch, nada, zero) sympathy for those who prey upon others, whatever their petty excuse may be.
There is little correlation between re-offending rates and the length of prison stay. In other words I am just as likely to murder someone after staying in prison for 10 years than if I was only in for 5 years. If harsher punishments were really the answer then America would have the lowest crime rates in the world. This is because it has one of the harshest systems in the western world. By harsh I mean the length of the sentence/fine is greater in America than most western countries. These harsh punishments also result in a large prison population which creates its own problems. The most obvious example I can give is capital punishment. Many people will say the death penalty scares people from murdering. Homicide figures tell a different story.

Rehabilitation and education play a key role in reducing re-offending rates. It can also play a part in stopping future criminals. Prisons can never do this as they only cover up the symptoms. They don't actually tackle the root of the problem (poverty, lack of opportunities etc).

 

[Drakonis]

QUOTE Monsta666: The number of gun crimes in Britain/Australia is lower but more importantly the rate of gun crime (crimes per 100,000) is lower. If guns were truly effective in reducing gun crime then the rate of gun crime should be less if guns are present. As this is not the case it does not help the situation and may even contribute to the whole problem.

First, let me dispose of your false method of categorizing crime. There is no such thing as “Gun Crime”. There is no such thing as “Knife Crime”. Crime is not categorized based on the implements used in the commission of said crime, it is categorized based upon the nature of the crime. Robbery is robbery, rape is rape, and murder is murder regardless of what method/tool was used. It is through such false categorization that the media and anti-gun/knife types spread fear of a tool.

Allow me to create a crime category of my own. I’ll call it “Gang Crime”. In the U.S. I can put the majority of what Monsta666 calls “Gun Crime” into this category. After I do this, most of America’s “Gun Crime” goes away because the majority of violence in America is committed by gang members. In addition to making “Gun Crime” go away, I have also put the guilt for crime where it logically belongs, on those who commit the crimes, and not on the tools that they use.


QUOTE Monsta666: It is true the rate of gun crime has risen since gun laws were tightened (I believe this happened in 1997 after the Dunblane massacre) however the rate of crime had been rising prior to this incident so it is unlikely the tighter gun laws contributed to the increased gun crime. At least in this case.

It is my understanding that the first serious efforts at outlawing gun ownership in Britain began in the late 60’s with the Criminal Justice and Firearms Act and that the increasing rate of crime (general crime, not “Gun Crime”) can be traced back to this era. Please correct me if I’m misinformed on this count.


QUOTE Monsta666: Rehabilitation and education play a key role in reducing re-offending rates. It can also play a part in stopping future criminals. Prisons can never do this as they only cover up the symptoms. They don't actually tackle the root of the problem (poverty, lack of opportunities etc).

I don’t buy into the “Root Cause” crap. Poverty doesn’t affect a person’s ability to tell right from wrong and crying about a lack of opportunities is just a way to divert attention away from the fact that someone is lazy. I have no interest in rehabilitating criminals, only punishing them as they properly should be. And unless you've got a crystal ball and a time machine I'm not sure how rehab will stop future criminals. Prison should be a hell on earth that no one who enters it will ever want to return to it.


QUOTE Monsta666: The most obvious example I can give is capital punishment. Many people will say the death penalty scares people from murdering. Homicide figures tell a different story.

You’re right, the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent, but it is an excellent way to get rid of the trash. The only problem with the death penalty is that it isn’t used often enough. I object in the strongest of terms to my tax dollars going the feed, clothe and house people who have callously ended the lives of others; in most cases for their own personal gain. I would much rather pay the $25 dollars needed for a lethal injection than $25,000 yearly to incarcerate each of these monsters.

 

[Dalriada]

QUOTE
Allow me to create a crime category of my own. I’ll call it “Gang Crime”. In the U.S. I can put the majority of what Monsta666 calls “Gun Crime” into this category. After I do this, most of America’s “Gun Crime” goes away because the majority of violence in America is committed by gang members. In addition to making “Gun Crime” go away, I have also put the guilt for crime where it logically belongs, on those who commit the crimes, and not on the tools that they use.

Well, can I introduce the category"Criminals crime" ?
I'm quite sure that I can put most of the European crimes in this category.

To sum up, you miss two things (well, you don't miss them, you ignore them purposefully)
-Gangs are defined as a bunch of people commiting crimes, so removing gangs from the crimes statistics is like removing politicians from the corruption statistics...
-A gun (or a gun-wielder) doesn't have the same behaviour than a knife.


QUOTE I don’t buy into the “Root Cause” crap. Poverty doesn’t affect a person’s ability to tell right from wrong and crying about a lack of opportunities is just a way to divert attention away from the fact that someone is lazy.

Plainly wrong.
I love how you imply that everyone with problems is lazy. Especially when those problems are a wrong skin colour, a foreign name or a medical handicap.
Life is far easier when you're a rich white christian kid (at least in Europe/USA. For other countries, colour and religion may change).


QUOTE I have no interest in rehabilitating criminals, only punishing them as they properly should be. And unless you've got a crystal ball and a time machine I'm not sure how rehab will stop future criminals. Prison should be a hell on earth that no one who enters it will ever want to return to it.

What a lack of foresight.
People go out of jail at one moment or another (except if you're stalinist and want to reinstall some gulags ?).
If you torture them during X years, when they go out, they won't readapt and will commit other crimes. Vicious circle.



QUOTE You’re right, the death penalty doesn’t work as a deterrent, but it is an excellent way to get rid of the trash.

I really love how you treat your fellow humans are trash. Your message makes it easier to understand how some dictatorships went into power (look how I avoid skillfully the Godwin point).
By the way, it's more expensive in the US to put someone to death than to keep him in jail for life.

 

[Drakonis]

QUOTE Dalriada: Well, can I introduce the category"Criminals crime" ?

Is that like "Flying Flight" or "Sporting Sport"? You are a witty one.


QUOTE Dalriada: Gangs are defined as a bunch of people commiting crimes, so removing gangs from the crimes statistics is like removing politicians from the corruption statistics...

I have in no way advocated removing gangs from criminal statistics, merely that crimes committed by gang members be grouped as such in the statistics.


QUOTE Dalriada: -A gun (or a gun-wielder) doesn't have the same behaviour than a knife.

Whaaaat? A knives and guns are inanimate objects. They have no behavior. Are you perhaps trying to say that armed people behave differently than unarmed people? Because if so, you are likely correct in many cases. But that doesn't mean that because some people will behave irresponsibly when given a tool that that tool should be taken from everyone. I can responsibly defend myself with a gun from someone who is irresponsibly trying to rob me using whatever weapon they can find.


QUOTE Dalriada: I love how you imply that everyone with problems is lazy. Especially when those problems are a wrong skin colour, a foreign name or a medical handicap.
Life is far easier when you're a rich white christian kid (at least in Europe/USA. For other countries, colour and religion may change).

I never implied everyone with a problem is lazy. Just those who lay around and whine about it while expecting someone else (usually the govt.) to fix their problem. I never said a thing about skin color, foreign names, or any kind of handicap and for you to imply otherwise is quite dishonest.


QUOTE Dalriada: I really love how you treat your fellow humans are trash. Your message makes it easier to understand how some dictatorships went into power (look how I avoid skillfully the Godwin point).
By the way, it's more expensive in the US to put someone to death than to keep him in jail for life.

I don't treat my fellow humans as trash, in fact, I hold them in very high regard. It is those who murder, rape and steal who treat their fellow humans like trash and in doing so they become trash themselves. Yes, you quite deftly avoided Godwin, but in pointing it out, you ran right into him. The death penalty only becomes more expensive than life in prison when overpriced lawyers start filing frivolous suits for stays of execution. Two points I hope we can agree on Dalriada are that lawyers are a species quite separate from humans and that the world would be better off if about half of them just disappeared.

Also, I shall make no further comment on crime and punishment in this thread on firearms. We're starting to go off topic.

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (Drakonis @ Sep 23 2008, 01:26 AM)First, let me dispose of your false method of categorizing crime.  There is no such thing as "Gun Crime". There is no such thing as "Knife Crime".
I can assure you gun crime and knife crime do exist. The Home Office (the governmental body for security and order in the UK) recognises these as crimes:
Gun crime
Knife crime


QUOTE (Drakonis)Allow me to create a crime category of my own.  I’ll call it “Gang Crime”.  In the U.S. I can put the majority of what Monsta666 calls “Gun Crime” into this category.  After I do this, most of America’s “Gun Crime” goes away because the majority of violence in America is committed by gang members.
The same is true in the UK. The majority of gun crimes are committed by gang members. If we remove these people then the majority of gun crimes will go away. Actually this is a point that the police often make. If guns were truly effective in defending yourself then gang members should be protected by carrying firearms. As statistics will show they are the most likely people to become victims of gun (and knife) crime.

A large amount of gun crime is also committed by people involved in the drugs industry. I am sure the same is true in America.


QUOTE (Drakonis)It is my understanding that the first serious efforts at outlawing gun ownership in Britain began in the late 60’s with the Criminal Justice and Firearms Act and that the increasing rate of crime (general crime, not “Gun Crime”) can be traced back to this era.  Please correct me if I’m misinformed on this count.
It is true that extra regulations were added in the 1960's (1968 to be precise). The new laws restricted the barrel length for shotguns. Immediately after this new bill the homicide rate went down but after 5 years it started rising again. It's debatable whether this bill had any effect on the rate homicide. Saying that this was not the first serious effort to tighten gun regulations. The first real measures came in the 1920's. This was because the government was worried that the extra guns from the first world war would result in an increased rate of gun crime. Fully automatic firearms where banned from the public in 1937.

In my original post I was referring to the 1997 Firearms act. This came about as a direct result of the Dunblane massacre. This bill added extra restrictions to the possession of handguns. Like I said earlier after this act the rate of gun crime went up. Then again the rate of gun crime was already rising before the bill came into effect.


QUOTE (Drakonis)I don't buy into the "Root Cause" crap. Poverty doesn't affect a person's ability to tell right from wrong and crying about a lack of opportunities is just a way to divert attention away from the fact that someone is lazy.
Let's think about this. People in poverty are less likely to receive a decent education. They lack any role models as the family is often broken up. And if the children go wayward no one will stop them. So it makes a very big difference. They are more likely to be exposed to crime at an earlier age too. This will desensitise them to crimes. Shop lifting doesn't seem so bad when you see your mates doing it for years. So our perception of right and wrong is definitely effected by our environment.


QUOTE (Drakonis)I have no interest in rehabilitating criminals, only punishing them as they properly should be. And unless you've got a crystal ball and a time machine I'm not sure how rehab will stop future criminals. Prison should be a hell on earth that no one who enters it will ever want to return to it.
It would be naive to think all criminals will reform. Saying that it would be grossly unfair to never allow the criminal a chance in reforming. Some criminals genuinely feel sorry for the crimes they committed.

 

[dchaosblade]

Although I disagree with Drakonis in some things (the category of gun crime is very real and recognized by the U.S. government too), there are some things I do agree with.

First of all, I don't buy in with the root cause idea either. I know several people who were raised in a poor family, with divorced parents, living only with their mother, who are just fine.
A few facts:
In the U.S. (and many if not most European countries too), school is free all the way up till the end of High School.
In the U.S. (and many if not most European countries too), there are scholarships available not only from private organizations but also from the State that will pay 100% of educational fees for post-primary education (University). EX: Every state in the U.S. has a full scholarship available to EVERY student who has a 3.0 GPA or higher (B avg). This means if you work at it, you can go to any University in your state FOR FREE. It doesn't matter how rich or poor you are - you can get it. Therefore, poverty does NOT restrict your education, and thus it doesn't restrict job opportunities - it's illegal to turn down a person for employment based on race, sex, or religion. So yeah, if you are poor, you don't have any more excuse than if you're rich.

Also, no role model? Bull shit. Watch tv, see a movie, look at your teacher. Hell, use Whoopi Goldberg as your roll model, she started out poor, look where she got.

Like it or not, committing a crime is a personal decision that a person makes. There is no "but I had to" or "I was forced to". There is no excuse. There is ABSOLUTELY no excuse for murder or even use of a lethal weapon (in an aggressive manner - Use of a lethal weapon for your own protection can be excusable).

-------------------------------------------------

Now, I would like to direct EVERYONE to go to this website. In it, you will find a lot of information that pertains to the discussion at hand; and more importantly it will debunk many of the myths that some of you have been ignorantly throwing around.
Furthermore, I would like you to read this article. "[The] paper is entitled, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence," and it was published this spring in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy--the nation’s most widely distributed law review, with 10,000 copies sent to federal judges and attorneys--where it’s likely to have a big impact on the national debate."

Seriously, read the above, and get your facts straight. Stop repeating what you hear from random irreputable sources - or even in many cases the media - and check for yourself.

 

[monsta666]

QUOTE (dchaosblade @ Sep 24 2008, 01:27 AM)First of all, I don't buy in with the root cause idea either.  I know several people who were raised in a poor family, with divorced parents, living only with their mother, who are just fine.
A few facts:
In the U.S. (and many if not most European countries too), school is free all the way up till the end of High School.
In the U.S. (and many if not most European countries too), there are scholarships available not only from private organizations but also from the State that will pay 100% of educational fees for post-primary education (University).
It is true people living in poverty are not condemned to a life of crime and violence there are ways of escaping. Nonetheless life does become harder if you are poor. Yes it is true that schools are free but children from middle/upper-class backgrounds also have access to private education and may even have tutors to support them. You may argue that scholarships are available for the less will off but these are only awarded to exceptional students. Being good is not enough, on the other hand if you are average/good and middle class you will have access to these places.

Now I only focused on education as I could be going on for ages. There are a range of other things that go against people from disadvantaged backgrounds. The point I'm trying to make is these problems are very real and cannot be dismissed. Sure they can be overcome if the person is determined enough but these obstacles are not present for the richer person. So the playing field is not exactly even.


QUOTE (dchaosblade)Now, I would like to direct EVERYONE to go to this website.  In it, you will find a lot of information that pertains to the discussion at hand; and more importantly it will debunk many of the myths that some of you have been ignorantly throwing around. 
Furthermore, I would like you to read this article.  "[The] paper is entitled, "Would Banning Firearms Reduce Murder and Suicide? A Review of International and Some Domestic Evidence," and it was published this spring in the Harvard Journal of Law and Public Policy--the nation’s most widely distributed law review, with 10,000 copies sent to federal judges and attorneys--where it’s likely to have a big impact on the national debate."

Seriously, read the above, and get your facts straight.  Stop repeating what you hear from random irreputable sources - or even in many cases the media - and check for yourself.
Although the NRA's data maybe accurate I question how impartial it really is. For example the article describes how the rate of gun crime in Russia sky-rocketed after the collapse of the Soviet Union. It suggests the tighter gun laws were responsible for this. However you need to consider during that during this period of high crime Russia suffered a economic recession. Poverty and unemployment reached unprecedented levels during this period. It's well known that during economic recessions the rate of crime increases. So a degree of caution must be used when reading this data. I will generally agree that gun ownership will may not necessarily lead to a increased rate of crime.

Another point that is worth mentioning is Japan has one of the lowest rate of gun crime in the world despite having strict gun laws (which are BAD according to the NRA). So the data doesn't completely fit. In any case the important thing one needs to remember is that gun crime is a complex problem. Saying that strict/lax gun laws will contribute to crime is not the whole story. One needs to understand the countries attitude towards guns and their general culture. Once you take those factors into consideration you can then consider what laws need to be implemented.

 

[dchaosblade]

Actually, monsta; you're wrong.
First of all, the article is not related in any way with the NRA. The NRA simply linked to it because they felt it supported their beliefs. Therefore the paper was actually very impartial. FURTHERMORE, throughout the entire paper, the authors said they DID NOT CLAIM that strict gun laws were the cause for higher crime rates. They were simply saying that those countries with extremely tight gun restrictions still have higher crime rates than many other countries that have very few if any gun restrictions. They also never claim that loose restrictions will lead to fewer crimes. They are simply trying to show that gun laws have no true affect on crime. Some countries with the tightest gun laws have extremely high crime rates and other countries with the loosest gun laws have extremely low crime rates. Yes, there are countries with tight gun laws with low rates, and vice versa, but that only SUPPORTS the argument. The point is that the laws DO NOT AFFECT crime rate and may actually have a negative impact in some regions.


Think of it this way. Lets assume I'm a criminal - or rather that I have plans for committing a crime. Let us also assume that I'm in a country that has relatively strict gun laws that would normally prevent me from getting my hands on a gun. Now, if I REALLY wanted a gun, the fact is that I could get one. It would be illegal to have one, but hell, I'm already planning on mugging some one, at this point it doesn't matter. So I go and get a gun on the black market which I can use to mug some random guy on the street.
Look at it from the other perspective. Lets assume I'm NOT a criminal - that I have no crime record, that I have no plans on committing a crime any time in the future. Let us also assume that I'm in a country that has relatively strict gun laws that would normally prevent me from getting my hands on a gun. Now, being the good law-abiding citizen that I am, I don't own a gun. I get robbed, mugged, whatever and essentially have no way to defend myself.

From the perspective of the criminal my life is a LOT easier. If I really want a gun, I can get one - albeit illegally. And the bonus? I KNOW that the guy I'm going to rob will NOT have a weapon to defend himself. I will always have the upper hand with the gun.
If this situation were in a country like the U.S., as the criminal I wouldn't know if the guy I'm about to rob has a gun or not. As such, it acts as a deterrent, the guy on the street I was targeting might have a gun too...maybe I shouldn't rob him, cause he might shoot ME instead of the other way around.



My point is that the people who own guns and use them for crimes - whether it be something like a robbery or a murder - would be able to get their hands on a gun regardless of the laws enacted upon them. Instead, it only prevents the law-abiding citizens from owning a gun of their own to protect themselves should the need arise. Furthermore, even if you DO take away guns, it will NOT stop the crimes from occurring. The criminals would just use a knife instead. Knives are just as deadly as guns, and just as scary - and I don't know about you but I'd rather be shot and die quickly than be stabbed and left to die over a longer period of time...

The fact is that it doesn't matter what the laws are - people will always be able to get their hands on a gun if they really want to; and even if they don't, the people who would have committed a gun crime would just commit the same crime with a knife instead. It wouldn't really prevent anything other than self defense.

 

[wildweathel]

QUOTE (d'observer @ May 04 2007, 02:01 AM)So,for now I'm asking for someone that knows a lot about the detail in the firearm's possession and related laws in U.S,to post a bit on it,so I and maybe others could share our opinions on the thing.


OK. In the US there are approximately 51 sets of gun laws: one for each state, and another set that applies to federal territory, including Washington, DC. I'll just focus on the laws that apply to my state (Maine) first.

First, federal laws apply to the entire country. The oldest of these is the National Firearms Act, which dates back to prohibition (1934), and for historical reasons is part of the tax code:

NFA

* Machineguns are firearms that fire multiple times per trigger pull or parts to convert a firearm to do so.

* Short-barreled rifles/shotguns are firearms with a buttstock and one of the following features: overall length less than 26" (660 mm), smooth barrel less than 18" (457 mm), or rifled barrel less than 16" (406 mm).

* Suppressors are portable devices that reduce the audible muzzle blast of a firearm.

* Destructive devices are bombs, grenades, rockets having more than 4 oz (133 g) of propellant or 1/2 oz (14 g) explosive charge, and--at the discretion of the Secretary of the Treasury--some guns over .50 cal (12.7 mm) (all common shotguns except the .410 cal are over .50 cal. In practice, most large rifles are classified as DDs, but few shotguns are).

* "Any Other Weapons" are handguns with a smooth bore or a forward grip, pistol-grip shotguns, and disguised firearms (pen guns, cane guns, etc.)

* These five categories are collectively known as Title II weapons. Private ownership--except under military contract--is subject to an extensive background check, fingerprinting, and registration. Machineguns made or imported after 19 May 1986 (the "Huges Amendment") may not be registered; all others incur a $200 tax.

* Transfer of ownership requires that the new owner be registered and incurs a $5 transfer tax for AOWs and $200 for the other four categories.

The Gun Control Act of 1968 is the one federal firearms law most likely to apply to gun owners in the US:

GCA PROHIBITED PERSONS

* Age: 18+ or guardian's permission to possess a firearm

* Crime: must not have been convicted of a federal crime punishable by 1+ year or a state crime punishable by 2+ years, nor a fugitive from justice, nor an illegal user of controlled substances, nor dishonorably discharged from the US military.

* Mental illness: anyone adjudicated a mental defective or committed to a mental institution. Note that this only applies to court orders, or verdicts like "not guilty by reason of insanity."

* Residency: must either be a US citizen or legal immigrant. Persons who renounce US citizenship are barred for life.

* Domestic violence (Lautenberg Amendment): Must not be subject to a restraining order or convicted of misdemeanor domestic violence.

GCA FEDERAL REGISTRATION OF DEALERS

* Professional gun dealers are required to register with the Federal government and pay some fairly hefty taxes.

* Dealers may buy guns anywhere in the US.

* Dealers may sell long guns anywhere in the US.

* Dealers may sell handguns only to other dealers or residents of their state 21 years or older.

* Non-dealers may buy from or sell to dealers.

* Non-dealers may buy from or sell to non-dealers in their own state.

* Non-dealers may not make a business of selling firearms.

GCA FIREARM PARTS and SERIAL NUMBERS

* One part, typically the receiver (or the upper receiver of a split-receiver design) is designated as the "serialized part," which must bear a unique serial number and is subject to the GCA. Other parts are not regulated.

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986. This law is rather unusual, in that it mostly regulates the regulators. There are a few provisions that affect private individuals.

FOPA

* States may not prosecute persons just passing through with firearms for unlawful firearms possession, if the firearm is not immediately accessible and the person passing through does not stop more than necessary. [As a result, if I want to drive to a shooting competition in Virginia, I can legally take an AR-15 rifle (banned in NY) through NYC, as long as it stays in the trunk.]

* Machinegun registration was stopped by the Hughes Amendment to FOPA

* The federal government may not keep a database of firearms sales.

The Brady Act of 1993

* Expanded background checks to cover all firearms sales by dealers, not just sales of Title II weapons.

* Imposed up to a 5-day for the background check. This was later reduced to 3 days in 1998.

The 1994 Crime Bill/Assault Weapons Ban. This is a very controversial law, to say the least, and is probably more responsible than anything for the resurgence of pro-gun politics in the US. A few states have state copies of the law still in effect, but Maine is not one of them.

State laws in Maine.

ME POSSESSION

* No permits are required for possession of firearms.

* Minimum age for long guns/handguns: 16/18 respectively or guardian permission [Note that dealers must follow the federal 18/21 rule]

* Air guns are treated like long guns.

* Minors may lose the right to possess long gun for some offenses.

That's it for Maine's possession rules.

ME CARRY

* Only cops and state-licensed private investigators may carry in bars, and they may not drink.

* Non-concealed carry of firearms is allowed almost everywhere [courthouses and schools come to mind]--but is rare and will probably invite police harassment. Portland, especially, is known for this.

* Long guns may not be loaded in a car, but may be carried with ammunition.

* Concealed carry and carry of loaded handguns in automobiles requires a state permit: safety/legal-self defense course, background check, renewed every 4 years, $5 per year fee, plus $15 one time fee. Like drivers licenses, concealed-weapons-permits also require the holder to submit to field sobriety tests.

SHOOTING

* Municipalities may regulate or ban shooting, but nothing else. [For example the City of Westbrook bans all shooting (we're really urban for Maine, so it makes sense) except for self-defense--the highest degree of restriction allowed. The neighboring town of Scarborough allows shotgun-shooting only, again because of concerns over the safety of rifle projectiles in a suburban area (which are perfectly capable of going over the horizon)]

* It is illegal to shoot within 100 yards (91 m) of a dwelling without the owner's permission.

HUNTING

* Machineguns and suppressors are banned from hunting. [But you can still use them at ranges that allow them]

* Similarly, semi-automatic weapons are limited to 5-round magazines, when hunting.

* Semi-automatic shotguns are limited to 2-round magazines when hunting migratory birds.

* Tracers and exploding ammunition are banned from hunting.

Other states vary significantly.

 

[madsquirrel113]

Seeing as how this started as a discussion on Virginia Tech, if firearms are banned people will switch to the next best thng. NOT KNIVES. Bombs. Simply put, bombs cannot be regulated well enough to prevent there use. I could go to Ace Hardware and buy the components for a bomb that could wipe out a school auditorium. In the case of school shootings and the like, bombs are much more convient than firearms in my opinion and it surprises me that they are used as rarely as they are.

If guns cause crime spoons made Rosie Odonell fat.

Wildweathel, nice summary of US gun laws. On a side note, the serial numbered part of an AR-15 is the lower receiver not the upper they did this because the primary difference between the AR-15 and the M-16 is the fire control group which is housed in the lower. Better buy a few lowers before Obama gets into office. A stripped AR-15 lower costs you about $150.

 

[ZeroGT97]

Fact of the matter is guns don't commit crimes people do. Guns are simply tools used to do it. Taking guns away from law abiding people would make them vulnerable to all types of crime.