Thanks, Obama!
(No snark with that one.)
Am I the only one who finds the use of green for the restriction-easing legislation, and amber for restriction-tightening legislation, contentious? I think I understand where it’s coming from, but find it hard to shake the green=good and amber=uh-oh implication, which to my mind is precisely the opposite way around to how I’d classify them. Not sure what the NYT was thinking!
Also interesting to note that the legal status of firearms is progressing in exactly the opposite direction to that which the gun lobby tend to claim. No doubt they’ll still be claiming victimhood when legislation is passed requiring all presidential candidates to be fully paid-up NRA members.
I’m starting to wonder if the Powers are just stirring the pot, keeping us squabbling over guns and gays while they slurp up the rest of all the money.
Not only contentious, but without explanation. Like the very first one on the very first list (Gun Permits):
Requires sheriffs to approve or deny permit applications within 30 days and to explain any rejections.
What was the previous rule? That sheriffs have 60 days to decide? That the permits went to a board for a decision? How is this more permissible than the previous environment?
Or, under Public Carry:
“Allows firearms to be carried on a snowmobile on the permit holder’s property.”
So you previously weren’t allowed to carry a firearm on your snowmobile on your own property?
If I have to ask these questions, this survey of legislation by NYT is rubbish.
Along the same lines, these two regulations are listed as “loosens gun restrictions” and are colored in green, mistakenly, I assume:
- Requires background checks for concealed-carry permit applicants (Missouri).
- Prohibits convicted felons from possessing ammunition (Michigan).
And none of these would have stopped Sandy Hook, perpetrated by a crazy kid who was completely enabled and pacified by his mother. The one person who had the most insight on who this kid was and what he was about failed to stop him - but don’t worry, we will conjure up some law that would have. Kickstart a Bureau of Pre-Crime?
Many of the laws passed are knee-jerk reactionary ones, letting people feel good because they “did something” (Oh nos! I have more than seven bullets in my gun, look out, I’m a killing machine!) Like many of the post 9/11 terrorism laws, they aren’t actually doing much to curb the problem they are trying to address. There are few on there that look fairly reasonable or aimed to plug up a few holes.
Haven´t you been paying attention? It´s all about arming as many good guys with assault rifles as possible. For teh safeties.
Several of these laws are redundant. It’s already illegal for felons to possess firearms. If that law was working any possessed ammo would be harmless unless used in a sling shot. I guess it could be one more law could be used to add more time for a felon with a loaded gun. I know in my state they have billboards saying it is 10 years for illegal possession.
I am pretty sure it is already a Federal law that prohibits altering a gun’s ID (serial) number.
This is pretty shoddy journalism.
Buying a gun for self protection is also pretty reactionary - (Oh nos! Teh criminals are out to get me because I have stuff! But now I have a gun it won’t happen to me). The problem is social, it’s staring everyone in the face, and the desire to encourage everyone to adjust their level of armament rather than the social circumstances affecting them seems to have pretty naked implications.
Yeah, I’m not sure how much of an impact those laws will make.
Also, thirteen of the laws listed as loosening gun restrictions consist of making the records of who owns guns confidential. If records of who has a concealed carry permit are public, couldn’t that just give baddies a list of houses to steal guns from?
I missed these ones, which fall into that exact same category:
- Requires submission of mental health records to National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NC)
- Adds a “knowing and intentional” element to crimes involving machine guns, to the selling of a handgun by an unlicensed person, and to the possession of a firearm while boarding an aircraft, on school grounds or on a school bus. (IN)
You’re assuming that gun owners think that people are out to get them. Most of them aren’t paranoid, they just see it as insurance. There’s a pretty small chance that someone will try to assault or rape you, but if it happens, and you have a gun, you may be able to stop it. There’s also a pretty small chance that a tree will fall on your car, but if it happened, and you didn’t have that insurance, you’d really be fucked.
I’m not saying that there isn’t a social aspect to it as well, but those social issues take a long, long time to work out, and they’re never really “fixed.” In the meantime, it makes sense to me that lots of folks have guns for self-defense.
What do you mean by that? Move if you’re in a bad neighborhood? Be more neighborly?
Good to see that Massachusetts is no longer a state. Anyone know if we are going with the “Commonwealth of Massachusetts” for our new country or are we going with the more classy (and Marxist) “People’s Republic of Massachusetts”?
“Massachusetts Soviet of Workers, Farmers and Cossacks”.
Huh, good point. I’m surprised to not see MA on that list. Definitely going to be the PRM though.
What do you mean by that? Move if you’re in a bad neighborhood? Be more neighborly?
If you carry a gun because of your neighbours, you really need to think collectively and individually about how things got to where they are now.
It really sucks when what you want is so strongly opposed by enough people.
You know, since the laws, as noted, are mostly making gun records confidential, the headline shouldn’t be “since Sandy Hook” but rather “Since The Journal News printed an interactive map of all those with gun registrations”
