| Gun Control In The United States (by State) |
Article Index for Gun |
Website Links For Gun Control |
Information AboutGun Control In The United States (by State) |
|
Many US states have legislated their own gun control laws, independent of existing federal Gun Control . Some have also created so-called assault weapon bans that are independent, though often similar to, the expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban . The state level bans vary significantly in their form, content, and level of restriction. Most US states have a state constitutional provision similar to the Second Amendment of the Bill Of Rights . This often raises legal issues on the legality of some of the legislations. ALASKA Alaska is the first state to adopt carry laws mimicking Vermont's (normally referred to as "Vermont Carry,"), in which no license is required to carry a handgun either openly or concealed. CALIFORNIA California has some of the strictest gun control laws of the United States. The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act Of 1989 , its subsequent augmentation in 1999, and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act Of 2004 has led to many restrictions on semi-automatic firearms. In addition to a lengthy list of specific firearms that are banned by name, the following firearms are banned by characteristic:
(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon. (B) A thumbhole stock. (C) A folding or telescoping stock. (D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher. (E) A flash suppressor. (F) A forward pistol grip.
(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer. (B) A second handgrip. (C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel. (D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.
(A) A folding or telescoping stock. (B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.
There are also numerous other laws, such as prohibition on possession of tracer ammunition, handgun armor piercing ammunition, .50 BMG rifles, and the sale or transfer of magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds. All rifles are normally exempt for the original owner if properly registered at the time of the acts which prohibited them. In addition, the law states that any weapon that is part of the AR-15 series or AK series is also an assault weapon, regardless of manufacturer; this dates back to 1989 ban, and was confirmed in the , filed 6/28/2001 This decision required banned firearms to be specifically listed by make and model in California Code of Regulations (the "Kasler list", [http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/regs/aw.pdf ) (it did not address assault weapons defined by features.) Thus, only firearms specifically listed by exact combination of manufacturer and model name, or conforming to explicit exterior characteristics (such as a pistol grip or folding stock in combination with a detachable magazine) can be banned under current legislation. Once it was realized the California Department Of Justice (CA DOJ) has not updated the "Kasler list" in the 5 years after Harrott decision, many Californians found they could legally purchase and possess AR and AK rifles not yet officially identified as "series" members. As of February 2006, over 10,000 "off-list" receivers (frames) for such rifles have been legally imported to, and purchased within, California. The only requirement for these receivers are that the combination of make and model is not explicitly listed as banned, and as long as the owner does not add certain "characteristic features" turning the firearm into an assault weapon (i.e. pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc). These characteristic features can be used, however, if a nondetachable 10-round (or less) magazine, conforming in the converse to the California Code of Regulations Section 978.20 definition of detachable magazine {Link without Title} , is affixed to such "off-list" rifles. These off-list rifles can also be used without a pistol grip, folding stock or flash hider, in which case it is legal to own and use them with detachable magazines. The CA DOJ produced a report from the Ferranto Commission in response It appears that this list will be updated in early 2006. CA DOJ also issued a controversial memorandum dated February 1, 2006 [http://ag.ca.gov/firearms/forms/pdf/ar15notice.pdf , whose described actions are not founded or supported within statutory law in Penal Code 12275-12290. This memo stated that once off-list "series" firearms are declared and registered as assault weapons, they will not be able to have characteristic features added or fixed magazines removed. This is being challenged by pro-gun groups, since there is no criminal violation in the California Penal Code for adding or changing features to a legally-acquired, registered assault weapon. On November 8 , 2005 , San Francisco voters enacted a total ban on the manufacture, sale, transfer or distribution of firearms or ammunition in San Francisco, as well as a ban on the possession of handguns within the city by San Francisco residents (excepting peace officers, security guards and the like). It does not, however, prohibit possession of weapons other than handguns, nor does it prohibit residents of other cities from possessing handguns in San Francisco. This makes San Francisco the third major U.S. city, following Washington, D.C. and Chicago , to enact a ban on handguns. San Francisco's ban goes farther, though, because the bans in Washington, D.C. and Chicago, unlike San Francisco's, included Grandfather Clauses exempting existing gun owners. Under San Francisco's law, current gun owners must surrender their handguns to the city police by the end of March 2006 . Issues with the California laws Although the law's purpose is to try to make California a safer place, both sides agree that there are many firearms that are legal in California that are functionally identical to prohibited weapons, and evidence of the effectiveness of such laws is hard to come by. Both sides also agree that the law needs to be revised to make it more clear so ordinary people can understand what constitutes an assault weapon and what does not. When the act was being debated in the legislature, the Association of California Cities, a prominent supporter of that act, claimed that California law enforcement agencies feared that some groups in large cities might undertake successful rebellions against civil order if armed with modern weapons. In spite of hundreds of thousands of such "assault weapons" in the public hands for some decades, no such events have ever occurred anywhere in the USA. Prominent members of black churches in L.A., as well as Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Feinstein (D-CA), have claimed that the only real purpose of such weapons is to kill large numbers of people, and therefore there is no reason to permit them. Some gun rights advocates claim that the primary uses of these firearms in civilian hands has been, and continues to be the sport of recreational target-shooting (there were no reported deaths or injuries related to the sport of target shooting in 1999, 2000, and 2001). Most gun rights supporters base their authority on the 2nd Amendment, which states that keeping and bearing arms is necessary to keep a free state free. Based on engineering differences, ease of modification, and their high level of expertise, California Rifle and Pistol Association (CRPA) members see nothing special about assault weapons except their appearance, which is exactly what the gun collectors want, and what the legislature wants to prohibit. The legislature has thus been accused of being paternalistic and somewhat frivolous for creating the Assault Weapons Control Act. Another example of politically based gun laws is the ban of all ammunition with the word "Magnum" in the name by some parts of Los Angeles, when in fact the word Magnum is rather meaningless in ammunition nomenclature, with its reputation largely based on movies, not ballistics. Using slippery slope logic, gun rights advocates have argued that the only real purpose of these "assault weapons" bans is to make the public used to the idea that firearms can be banned by government action and the public simply must accept any bans the government will choose to impose in the future. According to gun rights advocates, these bans have purely symbolic and propaganda purposes with no chance of reducing violent crime. Supporters of the ban counter that the banned features of these weapons were designed for military use. Supporters also argue that the features that define an "assault weapon" make it useless for hunting and less effective for target shooting, but more effective in combat. Gun rights advocates counter that this view exhibits an ignorance of what is involved in, e.g., competitive target shooting, and the features which are desirable in a gun intended for that pursuit. They point out that the military design heritage of the banned "assault weapons" may make for a more rugged and durable gun. They assert that some exterior features on some firearms targeted for ban - such as a pistol grip or a folding stock - lend only a cosmetic similarity to military weapons, and that the removal of these features simply restricts law abiding citizens' rights without reducing crime. ILLINOIS Illinois has some of the most restrictive fireams laws in the country. It is one very few states that actually registers firearm owners, requiring a firearm owners to obtain a special identification card. There is no state preemption of firearm laws with the result that some localities, most notably Chicago and the near suburbs, have outright banned ownership of handguns. Among other things, lack of preemption makes it difficult to travel throughout Illinois with a firearm while being sure that no laws are being broken. There is no provision for citizens to carry pistol openly or concealed. NEW JERSEY New Jersey has been sometimes called "Gun Owner's Hell " for its restrictive laws. Firearm owners are required to get a purchaser identification card. Handguns are required to be registered and magazines are limited to 15 rounds or less. New Jersey has its own assault weapons ban as well. NEW YORK New York State has a ban that is an exact mirror of the Federal Assault Weapons Ban , except that it does not have a Sunset Provision . New York's laws are not uniform throughout the state. New York City is known for having some of the strictest gun laws in the country. On May 24 , 2005 , the New York State Assembly passed a bill to change the definition of 'assault weapons' and calling for ballistic fingerprinting of all firearms. Bill Text and Summary . The bill does not appear to be under consideration in the Senate. New York is a particularly interesting case, because New York separates all of New England from the bulk of the United States. New York laws thus have a severe impact on law-abiding citizens who wish to travel to and from New England by land. OREGON Oregon is a shall issue concealed pistol license state that is notable for having very few restrictions on where a concealed firearm may be carried. For example, Oregon is one of the few states where a concealed handgun may be carried in any public school. Oregon has statewide Preemption for its firearm laws. Fully automatic weapons and sound suppressors are legal to own and use in Oregon. There is an ongoing battle between some localities and the state, with localities, particularly in Multnomah county, trying to supersede state preemption and restrict concealed weapon carry in certain places not restricted by the state. A good source for information on this and other interesting issues Oregon Firearms Federation homepage . VERMONT Vermont is notable in that it has no gun control laws aside from prohibiting counties and other localities from making their own gun control laws ( Preemption ). The only gun control laws that apply in Vermont are federal ones. {Link without Title} The term "Vermont Carry" is used by gun rights advocates to refer to allowing citizens to carry a firearm concealed or openly without any sort of permit requirement. VIRGINIA Virginia allows unlicensed open carry of a handgun that has a capacity of twenty rounds or less, unthreaded barrel and no collapsible stock. (Most handguns fall under this category). Virginia Concealed Handgun Permit (CHP) holders are exempt from this regardless if they are open carrying or concealed. Virginia CHP are Shall Issue. Virginia concealed-carry permit holders are exempted from the state's "one handgun per month" purchase limitation. Non-CHP holders can bypass one handgun a month rules as well by applying for a special permit with state police which gives exception holder a one time exception or when trading in a handgun for another one from a gun dealer. NFA34 weapons are allowed under Virginia state law but Machine Gun s must be registered with Virginia State Police. Virginia's gun laws are uniform throughout the state under a law passed in 2004 which eliminated all existing local ordinances with exception of firearm discharges ordinances. Many Virginia counties have been slow to react to this new law and many still have regulations or policies which violate Virginia state law. WASHINGTON Washington is one of the original "shall issue" states, in which a concealed pistol permit must be issued to any person not prohibited from owning a pistol. Furthermore, a concealed pistol license is not required to carry a concealed pistol if the person carrying the firearm is in route to, in route from, or actively participating in a 'legitimate outdoor activity.' The text of this law can be found at the Washington page of packing.org . Open carrying of firearms, including pistols, is questionable. The law does not outright ban this practice, but it does not endorse it either, and trouble with law enforcement has been encountered while open carrying in the past, most notably in a case in Ellensburg, Washington. Although Washington State is typically liberal on firearms issues, it is one of seven states that bans civilian ownership of fully automatic weapons. Civilian ownership of sound suppressors is legal, but the use of them is questionable. Washington is a "castle doctrine" state, in which there is no duty to retreat in the face of what would be perceived by an ordinary person to be a threat to themselves or others by another person that is likely to cause serious injury or death. Opponents of such laws have often referred to this as a "shoot first" law, especially since Florida adopted such a law in March of 2005, erroneously implying that the law allows people to "shoot first" any time they merely feel scared. SEE ALSO Concealed Carry Laws by State Open Carry Laws by State Federal Assault Weapons Ban |
|
|