Question of the Day: What’s the Worst Gun Control Law?

(courtesy blackmanwithagun.com)

TTAG reader JackN read a previous Question of the Day – How Are Gun Rights In Your State? – and penned this, his first comment:

As a Michigan resident (life long) I can honestly say that the biggest gun control measure that’s most troublesome (and dangerous) is the Gun Free Zone. This I believe is also the biggest national problem because, it directly affects our freedom to travel and to be in place where we have every right to be -WITH the inalienable right to SELF DEFENSE!! Who are these yahoos who get to choose when/where I can defend myself or my children (or those of others)?? What gives them the authority to cancel OUR right to actively defend against attack (which can come at any time, anywhere)? Answer: they DO NOT HAVE that authority but, so far, we have been unable to topple this usurpation of an essential right . . .

If I am called to jury duty: I cannot bring my sidearm and just check it in with the deputies who guard the entrance to the court house. That would be acceptable to me but even that sensible provision is omitted. We are expected to either leave our gun in our car (if you have a car or need one to get to the courthouse) OR leave it at home where it cannot then be used ON THE WAY to the courthouse. Stupid, stupid, stupid – and a violation of rights.

Same story with schools: an adult cannot take their own child or (for example) a niece or nephew to school and be armed if you have reason to enter the school. Nor can an adult take a student of any school to in-school event like concerts and school plays.

Ann Arbor is where the University of Michigan is located. It’s a giant university with a large “main campus” a huge hospital and other properties taking up much of the eastside downtown area. If you want to WALK across that campus, you have to literally walk blocks out of your way to avoid U of M’s “gun free zone.” And U of M has it’s own police force so they can arrest you if you’re “detected” crossing with your sidearm.

We MUST have a national abolition of Gun Free Zones. We MUST have a national RECIPROCITY LAW mandating that states like California accept concealed carry licenses from other states – just like all states recognize drivers licenses from all other states.

comments

  1. avatar -Peter says:

    Worst gun control law? Where to begin?

    How about restrictions on silencers? Really, it’s a device that saves the hearing of the shooter and everyone else nearby. They also make the firearm more accurate, and how could that be a bad thing? For cripes sake, even Europe places no restrictions on suppressors, and in many cases they are legally mandated. Dumb dumb restriction.

    1. avatar CRF says:

      I think I just recently got Tennitis. I’m 18. Part of it due to not wearing hearing protection, but that’s not always practical.

      1. avatar OBlamo binLyen says:

        re your Tinnitus, it’s in your head..literally. Seems it’s not an auditory nerve issue but something haywire in your brain. Get a hearing test, odds it’ll be fine except for the exact frequency of your tinnitus. I’m 68 and worked in machine shops and let go with a heck of a lot of .22, never had a problem until a few years ago. Hearing is fine…except for the tinnitus.

        As for the worst law, Kommieforina’s bullet button. Not being able to drop a mag on a BDG is a PIA and unsafe in more ways than one when you have a jam.

        1. avatar sagebrushracer says:

          I will take Bullet Button for $5.

          it is exactly unsafe in every way you just described, including, but not limited to, idiot LEOs. Had a LEO say he was going to take my AK cause they are illegal…. I had to explain to him in depth, in the end I gave him a empty mag and said jam that in there and try to get it out without a tool. FINALLY he backed off but it took some doing. Also, he could of just taken it anyways and then I would have had to go to court and then PAY to get my property back, love how that works.

    2. avatar BGryphon says:

      May Issue.

    3. avatar dd says:

      Its hard to decide which is worse: The Acts of Gun control, 1968, 1934, 1986, and the Importation ban on Foreign made assault rifles. No Famas for you!

  2. avatar Templar says:

    I wouldn’t mind gun free zones if the establishment took on all legal liability for your personal security and gave me a nice comfy gun check in counter. I could roll like Bloomberg while shopping for groceries.

    1. avatar california richard says:

      Look deeper than common sense. Liability lawers for the companies who have these signs in their windows are just washing their hands if someone gets shot in their store. Insurance companies and corporations give the signs teeth by pressuring state legislatures to pass laws that make it illegal to disobey the sign….. Money money money…. They don’t give a crap about your safety, or, like was eluded to, they would have armed security every where AND weapons security screening checkpoints.

      1. avatar Scottlac says:

        It seems to me that liability lawyers are missing out on an untapped market. What if those who establish “gun free” zones were then held legally liable when they disarm people then are found negligent for failing to provide real security that they assumed when they posted the property?

        Those who post “gun free” zones are effectually relieving me of my ability to defend myself. Why do they get a pass when they fail to provide real (expensive and comprehensive) security when their “gun free” zone fails tragically (again)?

        The jackpot justice liability lawyers are really missing the boat on this vast untapped legal market.

        1. avatar california richard says:

          They get a pass because they can buy the laws.

  3. avatar MyPrettyAr15 says:

    The National Firearms Act, The Hughes amendment to the FOPA laws, and right here in MA we have an ‘assault weapons ban’, because you know a sliding rear stock is more deadly than the gun lol! MA is a role model actually of what NOT to do.

  4. avatar S.CROCK says:

    In california the two things that bother me the most are the registration and the micro stamping implement. No new models of semi auto handguns can be sold in california unless they are micro stamped. Not only does the technology to micro stamp not exist but it is also a terrifyingly controlling and infringing idea.

    1. avatar Ryan B. says:

      I agree.

      Also living in CA, I hate the handgun roster system, bullet button on centerfire rifles, and the 10 rnd mag limit.

      It’s as if people who know knowing about guns passed a law not knowing how it would work. Oh wait…

  5. Wow! That’s like “whats the worst way to die, drowning or falling off a sky scraper?

    I guess I have to go with the lack of Constitutional carry since I travel so often.
    In a close second place is the “gun free zone”.

    1. avatar Phil LA says:

      (Drowning)

      1. avatar SpeleoFool says:

        What about falling off a skyscraper into water, and then drowning?

        1. avatar jwm says:

          Crocodiles in the water.

        2. avatar SpeleoFool says:

          Touche, jwm. Suddenly I feel like watching Temple of Doom some time in the near future. 😉

        3. avatar Geoff PR says:

          Crocodiles, schmokadials.

          Being burned alive.

        4. avatar JoshtheViking says:

          Hung, drawn, and quartered. Absolutely horrible.

        5. avatar Timmy! says:

          Eh, at least it gets you out in the open air.

        6. You wouldn’t survive the impact.
          Water is harder than the ground at that speed.

    2. avatar pieslapper says:

      Keelhauling.

  6. avatar Boyd says:

    The whole you have to be 21 in order to purchase a handgun and you have to be 21 to conceal carry is the most troubling to me. I mean if I can join the military or police at 18 then why can’t I defend myself with a concealed handgun.

    1. avatar Gman says:

      Exactly, and why can’t one have a beer either? And then there’s that restriction on buying handgun ammo. So when my 18 year old daughter buys .22LR, it’s for her Beretta U22, not my 10/22. Isn’t that handgun ammo? But she isn’t allowed to buy .44 special or magnum, yet it’s for her Henry. The stupidity of these laws is mind boggling. Is there any handgun only ammo? Or are there rifles for all handgun calibers now? Seems dumb she can buy 30-30 or .308 or 7.62x54R/39 yet she can’t buy 9mm for her Ruger SR9c.

    2. avatar Tyler from AR says:

      Arkansas has recently changed just that. Any member of armed forces, active or prior, can obtain their CHCL at 18 years of age here.

      1. avatar Arkansas kurt says:

        Arkansas is pretty good with firearms laws. The state AG recently came out and admitted there is no law against open carry. I haven’t tried it yet, but I would like to see that tested and how it turns out. Almost all of the restrictions in our state are federal. To make it better here, we would have to roll back federal law. That would be nice, but quite an uphill fight I believe.

  7. avatar MamaLiberty says:

    “Answer: they DO NOT HAVE that authority but, so far, we have been unable to topple this usurpation of an essential right . . .”

    And there will be no end to that bogus “authority” until people see and accept the fact that the involuntary government has no such authority over anything. As long as people will accept the dictates and believe in that government authority, there will be no way to topple any of the usurpation of individual, sovereign rights.

    If people actually believe the involuntary government should have any authority over our lives and property, there is simply no limit to what they can do with it. You cannot create a master, and then hope to control him while being subject to him at the same time.

  8. avatar Five says:

    Can someone explain to me what the point of a “Gun Free” zone is?

    I don’t mean an actual gun free zone that is enforced with armed guards and security check points (yes I know, armed guards but other wise the check point is about as effected as the gun-free signs), I mean, what is the point of the gun-free zones that are designated by signage only? From the perspective of the anti-gun/gun control crowd, what is it they actually believe or intent to accomplish with them?

    1. avatar Accur81 says:

      There is no point.

    2. avatar Gman says:

      “I don’t mean an actual gun free zone that is enforced with armed guards…”

      Did you just type that with a straight face? It really isn’t a gun free zone if there are,,, GUNS.

      And they aren’t gun free zones. They are – We are really scared of our own shadow and your guns make us feel even more scared so please don’t bring them in here, unless you plan on using them and in that case, never mind.

      1. avatar Five says:

        “Did you just type that with a straight face? It really isn’t a gun free zone if there are,,, GUNS.”

        I tried, I tried really really really hard to keep a straight face.

    3. avatar LarryinTX says:

      The point, as with all gun control, is to get reelected, and the hell with people who die because of it.

    4. avatar Fred says:

      I recently joined family on a family vacation in Illinois. Usually we are in Michigan or Iowa, but this was supposed to be halfway from a bunch of different directions. Over this four day trip I got a glimpse into the mind of a gun control enthusiast. This space featured a large pool complex, activities, and other Disney-like things that made concealed carry of my usual full-size pistol impossible. I didn’t want to be responsible for our 15 person group getting the boot.

      Over that time I saw some not-so-friendly types in the parking lot a few times and hoped they weren’t planning any kind of less-than-legal activities. Driving nearby we encountered the king of the road and I hoped he wasn’t carrying because he obviously was the angry type. Gun control types think this way constantly, they go about their day denying anything bad could ever happen then when a sign something bad could happen pops up they hope the angry behemoth doesn’t have a gun or weapon. If they could make their hope law they would feel better. They wouldn’t be any safer, but they would feel better.

  9. avatar Ed says:

    How about ALL of them. What part of “Shall not be infringed..” do people who speak english don’t understand? If you are not currently incarcerated you HAVE the right to “keep and bear” i.e. carry…PERIOD. Any law to the contrary would be and is inherently unconstitutional…what is so damn hard about this? Seems to me you can’t really get more black and white on a particular subject if you tried.

    1. avatar -Peter says:

      What about children, should they be able to buy guns? What about non-US citizens?

      How about military ordinance/explosive devices? In my opinion, they’re “arms” within the meaning of the Constitution. I believe they should be available to citizens under the Constitution, but I honestly don’t think it should be available to EVERYBODY.

      Surely there are some laws concerning “arms” that you can get behind.

      1. avatar Five says:

        And thus the problem of having so many people lacking even the most basic understanding of arms. It is very difficult to trust a group ignorant of the details of an issue making rules about it.

        Example, machine-guns as a NFA item, that makes sense. Banning civilian ownership of machine-guns made after 1986 but not before, that makes no sense at all.

        Regulating one semi-automatic deferentially than another based on accessories? Again silly.

        1. avatar cloud_1911 says:

          Putting any arm under the NFA, and the NFA itself, only “make sense” if your goal is to enslave the population. That’s it. That’s all.

          Think of it this way…imagine it was the infant years of the internet (just after Apanet was created), and someone figured out how to rent time on a gigantic computer in a university basement and change up bank account records and load accounts with money that didn’t belong there.

          Obviously the government and the institutions are behind the curve, and the criminals are cutting-edge. There are no security measures, firewalls, digital security consultants, or anything. Instead of adapting to changing technology (expensive, painful, and difficult), the government simply passes a law stating that you have to pay a Special Occupancy Tax if you are going to use cyber systems, and must be licensed with regulatory commissions.

          This is a blatant violations of civil rights, but they struck so early that nobody realized what was going on. And then, years later, some chump like you writes into the editor and says “Obviously creating a national registry of cyberspace users made sense, but I object to the fact that they banned all new licenses in the 1980s.”

          They couldn’t have gotten where they were without you supporting violations of our liberties you deemed “reasonable.” The passage of time has made the NFA more and more unconstitutional as the types of armaments covered under that atrocity become more and more indisputably necessary to upkeep anything resembling an effective militia.

        2. avatar Five says:

          @cloud_1911, not a good analogy. IP address are registered and owned or reserved. They have pretty much run out of addresses (IPv4) and they have made more (IPv6).

          Anyhow, save your ire for someone that’s fine continuing to slide down the slope, not someone that happens to want to take smaller steps back up the hill than you do.

      2. avatar ThomasR says:

        True Peter. I mean the laws against murder, where outlawed, work, how come they don’t outlaw murder every where?

        If they had only outlawed murder in France and in San Bernadino, it would have kept those devout Muslim terrorists from murdering all of those people.

        So let’s get out the vote and make our representatives actually do something effective and pass universal laws against murder.

        1. avatar -Peter says:

          Laws don’t prevent people from violating them–they aren’t magic, obviously. If that were the case, human civilization could have stopped at the Ten Commandments. That doesn’t mean all laws are bad.

      3. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Peter, your reference to children is picture perfect. When I was a kid, circa 1955, a friend of mine had a select fire weapon under his bed. My son was shooting a .38 when he was 4. There are no problems there, and we have never paid attention to such laws. But if you think they actually accomplish anything, you should note the “enforcers” in many gangs are under 15, armed to the teeth without regard to such stupid laws, consciously decided because if they get caught committing murder, they will serve little or no jail time because of their age. Boy, all those laws sure helped, right?

        And Five, you are going to have to explain to me how NFA control of machine guns makes any sense to anybody. I don’t see it. I have fired machine guns quite a bit (not near as much as some here), and they have never turned on me or escaped to murder anyone. Just like other guns. The entirety of NFA was to justify not firing all the government agents idled by repeal of prohibition, made no sense even at the time, and needs to be repealed, all at once or one item at a time, but all of it eventually.

        1. avatar SpeleoFool says:

          NFA restrictions on machine guns made sense before I was familiar with guns. Now that makes no sense to me, Hughes Amendment or not. What makes sense is that machine guns have been demonized for so long and so many other incremental restrictions have surfaced in the past 30 years that machine guns have been relegated to a mental “too far gone” category by even many otherwise ardent pro-gun people. I’ll even go so far as to say that I don’t feel much incentive to advocate for deregulating machine guns before tackling other infringements–for example, I’d be happy enough to keep machine guns under NFA if it meant getting silencers and short-barrels off the list. As an incremental win.

          Other than the vague notion that machine guns are extra-scary because morebullets, why do they merit any special treatment whatsoever over any other small arm?

      4. avatar Phil LA says:

        The constitution should only apply to US citizens.
        As for the kids question: there are 30 year old children everywhere today. There were (and are) kids in combat in major and minor roles throughout history. Plus, guns are freaking expensive. If a “kid” (whatever age that means) has $200+ to spend, you have to believe that the overwhelming majority have either a great support network (ie, mom and dad giving money) or a job, both of which would indicate some basic level responsibility.
        Don’t pass laws to try to prevent crimes because all that happens is 2 laws are broken by the criminal while millions are unnecessarily restricted.

      5. avatar Goose says:

        Children…NO,felons convicted of a violent crime…NO,retards and mentally ill…NO,anyone that is on recorded voting democrat…NO.anyone that is on record publicly denouncing the 2nd amendment…NO,private security guards…NO.No matter how violent the world gets,some people should not be allowed to have guns,especially people,(politicians and celebrities) hat have publicly denounced guns and the 2nd amendment.

    2. avatar SteveInCO says:

      …and even if you (correctly!) believe they all stink, surely some stink even worse than the others. Restrictions on type stink but can be got around, total bans like GFZs, much harder to deal with.

  10. avatar Pantera Vazquez says:

    The worst gun control law……hmmmm.

    All weapon control laws infringe on the right to keep and bear.

    There is no “worst”,
    As there is no best.

    1. avatar -Peter says:

      I know I’m going to catch heat for this, but I actually don’t oppose EVERY SINGLE law pertaining to firearms.

      I’m a huge proponent of the Natural, Civil and Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

      That said, I am OK with laws restricting the right to purchase firearms in the US to citizens of the US.

      I’m OK with laws restricting the right to purchase firearms to citizens above a certain age. Below a certain age, parents or guardians can buy guns for their children. But I don’t see the sense in allowing a 17 year old (or 15, or 10 year year old) or younger child to walk into a gun store and buy a gun.

      I don’t oppose removing the right to keep and bear arms from convicted violent criminals, even after they’ve served their time. That said, I believe there should be a just means of restoring those rights to individuals who have not only served their time but can demonstrate that they have been successfully rehabilitated.

      I’m sure I can think of others, but you get my point. Not EVERY law is necessarily unreasonable or in conflict with “Shall not be infringed.”

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        That said, I am OK with laws restricting the right to purchase firearms in the US to citizens of the US.

        I know that sometimes, people forget that there is a third category besides “citizens” and “illegal aliens” and that is those who live here legally, many of them aspiring to be citizens. Do you mean to ban them as well?

        (I ask because I remember the furor over states giving driver’s licenses to “non-citizens.” What was the problem with giving legal residents driver’s licenses? There wasn’t, really. But the people who were upset were forgetting that not every non-citizen in the US is an illegal alien.)

        1. avatar Five says:

          I’m fine with legal residents buying firearms. I’m not okay with illegal residents buying fire arms because they’ve already demonstrated their disregard for the law.

        2. avatar -Peter says:

          Do legal residents (non-citizens) have access to other Constitutional protections? By which I mean, do they have standing to bring a case against the US Government for an alleged violation of their 1st, 4th, 5th, or 6th Amendment rights?

        3. avatar SteveInCO says:

          @Peter

          As far as I know the answer is yes. This is in large part why prisoners from our overseas wars are being kept at Gitmo (so they won’t be in US territory and able to claim those rights). But not only am I not a constitutional lawyer, I don’t play one on TV and I certainly don’t play one in the Oval Office.

      2. avatar LarryinTX says:

        The instant assumption about any “gun law” should be 1) it is unconstitutional for any government in the US to pass any law concerning firearms. and 2) the law proposed will not accomplish anything positive anyway. Then the proponent can work his ass off trying to overcome or disprove those assumptions. Instead, we seem to be rolling with letting all of them get by us. Osama should present evidence of some positive outcome of UBC, instead of ranting about the “need” for it over and over, when it would accomplish nothing, would not have even slowed down the murders he is using as a soapbox.

      3. avatar Phil LA says:

        “I support the second amendment, but…”

        1. avatar Peter says:

          Yeah, “but.. ” I mean, surely you yourself must draw the line somewhere. Claymore mines, biological weapons, and rocket-propelled grenades are all “arms” under the meaning of the Constitution –as much as a cannon was in the age of the founding fathers. But do you really want any US citizen to be able to walk into a corner gun and pawn store and plunk down $300 for an RPG? Or cooking basement anthrax and storing it in aerosol cans in his unlocked backyard shed?

          There must be a line or limit somewhere?

      4. avatar SpeleoFool says:

        I’m not going to harp too heavily on the age restriction thing, but it does bear pointing out that rules based solely on age were a huge pain in my ass until I finally hit 25. I was attending college out of state 17 and had a job and a house (OK, a mortgage) at 22. Because of age discrimination I couldn’t get a job in high school when all of my peers could. But the dumbest restriction of all was being forbidden to rent a bicycle on Catalina Island because I wasn’t 25. Rules based solely on the numbers of laps you’ve made around the sun discriminate against those who are self-motivated to do more with their time.

        1. avatar Ed says:

          Any restrictions are a violation, period. If I want a minefield in my front yard…it should never become a problem unless someone goes where they shouldn’t, right? Also, as far as felons or ex cons…does your debt to society never get paid? If it does, you should be able to own a firearm…vote…anything every other free man can do, or you’re not really quite free,are you. Keep in mind that in some states, mine included,you can become a felon for as little as driving 20+ mph over the posted speed limit, or lighting off any firework that shoots a distance over 5 ft. That should prohibit firearm ownership and the right to vote for life? Seriously??? Just because there are way too many people in this country and most of them are of questionable mental capacity (putting it mildly) the rest of us should not be punished. A speeding offence i.e. 65 in a 45 (something most of us have done) means you can no longer hunt, or sport shoot with family? As far as the NFA…that is nothing short of being shaken down for 200 bucks by a crooked gov.for the honor of being in the “registration” list that counts….think man!

  11. avatar Ken says:

    Issuance of pistol permits at the ‘discretion’ of police, a la Massachusetts and New Jersey. ‘Discretion’ equals rule of man, not rule of law.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      And absolutely anything which requires a sign-off by a government official is instant corruption, guaranteed. Like, how the HELL did Dianne Feinstein obtain a CA concealed carry permit 20+ years ago when there was no such thing, as far as most Californians knew?

  12. avatar Seth says:

    100% the ban on guns on USPS property including in your car. Many of us in ‘flyover country’ don’t get mail delivery and are required to have a P.O. Box and we’re required to check it once a week. We’re not even allowed to leave it in the car and there’s no public parking within a mile.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      That’s a good one to abolish.

      Even in urban areas, many stalking victims utilize P.O. boxes in order to shield their home address. (Yes, they can use private mail boxes at the UPS store et. al., but those aren’t open 24 hours, allowing victims to vary their routines.)

      As a result, the post office could become the site of a violent encounter between an unarmed, tracked individual and their stalker. That puts not only that person in danger, but also everyone else around who just happens to be sending a parcel or buying stamps.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        Boy, I am going to have to work on that one, I am so old and decrepit that I seem to have forgotten that one hundreds of times in the past few years, OTOH that stalker would have had an unpleasant surprise if I was in the building.

        1. avatar SteveInCO says:

          And then, more likely than not, you’d go to the federal pen.

          Asinine, but true.

        2. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          I do try to follow the “It’s not paranoia, it’s just preparation” mantra, but the two are sometimes very similar looking. Just never know. Anything can happen, any time, any place. Even the post office.

          An ordinary man works as a supervisor at a nondescript adminstrative office for the city sanitation department. He goes into work one morning, expecting an easy, short, blow-off week of Christmas. Just as he’s enjoying his second (third?) cup of coffee, one of his employees walks into his office and shoots him dead.

          That was 9:30, this morning, just a few miles from my office.

  13. avatar Gov. William J. Le Petomane says:

    I agree with RF. Doesn’t hurt that I carry a revolver anyway, but I’d rather have the freedom to carry that revolver anywhere I want than have the freedom to load as many rounds as I’d like but have to keep it in the safe while I go about my business.

  14. avatar HandyDan says:

    I was going back and forth between gun free zones and lack of national reciprocity, when I realized the answer was the infringement on people’s right to carry. Any law regarding carry, such as gun free zones, lack of reciprocity, or even needing a permit in the first place is a clear infringement on the both the right to keep and the right to bear arms.

  15. avatar Gman says:

    Gun control laws are the only laws which restrict our rights in any way. They are all Unconstitutional.

  16. avatar Accur81 says:

    -Denial of concealed carry permits
    -“needing a permit in the first place”
    -GFZ’s
    -Suppressor bans
    -SBR bans
    -mag capacity limits
    -SAFE Act
    -universal background checks
    -10 day waiting periods / any waiting period
    -bullet buttons
    -the Secret Service being exempt from all of the above when they are protecting a politician who assaults gun rights

  17. avatar Dirk Diggler says:

    throwing the BS flag for U of M. Yes, the is written screwy, but they do not “own” the sidewalks and streets. They have authority to enforce ordinances of Ann Arbor. Pay attention to tax law. They cannot enforce rules when don’t pay for the property. That would be a great legal challenge the school would avoid b/c it could impact certain taxing benefits they get. Michigan has a very pro-2A legislature. now if you cut across campus, you are screwed but on city sidewalks and streets? No – I carry there when I am in town. Also, I think the legislature has introduced a bill to take away U of M’s “authority” in this area anyway

    1. avatar Jeff the Griz says:

      “Michigan has a very pro-2A legislature”, unfortunately the Governor is not.

  18. avatar Tom Lambert says:

    You can ABSOLUTELY carry in a school, if you have a CPL and the pistol is not concealed. I know it may not be what everyone wants, but it’s better than nothing.

  19. avatar Libertarian says:

    You can open carry white ccw in michigan schools but only open !

    Worst Gun Laws on FED Level ??

    – Complete nfa act all 3 editions of bullshit
    – gun free school zone act (if you realy follow it 100% you can not drive ore carry arround inside 1000 feets white an honored ccw ore under permitless carry in another state) >> keep federal goverment out of state

    1. avatar TFred says:

      Another vote for the Federal Gun Free School Zone Act.

      The big flaw with this law is that the “exemption” only applies to citizens in states that issue a license to possess a firearm. It was clearly written by folks who assumed that every state issues such licenses, even though most do not.

      In fact, some states, like Virginia, which do issue a Concealed Handgun Permit, do not have an actual license to possess, thus rendering EVERY gun-carrying citizen in Virginia a federal felon, sooner or later.

      Take out a local map and try to map a route to your most frequent places without encroaching to within ONE THOUSAND FEET of the property line of ANY school. In the vast majority of the country, it cannot be done.

  20. avatar dwb says:

    Probably the NJ Graves act. This is the one that netted a retired teacher for the unlicensed possession of a 300 year old musket. Also the one that has netted a fair share of PA CCW holders who find themselves in NJ wit, oops, their pistol.

    1. avatar Milsurp Collector says:

      As a fellow gun owner trapped in NJ, I think our transport laws and the fact that they even exist are horrifying. “You stopped while driving from your house to a gun range/store or vice versa? YOU MUST BE A CRIMINAL!” Also, the guy who gut busted for the flint lock pistol was fortunately aquitted.

      1. avatar Mr Pierogie says:

        NJ has some of the worst gun laws. As I’ve said before, if cops held the 2A and the Constitution in any regard, they could very easily put pressure on judges and politicians by encouraging people to apply for FOIDs and carry permits. Then, instead of 4 months or longer, they could issue them within 30 days or less. This could lead to many good things, such as a big signal to judges that cops are OK with people carrying guns. The judges would refuse to approve carry permits at first, but with the police support, average citizens could then pressure the politicians to change the rules. My guess is that the carry permit rules would change, transport rules would change, as well as the 1 gun per 30 days rule, etc. Not overnight of course, but with the police support, the change would come. But guess, what? NJ cops ain’t into any of that. They don’t want to rock the boat, they just want their cushy job and bennies. They can carry off-duty, they have their exemptions, so what do they care? It just goes to show how little cops in NJ care about our rights, 2A in particular. They’re just government thugs, doing what the government wants as long as the politicians keep them happy. All the while they treat law-abiding citizens like criminals when it comes to guns. NJ is truly one of the worst places to live in general, not just because of our crappy gun laws.

      2. avatar LongPurple says:

        I heard a strange experience from a shooter that may be related to our NJ “transport laws”.
        He was driving home from the range, about a half-hour drive through a rather intricate series of streets and turns, when he noticed a car had been behind him since shortly after he left the range.
        He suspected it might be a robbery plot — pretty easy pickings for crooks to rob guns from lawful owners in NJ. So he got the gun box unlocked (it was beside him in the front seat), slipped out one of the guns (a .22 pistol was the most reachable while he was driving with one hand and trying to arm himself with the other), and got a mag with 5 rounds into it by the time he reached home.
        When he parked the car, he had the gun loaded and out of sight behind the gun box, but it wasn’t needed. The other car just passed by and continued out of sight up the street. I since thought that maybe he was wrong to suspect a criminal was following him. It might have been a cop ready to arrest him if he stopped for coffee.

  21. avatar amanofdragons says:

    In general, I couldn’t agree more with firearm owner id cards, waiting periods, no national cc reciprocity. The whole code on firearms needs to be rewritten. Gut the nfa, I’m ok with leaving machine guns and destructive devices on there so long as the can get the checks done I’m a reasonable time and remove the Cleo signature. Revoke the Hughes amendment, remove sporting clause.
    Worst thing locally has to be I594 here in Washington. It is hardly being enforced, but its horribly unconstitutional both federally and on a state level.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      If you can change a light bulb, then you can convert a GLOCK to full auto in the same amount of time. Just replace the slide cover plate with a modified one. It’s completely illegal, so DON’T DO IT!

      However, it’s simple to do and you can even buy the part online (again, illegally!) I learned about this on the ATF’s own website, by the way.

      Beyond that, an off-the-shelf AR can be modified in short order to operate full auto. The San Bernardino terrorists did so. Any criminal who wants to do this is not going to be deterred by the law, cost or technology involved.

      Bans on new or converted machine guns accomplish absolutely nothing, other that reinforce the putrid principle that heavily armed agents of the State are our superiors.

      1. avatar LarryinTX says:

        I’ll believe the SB killers (clearly morons) had full-auto ARs when I see video of them being fired full-auto. The media would not know full-auto if it shot them in the ass, and I haven’t even read a claim that they were. And there was no hint of them being fired full-auto during the attack, either. The conversion everyone is in a snit about is the removal of the bullet button, which delays reloading, and possession of 30-round magazines (OMG!). I am sure that if someone used my (originally CA-spec) M1A in such an attack, the same folks would be apoplectic because it was “converted” (by me) to have a flash suppressor again.

        1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

          Fair enough. Consider my comment regarding them as revised to “reportedly”, for now.

  22. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

    “We MUST have a national RECIPROCITY LAW mandating that states like California accept concealed carry licenses from other states – just like all states recognize drivers licenses from all other states.”

    Be careful what you wish for. If you get this, then it won’t be long before the feds are dictating the terms of the licenses themselves, just like they do with highway speeds and drinking ages.

    Moreover, there are reasons that states have different reciprocity agreements. One is that states tend only to recognize other states’ licenses whose standards are similar to their own. Mandating national reciprocity robs states of their authority to establish those standards.

    And if you think such a law would replace reciprocity agreement standards with the lowest common denominator, then think again. It’ll be more like the greatest common factor. D.C. liberals would LOVE to get their hands on your license, even if indirectly. Consider all the harm that’s come about since the advent of federal firearms licenses.

    The actual legislative process of getting national reciprocity would be chock full of costly compromises, too, so much so that the net effect would be a loss.

    Consider this: if your ideal national reciprocity bill reads from start to finish as but a single sentence, something to the effect of “All states must recognize as valid the firearm carry licenses of every other state”, then you’re in for a helluva surprise. D.C. is a place of 1,000+ page bills that nobody reads before voting. Your reciprocity bill would be unrecognizable by the time it passed.

    The preferable route is to work at the state level to expand reciprocity and do not allow Washington’s nose under the tent.

    1. avatar Five says:

      I have to agree with you here. I think national reciprocity is perilous road to trod down. There are so many ways that a national/federal licensing program can go astray.

    2. avatar LarryinTX says:

      “Mandating national reciprocity robs states of their authority to establish those standards.”

      2A robs states of that authority. For over 225 years.

      1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

        Actually, no. Incorporation of the Bill of Rights was considered and rejected by the Framers. It only applied to the Federal government. Multiple SC cases in the early 19th century revisited and affirmed that view.

        Specific amendments subsequently were incorporated, one by one, via SC cases. The 2A itself was not so until 2009’s McDonald case. Even then, that came after Heller and other decisions which granted states latitude in their gun laws, such that what was being incorporated was not the pure 2A, anyway.

        Now, what should or shouldn’t be, legally, or what is or isn’t, philosophically, are separate issues. Regarding the specific limitations of the 2A, as it stands right now, states have had a free hand up to 2009, and they aren’t much more restricted since then.

  23. avatar Former Water Walker says:

    Is this a trick question? Or a joke? ALL of them-and I live in Illinois where we are assaulted with evil/stupid laws every day. Just saw a story on TV of a woman being beaten and raped on the “EL”(in Chicago). Where weapons are illegal-and they showed the goofy boyz in red guardian angels patrolling to make it “safe”. Do you suppose homie the rapist will just avoid raping when he see the boyz in red berets?!?

  24. avatar Nicholas Marrero says:

    Living in New Jersey, I’d have to say the “justifiable need” clause. We all know how that turns out.

  25. avatar Hillary for Prison 2016 says:

    Probably the one where they start going door to door, and/or mandatory buy backs, resulting in a brutal civil war in which we all would be forced to fight or submit to be treated as subhuman slaves. But they’re all pretty bad laws ultimately.

  26. avatar Canuck says:

    Here in Canada it’s probably the division of firearms into “restricted” or “non-restricted” categories, seemingly in a fashion that is solely arbitrary. AR-15? Restricted, special license, registration, and can only shoot at a range. .50 BMG? Non-restricted, basic license, shoot anywhere.

    The other would be registration of firearms with the feds; used to be all (and I mean ALL). Now only applies to restricted.

  27. avatar TruthTellers says:

    I agree that national reciprocity needs to be a Republican party platform in 2016.

  28. avatar I'mRonBurgundy? says:

    Trick question. EVERY gun law is the worst gun law.

    Something about “Shall not be infringed” or something to that effect…

  29. avatar Ralph says:

    What’s the worst gun control law? That’s like asking “what’s the worst fart?” ‘Cause let’s face it, all gun control laws and farts just plain stink.

    1. avatar LarryinTX says:

      So, shoot me, I can’t help it. Did you know there are 7 different kinds of farts? There’s the fizz, the fuzz, the fizz-fuzz, the poop, the anti-poop, the tear-ass and the rattler.

      1. avatar SteveInCO says:

        Eight. You left out “Old”.

    2. avatar Geoff PR says:

      “What’s the worst gun control law? That’s like asking “what’s the worst fart?””

      Any one’s but your own.

      Oh, and everyone of Ralph’s…

      *snicker*

  30. avatar David Thompson says:

    Shall issue.

    Ban on online ammo sales in New York.

    1. avatar Jonathan - Houston says:

      Man, that one smarts. Any of those laws referred to in disclaimers on websites, citing which states or even cities a given product may not legally be shipped to, those chap my hide.

      I’m not even clear how that even pretends to be constitutional. Seems like the state regulating interstate commerce to me.

      The effect is clear, though. By limiting access to Internet vendors, which is to say the entire rest of the country, NY is imposing a major barrier to entry. Want to sell to New Yorkers? No problem! Just incur the enormous expense to set up a physical presence in the state and sell retail. That law severely limits competition and drives up prices, which in turn chokes off gun ownership and the base of 2A support. And to think, the NRA was actually founded in NY.

  31. avatar Rick F. says:

    The first one.

  32. avatar Colt Magnum says:

    Any law that forces me to risk losing my 2A rights by exercising my 2A rights.
    I-594, for example.

  33. avatar FedUp says:

    Well, here in MI you CAN carry while walking your kid to school, you just have to
    a) have a Concealed Pistol License, and
    b) carry unconcealed* when you go in the school.

    * There is at least one judge in this state who disagrees with the law, and wants school administrators to have the authority to ban OC, and like many local judges, doesn’t mind enforcing his version of the law instead of the written statute.
    There is also a legislative effort underway to ban OC in the schools and legalize CC, but only for those who pay extra for a special endorsement on their CPL.
    UofM, MSU, and Wayne State believe themselves immune to statewide firearms preemption, and they might be correct.

  34. avatar AaronW says:

    Bad One: In NYS, you can’t even own a pistol for target shooting unless you get a pistol permit. The catch? Gotta buy the gun as part of your application process – and you’re in for a felony if a friend of yours at the range lets you try their handgun before you get your permit.
    NJ: Unless you have a carry permit, you’re a felon if you make any stops between the range or hunting ground and your house.

  35. avatar Geoffrey Hoffman says:

    It was struck down, but my favorite was the part of NY’s SAFE act which said you could only have 7 rounds in the magazine. You could OWN a 10rd magazine, but it could only have 7 rounds. They knew they couldn’t ban 10rd mags cause no one makes 7rd mags. I had a mental picture of cops popping cases out of the mag to see if you crossed the dangerous 7 threshold. A judge ended up tossing that provision, but the NY lawmakers thought that was a sensible law.

  36. avatar Joe says:

    Worst gun law?

    Illinois.

  37. avatar joe says:

    justifiable need to carry a handgun. I hate this state. I miss america

  38. avatar Goose says:

    Any gun law other than the 2nd amendment itself,the 2nd amendment doesn’t have any qualifiers,it doesn’t say you have the right to bear arms if.or.unless,ect.,ect.

  39. avatar SpeleoFool says:

    Alright, I’ve been thinking about this question for the better part of the day. There are a whole lot of bad, pointless laws that need to go away. But the worst? The worst laws are the laws that are not laws at all.

    Like Malloy’s executive order to strip rights from citizens on a secret government list.

    Or the ATF’s arbitrary and often-conflicting rulings and letters of determination. The entire stinking concept of constructive possession.

    Or, if I have to pick just one, how about the pernicious abuses of the Commerce Clause?

  40. avatar 357M28 says:

    Illinois here. Paying for FOID and paying again to carry.

  41. avatar JohnnyDerp says:

    I live in CA, so I could go on and on and on like a 2A case in the 9th Circus. The load got so bad it crashed the CalGuns Wiki server. As soon as they pass a law, someone files a suit, and more laws are added. Even a win at the District court turns into an appeal, and a win there turns into an en banc rehearing. In addition, there is Newsom’s Safety for All Criminals ballot initiative coming next year

  42. avatar Matt in Maine says:

    US Code Title 18 Chapter 44

  43. avatar NJ EMT says:

    As an NJ resident, probably our stupid “justifiable need” which is ambiguous. The NJ law doesn’t even define justifiable need, which is insane.

    The other stupid one is where there’s the NY State law that prohibits transportation of a firearm without a permit. The NY State Police do not abide by FOPA, so you have to use it as an affirmative defense in court if you are traveling through NYS with a firearm.

    I think the most atrocious law, however, is any law that states that use of deadly force in self-defense is an affirmative defense. Nobody should have to say “I’m guilty, but…” in court after using deadly force against an attacker.

  44. avatar Indiana Tom says:

    This is not the worst gun law, but Indiana does not permit the taking of deer with a long centerfire rifle round such as .30-06, but you can harvest squirrel with a .300 Win Mag. Go figure.

    1. avatar SteveInCO says:

      Is anything left of the squirrel other than a dissipating pink fog?

  45. avatar Frank Marchand says:

    State reciprosity sucks. I was in southern NH where i have a carry license, with my gun in my car as always. I live 40 min north of where I was when I got a call my uncle had been in a terrible motorcycle accident. I drove to Boston and parked at brigham and womens, got there just in time to see him for the last 5 minutes he was concious before they brought him in for a second surgery. He died without evert being taken back out of a drug induced coma. I realized driving home three days later that I had my handgun in my car the whole time (an fnx-9, which breaks shitloads of MA laws. I commited multiple felonies just because the state of massachusetts expects me to drive 40 minutes north then back down to boston when receiving an emergency call to a boston hospital. I occationally go over the boarder for work, but the red tape for an out of state permit is insane in MA despite the fact I grew up there and visit family all the time.

  46. avatar AR says:

    The proposed “Might (Never) Issue” judicial questioning of your “need” for a weapon, and all the Lib-o-fascists demand that “self defense” is NEVER an appropriate reason to issue.

  47. avatar AnhydrousWater says:

    Depends on the area. For instance, in NYC I would say may issue.

  48. avatar Ironbear says:

    “What’s the Worst Gun Control Law?”

    All of them.

    Alternately, any of them.

  49. avatar John says:

    Duty to Inform w/ criminal penalties in IL, placed in Rep. Brandon Phelps HB183 “good” “NRA backed” carry bill by NRA contract lobbyist Donald Todd Vandermyde. The DTI does not require the “officer” to be on duty, in uniform, or within their own jurisdiction. Since ALL violations of IL’s carry bill are criminal offenses of 6 MONTHS or 1 YEAR in jail, police criminals or police impersonators like John Gacy can lie and claim you didn’t inform, then execute armed citizens with legal cover when they claim you “resisted.”

    NRA’s rat Vandermyde cut a deal with the anti-gun Chiefs of Police to put DTI in the NRA bill when Tim McCarthy was president. That’s the same Tim McCarthy who was a secret service agent when President Reagan was shot, and who does press conferences to promote gun control with Jim & Sarah Brady.

  50. avatar Chris says:

    I agree, but with a national carry reciprocity law, you risk other troubles. We don’t want the federal government regulating how you can carry (openly or concealed,) or adding some other limitations to it or acting as if they have a right to restrict it in any way.

    A national handgun carry reciprocity bill needs to be written in a way that states the bill is only reaffirming the rights already protected by the 2nd Amemdment and as such a citizen with valid carry permit or who resides in a Constitutional Carry state may carry a handgun (openly or concealed,) in any state notwithstanding any state laws that prohibit carrying of a handgun in public. However, states can still restrict possession of a firearm on secure state facilities or secure government property such as prisons, jails, court houses and primary mental institutions. Nothing in this bill prohibits a private citizen or privately owned business from prohibiting firearms in property belonging to the citizen or private business. Also, in accordance with the 2nd Amendment, a citizen carrying a firearm in a state with laws restricting magazine capacity or prohibiting a specific type of firearm or ammunition that is legal in accordance with federal law, shall NOT be charged or indicted with any violation of the aforementioned laws as those laws go against the 2nd Amemdment, and this are not constitutional. This bill is also in accordance with the 10th Amendment as it is designed to protect the (2nd Amendment) rights of the people as the states are bound by the constitutional limitations on government just as the federal government is.”

    Just an example of the type of language that should be used. I could deal with the part about the magazine restrictions/weapons ban being left out initially to get the national carry reciprocity part passed, but it will eventually it will need to be addressed as you’ll eventually have people legally carrying getting arrested for carrying a gun with more than 7 rounds in New York or having hollow points (the ideal self-defense ammo) in New Jersey. Most citizens can have trouble learning the laws in their own respective states, much less knowing and memorizing the differing (anti-gun) laws in other states like New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, Massachusetts and Commiefornia. Its ridiculous. A carry permit should me recognized in every state and should be just as simple. I mean, think of how stupid it’d be to say “all states recognize your drivers license, but New York bans trucks because they’re “assault vehicles,” so you can drive in New York, but you just have to switch vehicles.” Some people in free states don’t own “low capacity” restricted magazines, it’s stupid to force them to buy 10-round magazines just for the rare occasions that they may travel to states like New York. Plus, when I’m traveling far away from home, that’s when I want to have the most amount of ammunition in my magazine. When I’m traveling I don’t just want a gun with 7 rounds, I want my Glock 19 loaded with 15 + 1 rounds, plus 2 extra 15-round magazines and a (small) back-up gun in case SHTF. Just saying, they’re concerns I have. If I can’t carry my to a state because they suddenly pass a law banning “assault pistols,” there isn’t much of a point to national carry reciprocity to me in the first place. If they got away with passing the blatantly unconstitutional SAFE Act, I could see them getting away with that.

    1. avatar John says:

      Agreed that national reciprocity is dangerous. Your license gets revoked? What are you going to do, fly to D.C. and attend a hearing in front of an unelected Conceal Carry Licensing Review Board like we have in IL, thanks to the retarded hick Rep. Brandon Phelps who sponsored IL’s crap “NRA backed” HB183 carry bill?

      How about anonymous accusations of “arguments with neighbors” getting your app. denied in front of the Star Chamber? Yes, in IL any cop agency in the state can object to any citizen anywhere in the state who applies.

      NRA is in bed with the police unions and the police state. The only people who think national reciprocity is a good idea are the packs of ignorant hicks from all-white small towns who think lobbyists like Todd Vandermyde and cops are really their friends.

  51. avatar Sean "Friend of Tamara Keel" Casey says:

    Dan Zimmerman. Intellectual property thief. Dead Hooker Magazine.

Write a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

button to share on facebook
button to tweet
button to share via email