Prev Next
Featured Quizzes
Politix Daily Headlines
Featured Debates
Issues

See all 17 issues

People
White House

See all people

FIREMARMS

The Most Controversial State Gun Laws

Writer suggests it's "crazy" these are on the books

Next>

by David Mark

Editor-in-Chief t

Image: AP.

In the wake of the Newtown, CT, elementary school massacre, most calls for new gun laws have been focused on the national level. But The Washington Post's Dylan Matthews suggests it's actually states that have the most lax rules on guns, which he calls "crazy".

Here are a few of the most eyebrow-raising state gun laws.

* Four states - Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont - allow concealed carry of guns without any permit. "Vermont, however, stands out from the pack because it allows people as young as 16 to conceal carry without parental permission, as well as buy handguns."

* "17 states, including Oklahoma and Florida, bar employers from preventing their employees from bringing guns to work and keeping them locked in their vehicles."

* "A class of laws, called 'castle doctrine' statutes by supporters, in most states clarify that homeowners who feel threatened in their domicile have no duty to retreat from threats or to refrain from the use of deadly force."

Via The Washington Post.

Like this article? B Vote Up
?

These type of state gun laws:

View results

Comments (view in Forum)

  • Dan_Tien
    !
    I disagree with a law that allows 16 year old kids to buy guns and carry them concealed, but I also disagree that I have a "duty" to flee from my home if someone breaks in and threatens my family and myself.
  • SavageMazx
    !
    Well said Dan. No 16 year old should be allowed to carry, even mine who shoots like Annie Oakley. Also the castle doctrine should never be questioned, you should always have the right to protect your property, and your loved ones.
  • ACTSmom
    !
    Yes, Florida has a 'stand your ground law' that is being questioned and possibly overturned because of one case. If the law is used properly, I don't understand the problem. Seems to me I should have the right to defend myself and my home. But every time something happens, a bunch of people come out wanting new and revised laws.
  • jamie91
    !
    @ACTSmom The Stand your ground law is NOT only about your home. It is ANY place you (and even the victim) have a legal right to be, if you feel threatened you can kill them rather than give up your ground. It is ridiculous as it has no outline in how this fear is based, just that a threat is perceived.
    That is totally different than someone coming in your home or in your car where they have no legal right to be.
  • John_Matrix
    !
    @jamie91

    Over simplification to demonize it at its best right there. Just because someone looks at you sternly doesn't mean you have the legal right to draw down on them and take them out. If you kill someone within the confines of the castle doctrine you still have to show a reasonable cause for you to fear for your life or great bodily harm. Failure to do so will end up with you getting charged with manslaughter, murder, or the like.
  • jamie91
    !
    @John_Matrix 776.012 Use of force in defense of person.—

    A person is justified in using force, except deadly force, against another when and to the extent that the person reasonably believes that such conduct is necessary to defend himself or herself or another against the other’s imminent use of unlawful force. However, a person is justified in the use of deadly force and does not have a duty to retreat if:

    (1) He or she reasonably believes that such force is necessary to prevent imminent death or great bodily harm to himself or herself or another or to prevent the imminent commission of a forcible felony

    And Don't get me wrong, I 100% believe in the castle doctrine, just not Florida's Stand your ground. Why? Because it is about the perception of a threat. We've already seen what this law leads to. I think it is reasonable to assume that someone in your house without your permission is in there to cause harm. But legal to shoot someone who has done nothing wrong because you perceive a threat.... nope, that is dangerous.

  • View all 12 replies >

  • martydotcom
    !
    Limiting the power of the federal government to subjugate the populace is the primary purpose of the 2nd Amendment, and nothing in it restricts the use of arms consistent with maintaining proficiency consistent with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. What we do with guns is the subject of existing criminal law, but having them is not. Arguments against the 2nd Amendment based on recreational use of arms and the futility of home defense are deflections. Under the 2nd Amendment, owning and using guns is not simply permitted, but is presumed; local, even federal, laws and regulations cannot lawfully infringe on it. The 2nd Amendment is always susceptible to tyrants, but is vulnerable if too many of us are ignorant of its purpose.

    Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/2012/12/the_re...
  • MongoAPillager
    !
    @martydotcom if you compare the British version of the militia,being as the longbow was superior to the weapons of the time then by those standards we should be able to have at our disposal the most modern of weaponry?
  • Denizen_Kate
    !
    @MongoAPillager - "Dude,we are dangerously close to being on common ground " Scary, ain't it? I'm in full agreement my own self.
  • stepped_in_it
    !
    HMMM. Alaska, Arizona, Wyoming and Vermont. Guess I'd choose Arizona! Warmer and they don't do Daylight savings time also.....LOL. Anyone want to buy a nice 3 bdrm, 2 bath 1800 sq ft house......hey, at least I'm not threatening to leave the country. Only looking to be part of "settling" the wild west (always thought, if reincarnation was true, that I was an "old west" outlaw....most likely hung for my crimes....lmao)
  • ACTSmom
    !
    Especially if you went before Judge Parker! My husband would have loved living during that old west period...think he'd like living out in the woods prospecting for gold. And he really likes his guns, including his 1873 Winchester and a Colt handgun. But, he has no assault rifles...
  • Calfkiller
    !
    somewhere I heard that every shooting in the last ten years with more than 3 casualties happened in areas where guns were not allowed i.e. movie theaters,schools, universities,
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    @Calfkiller I was responding to Capt_Morgan's post, not yours. There are plenty of shootings on city streets and other areas where guns are not prohibited. Is it really less tragic if 30 innocent people are killed at 10 different locations than if they are all killed in the same location? I do not believe that the answer to preventing shootings in highly populated public areas is to make it legal for citizens to carry weapons anywhere they choose. It may be true that criminals will ignore laws that prevent people from carrying guns in public places, but if one man pulls a gun and starts shooting at a public rally and 40 men pull guns and return fire, can you guarantee that the body count from the crossfire will be less than if 40 men dog-piled onto the shooter?
  • Calfkiller
    !
    actually every American has the constitutional right to conceal carry without explaining anything to the gov't. Here is where logic leaves the plantation. Instead of pointing out that these states have lower crime rates than New York or California, the writer feigns confusion at how this could be allowed.
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    The Constitution protects the right to bear arms but I see nothing in it that says you have a right to hide them on your person.
  • Calfkiller
    !
    @Dan_Tien if you have the right to keep them and bear them, that doesn't mean you have the right to go home and get them out of your gunsafe. It is worse to carry them visibly because that provides intimidation.
  • Calfkiller
    !
    @Dan_Tien That is why gun ownership is a crime deterrent. Most criminals are cowards looking for a victim not a fight. In places like Alaska where virtually everyone has a gun, you seldom hear of home invasions. Criminals aren't necessarily stupid, they understand that they don't want to get shot.
  • Dan_Tien
    !
    @Calfkiller An intimidating appearance is an effective deterrent to attack. It is one of the reasons that uniformed police officers wear their side arms in plain view, although they often have a backup weapon concealed as well. You are extrapolating from the right to bear arms a right to conceal them, but that is not stated in the Constitution.
  • Calfkiller
    !
    @Dan_Tien you are splitting hairs. Police officers are assumed to be armed. Some jackass with an NRA t-shirt and a 44.magnum half the length of his leg bitching at the cashier is a different story. You have to have a badge to carry visibly. In my state atleast. Although it would get you a bit more respect from some knuckle dragging cop if you did have ten pounds of stainless strapped to your belt. But who said it was limited to pistols? Why can't I carry my AK-47with me the next time I go Christmas shopping at Wally world? probably wouldn't have any old ladies running their cart up my calves trying to get the last fruitcake.

  • View all 57 replies >

  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! Every single story for the last 48 hours has been about nothing but the school shooting. What about the fiscal cliff that obama has promised to push us over? What about Syria and Iran? There are so many calamities going on that we are not focusing on. My wife grieved all weekend long of those beautiful precious children that were taken away from us far too soon, but gun control is not the solution. And 50 articles trying to convince the voting public that gun control is a good thing will not work.
  • Neo_NtheMatrix
    !
    @mtkopf - Because a lack of gun control is not why the Connecticut massacre took place. The guns were obtained legally by the mother, but stolen by the son. No amount of laws would prevent a person dedicated to violating the law from doing so. Also, if someone is truly committed to killing a group of other people, they will use any method available to them. If not a gun, then a knife, or a bomb, or some other mechanism. Norway has very strict gun control, didn't help them any.
  • u
    mtkopf
    !
    @Neo_NtheMatrix
    Definition of crazy: doing the same thing over and over yet expect different results.

    There are an estimated 300,000,000million + firearms in the u.s. While the gun manufacturers continue to flood the market with more and more guns, some eventually wind up in the hands of criminals and crazies. Now to combat the bad guys, you say more guns, which leads to more firearms in the hands of the bad guys. Your circular logic is not working. Your reasoning is like the logic of the arms race during the cold war. The only difference is innocent children are being killed and being killed everyday.
    Its quite apparent that the strategy of letting the NRA and gun manufacturers dictate gun control policy in this country is not working.

    As to your other point of knives and bombs being used I only have to reply by asking:
    How many bombings occurred in the u.s. this year? How about last year?
    How many children were killed during that stabbing rampage in China?
  • paperdragons81
    !
    Agreed, Im tired of almost every issue being guns,and on the shooting . Are they useing this as a smoke screen? There are other important issues that need discussed.
  • Canoochee
    !
    @woodtick57 you got some data to back that up? Seems like the papers would often be carrying such a story were it true. I don't see it often.

    Are you familiar with the Lock study a few years ago. Guns are used nearly 2200 times per day in the US to PREVENT a crime from occurring.
  • Thunderchicken
    !
    @woodtick57

    Sorry I had to bail before I could finish my post. Your point is a valid one but I will counter with exercising the right of self defense (or any right) comes with the responsibility to do so with the proper care. IOW, any responsible gun owner is going to know what he is shooting at and what his backstop is. If not, that right should be taken away from that individual.

  • View all 8 replies >

  • bsking
    !
    without a doubt they help to make people safer. I wish we had a castle doctrine though..

    anybody know if Washington DC's crime rate fell since they " allowed" Citizens to protect themselves?
  • u
    Grubby
    !
    I see nothing wrong with these laws. Only the extreme left wing nutjobs find these to be eyebrow raising, generally the city folk who never grew up with guns for any other purpose than killing people. When I was growing up not only could you have your guns locked in your car at work, as long as you were 14 you could drive to school and carry your guns in your car or truck. Nobody ever shot anyone, the guns were for critters and varmints of the 4 legged variety.
  • 1adam2
    !
    well if laws stopped crime, then we should be safer now than ever before. with all the thousands and thousands of laws, they have passed in the last sixty years. but the fact is no amount of laws, makes any society safer. and we are less safe today, than we were 60 years ago. they used to operate with one lawman per 10,000 people. now we have like i lawman per 100. and we are less safe now, than 60 years ago. so obviously we are fooling ourselves, with the law. as to what the real problem, with our society actually is.
  • Thegrif
    !
    All I know is if every Tom, Dick, and Harry had a gun strapped to his hip and some guy came in the bank to rob it, when the Po-Po showed up there would be a bad guy laying on the floor.
    Yes maybe a good guy too, for a while. But people would stop wanting to risk dying for the chance to rob a bank.
    I agree with open carry, I realize for a short while some good people may die, but I for one, am willing to roll those dice in order to take back our streets and towns.
    I can see the bad guy now trying to rob a cashier, when he turns around and see's 20 guns pointed at his chest. He will first wet his pants, then he either gives up, or die's, totally his call.
  • u
    drow13f
    !
    Vermont is ranked the safest state in the country, so maybe making it easier for law abiding citizens to obtain guns is not a bad idea. The only people that follow gun laws are law abiding citizens. The criminals will get them anyway, so who would you rather have them.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch...
  • u
    formerrepub
    !
    It may be controversial but the people of the states have the right to decide, at the state level, on their laws. So if the writer is calling this "crazy" and I take it he is, what are you suggesting? A Federal police force come in and make a one size fits all law overriding state soveriegnty? You should go back and read the constitution, I know how bad you Libs hate that word and that document!
  • FFX_VA
    !
    No one walks into the NRA or a gun show to start shooting, they choose "soft targets" like malls, theaters, schools. There's a reason for that.
  • o
    Sharpshooter
    !
    I wonder if Dylan Matthews finds laws permitting idiots, morons and retards to posses and use word processors and computers without adult supervision to be crazy?

    The eyebrow raising aspect of his discovery comes from HIS lack of knowledge and intellect.

    Vermont like all other states allow 16 year olds to own posses and operate something hundreds of times more dangerous... CARS, which by the way Dylan are NOT considered a “Right to Keep and Bear” by ANY State.

    Castle Doctrine is “Crazy”? It's OK for someone to enter YOUR HOME and do as they wish? Dylan, THAT isn't crazy... it's fucking STUPID and my guess is that were you actually faced with the situation FOR REAL you would concur.
  • R Load more comments...