The state that has the most restrictive gun laws

[Niner]

I was talking to a friend who lives in California that has bought a home and some property in Hawaii as a retirement destination. He has a carry permit in California and has a number of weapons mostly for hunting. He was saying that if he moved completely to Hawaii the gun laws there makes gun hostile California look gun friendly. All guns in Hawaii have to be registered. Until recent Supreme Court rulings there were no gun carry permits in Hawaii and since the ruling there have only been one or two issued. No firearm may be carried outside the residence except unloaded and secured in a vehicle on the way to a shooting range.

Meanwhile, in my home state of Alabama, starting in January anyone not otherwise restricted from owning a firearm can stick his loaded pistol in his pocket, without any permit required, when leaving home along with his loose change and his cell phone and go wherever he pleases with a few exceptions like municipal buildings and schools.

The US gun laws that change from state to state are in need of getting into some codifying across the board. The Supreme Court ought to lay out exactly what the Constitution allows and make all the states fall in line. Fat chance of that happening though.

[Aughnanure]

Sounds like home, except for the carry law, seems we and the island State share more than the Union Flag on our National flag. Going to and from the range all firearms must be unloaded and pistols must be in a locked steel box.
Just by the way, the US Constitution doesn’t grant any firearm rights at all even though it is commonly thought that it does.

[Niner]

Eoin, the 2nd Amendment speaks to the right of citizens being able to arm themselves against any potential tyranny that may arise from, then experimental, federal authority. Now days, if one looks at the news, that potential for tyranny hasn't abated at the Federal end of US government, only increased, with multiple new spy agencies and new electronic spy capabilities feeding those possibilities. Certainly if the colonists hadn't been self armed the American Revolution would have had a hard time of succeeding and our founding fathers appreciated that fact.

From Google:

What is the main purpose of the Second Amendment?
The Second Amendment, ratified in 1791, was proposed by James Madison to allow the creation of civilian forces that can counteract a tyrannical federal government.

The Supreme Court has made judgments relative to the Constitution over the years of firearm possession and restrictions. One of the latest:

In the 2008 case District of Columbia v. Heller, the Supreme Court held that the "Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home."

https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitutio ... _amendment

[Niner Delta]

"Just by the way, the US Constitution doesn’t grant any firearm rights at all even though it is commonly thought that it does."

"The Constitution describes each of the roles and responsibilities of the arms of the government and citizens while the Bill of Rights
describes the rights and freedom of the people."

So actually that is not correct Eoin, as it is the 2nd of the first 10 Amendments to the Constitution that form the Bill of Rights and
gives the right of gun ownership. But since they are Amendments to the Constitution itself, they are considered part of the
Constitution and thus it does grant firearm rights. All Amendments, and there are currently 27 ratified Amendments, become part
of the Constitution after being ratified by ¾ of the states.

.

[Aughnanure]

Sorry to disagree, but the 2nd recognises a pre-existing right.
It doesn’t say the people are given the right to bear arms, it says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
If the 2nd was repealed tomorrow, the right to bear arms would not be altered one iota.

[Niner]

I can kinda see what you are getting at Eoin. If the 2nd Amendment was abolished there would be a legal void with no law at all leaving everyone to own any kind of firearm they could get their hands if they wanted..... apparently. Even with the 2nd in force woke states act like they don't have to bide by the Constitution's 2nd Amendment. They know they can get away with it for a while as they produce court wrangling now and again. However, the odds of repealing any amendment are pretty long. Repealing number two of the top ten would be about like Jews and Christians deleting one of the ten commandments.

What is needed to repeal an amendment?
There are two ways to repeal an amendment. One way is for the proposed amendment to be passed by the House and the Senate with two-thirds majority votes. Then, the proposed amendment would have to be ratified by three-fourths of the states. The second way to repeal an amendment is to have a Constitutional Convention.

Now such a repeal has happened before. There was that little thing about prohibition. It was passed by the three fourths of the states and then after seeing it was a disaster on several counts it was repealed by the same three fourths route. There has never been any new Constitutional Convention after the Constitution was first put in place, unless you count in the Confederacy, and we know how that turned out..

[Aughnanure]

For a real fun event get a school teacher or someone with a degree in English, who are anti-gun, and ask them to analyse the sentence that is the Second Amendment, with particular emphasis on how the right to bear arms is dependant on the militia.
The wrestling with their preconceived ideas and their language ability is a joy to behold.

[Niner]

The state of Oregon has a new gun law proposal on the ballot on November 8. It's what will happen, and worse, in some of the US states if the 2nd Amendment doesn't present a safeguard again.

AP

The measure would require a permit to purchase any gun. To qualify for a permit, valid for five years, an applicant would need to complete an approved firearm safety course, pay a fee, provide personal information, submit to fingerprinting and photographing and pass a criminal background check. It would also ban large capacity magazines over 10 rounds, except for current owners, law enforcement and the military.

The state police would create a firearms database. Applicants would apply for the permit from the local police chief, county sheriff or their designees.

Among those opposing the measure is the Portland chapter of the Socialist Rifle Association, a left-wing gun group that aims “to combat the toxic, right-wing, and exclusionary firearm culture in place today.”

Note the "Socialist" rifle association tag for singling out. However, how is it that the fringe left accuses right-wing groups of being anti firearm? Isn't that a bit back ass ward?

[Niner Delta]

I'm not surprised about Oregon, it may be hard to believe, but that state is even more fucked up than
Washington or California .....

.