Gun Laws: The Tides Are Changing…

Gun Laws: The Tides Are Changing…

gavel

So Chicago is the latest in a line of areas relaxing their gun laws. While cities and states of the East coast, still reeling from tragedies such as Sandy Hook, seem to be getting more strict, a judge in Chicago has done the opposite.

The most concerning for me is the ability to “gift” a gun to someone. So commit a crime then “gift” the weapon?

There may be an appeal, so we shall see how all of this plays out….Chicago’s Gun Law Changes

5 thoughts on “Gun Laws: The Tides Are Changing…

  1. The most concerning for me is the ability to “gift” a gun to someone.

    Why is the ability for my wife to purchase a firearm for my Christmas present concerning? Why is the ability of a father to pass down firearms to his children or grand children a problem?

    1. Hello! It’s a possible way to circumvent background checks or to dispose of a weapon used in a crime. I’m not worried about good people gifting; I’m worried about bad people taking advantage.

      1. Taking advantage of what?

        Criminals aren’t going to follow the law but that law would keep honest people from giving gifts to other law abiding people.

        As far as disposing of the weapon; all the criminal has to do is wait for the next “gun buy back” and get the police to dispose of it. Or they could throw it in a river, or the dump, or down a sewer, or an number of other ways.

        It wouldn’t matter to them because they are criminals. They already circumvent the law — they get a family member to buy a firearm if they are prohibited, they recruit friends/girlfriends, the pay people who buy drugs from them. They buy stolen firearms — the idea a background check will stop a criminal from getting a firearm is ludicrous.

      2. I understand your points, and agree with some of what you said.

        However, let me give you a real life example. I handled a case of a man who was stalking his wife. He attempted to buy a firearm; the background check revealed his criminal history and the open restraining order. This was days before he showed up at his estranged wife’s door and tried to attack her. Because of the background check, he arrived without a gun.

        We all know how that situation could have went.

        Also, what remains to be seen is how this “gifting” will be monitored. For instance, if a parent gifts a gun to their child (who is over 21) but has an addiction or is mentally ill? Who is liable for the consequences?

        All things to consider in balancing gun rights and the safety of the public.

        Have a great night!

  2. Because of the background check, he arrived without a gun.

    I disagree. It wasn’t because of the background check. The check is to easy to get around. And the penalty for violating it is seldom enforced. More importantly doesn’t show the futility of ‘papers’ as a deterrent?

    The Law prohibited him from showing up at the door, he did.
    Had he wanted to hurt her; what would have stopped him? The paper or someone with a firearm?

    For instance, if a parent gifts a gun to their child (who is over 21) but has an addiction or is mentally ill?
    It is against the law — and has been for a considerable amount of time — for a person with an addiction to possess a firearm. It is against the law to transfer a firearm to someone if you know that person has an addiction.

    And it is against the law to possess or transfer a firearm to someone who has been adjudicated as mentally ill. — Changing that law to encompass more ‘mental ill’ is an huge can of worms…what level do you consider to be a barrier?

    My point is we already have laws in place to cover these issues; new ‘laws’ won’t help without massive invasion of privacy and restrictions. The CDC studied this issue years ago

    During 2000–2002, the Task Force on Community Preventive Services (the Task Force), an independent nonfederal task force, conducted a systematic review of scientific evidence regarding the effectiveness of firearms laws in preventing violence, including violent crimes, suicide, and unintentional injury. The following laws were evaluated: bans on specified firearms or ammunition, restrictions on firearm acquisition, waiting periods for firearm acquisition, firearm registration and licensing of firearm owners, “shall issue” concealed weapon carry laws, child access prevention laws, zero tolerance laws for firearms in schools, and combinations of firearms laws. The Task Force found insufficient evidence to determine the effectiveness of any of the firearms laws or combinations of laws reviewed on violent outcomes. (Note that insufficient evidence to determine effectiveness should not be interpreted as evidence of ineffectiveness.)

    I’ll support laws that will make a difference — but shouldn’t that difference have more of an impact on the criminals then the law abiding?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s