Gun control measures do not necessarily stop people from defending themselves. Instead, they aim to regulate the accessibility and use of firearms to prevent misuse and reduce gun-related violence. While some argue that restricting gun access could hinder self-defense, others believe that other means of protection, such as improved security systems or non-lethal self-defense methods, can be effective alternatives. The effectiveness of gun control in promoting self-defense is a subject of ongoing debate.
Some argue that gun control laws are ineffective because they primarily target law-abiding citizens, rather than criminals who obtain firearms through illegal means. Additionally, criminals can still find ways to access and use firearms even if stricter gun control measures are in place. Moreover, the effectiveness of gun control laws can vary depending on the specific policies implemented and the enforcement of those policies.
To Whom It May Concern:
John Doe has asked me to provide a recommendation letter for his [Put State Here] Class A Firearms license. I am not related to John but have known him for over 6 years and consider him a very close friend of the family. He is a respected professional man who holds his head high and achieves anything he sets out for.
I believe John Doe to be of good character and that he will accept the responsibilities involved seriously and know of no reason why he should not be granted a [Put State Here] Class A Firearms license. I recommend that you approve his application.
If you have any questions regarding this letter please contact me in writing or call me directly.
Personal Information Goes Below
It can be, for two reasons.
1) Many cities and suburban areas are designated as bird sanctuaries, to prevent the killing of local species.
2) The discharge of any firearm can be a threat to others or their property, so is usually restricted to prevent negligent injuries and damage.
I think you will have to check with the local law enforcement in order to get that answer. I know that just as long as you have the orange tip on the gun, it makes it legal to distribute in the U.S. If you can have one, check out Airplsat.com. It's where I get all my stuff and I love the website.
Under the Canadian Firearms Program, Airsoft guns with a muzzle velocity below 111.6 m/s (366 f/s), and resembling with near precision an existing make and model of a firearm, other than an antique firearm, are considered replica firearms and therefore are prohibited devices.
you do not need a permit for a airsoft pistol/rifle because i just bought one a couple of months ago and all they needed was my ID showing that i was over 18, if your not then you need someone to buy it for you that's over 18 and give it to you, there is no legal age to own an airsoft gun just one to buy one. Also you can not bring them out into the public aka walking down the street or in a mall but at your house or your property its ok.
There are several parts to the answer.
Part 1: There is no handgun registration in Mississippi. You can sell a handgun to another person who isn't restricted in a personal transaction and nothing is required by law as long as the other person also lives in MS. You can, if you choose, print up a bill of sale, so you have evidence that you sold the gun.
Part 2: You can also, if you choose, go to a gun shop or any FFL holder and have them process a transfer. Some dealers won't process transfers between two individuals. The ones that do, will charge a fee, usually somewhere between $25 and $100.
Part 3: If you're talking about a gun that has been stolen (or missing), you should file a police report, but there isn't really any way to "get it out of your name" because, strictly speaking, it isn't "in your name."
I recently wrote to a friend who works in Law enforcement in NY City here is his answer about air gun laws in NYC.
1) They are prohibited in NY City (Brooklyn, Bronx, Queens, Manhattan
, etc..) unless you have secured a license from the Police Commissioner.
2) In the rest of the State, they are prohibited by anyone under the age of 16 AND they are prohibited on school grounds UNLESS "permission has been granted by the educational facility for use on their property yada
yada
yada....."
I have found nothing that says anything regarding possession by an adult as long as its propellant in "spring loaded or CO2".....
It isn't legal in the U.S. for a child to own a gun, but it is legal for a child to possess a gun under certain circumstances such as hunting, shooting at the shooting range, etc.
The Second Amendment allows one to protect themselves should their home or family be threatened. It also may be necessary should our country be invaded and it becomes necessary for the American people to join forces with the military to protect what is ours.
check with your local authorities they will tell you exactly what is expected of you.
Yes, you can open carry a handgun in Indiana provided that you have already obtained a license to carry a handgun.
The second amendment grants the right of the people to keep and bear arms, and states the right shall not be infringed.
This amendment gives people the right to keep and bear arms (weapons, guns specifically.)
It depends. Some, but only a few, states in the U.S. require a license to purchase a gun. A gun permit normally refers to a permit allowing you to carry the gun on your person in public. Some people use the terms interchangeably, but each state calls the gun permit something different. In Tennessee, it is called a "Handgun Carry Permit." In Florida, it is a "Weapons Permit."
The Second Amendment isn't bad. Ignorance about firearms and the true causes of violence is bad.
The right of the people to keep and bear arms.
some people think its fun and its used for getting food
Guns nearly help us hunt animals for food. They also help guard our houses for everything from burglars to murderers. That's how they help us
Because they believed that an armed populace, organized into a well regulated militia, was a good way to defend the country without a large professional army and that it would give the people the ability to defend their liberties if the government ever became tyrannical. Look at modern Switzerland. That is the kind of model that our founders were thinking of.
Michael Montagne
I figure it is partly due to the fact that British forces marched into Lexington and Concord with the intent to seize the militia's arms. This imprinted into the American mind a direct relationship between firearms and freedom.
It is'NT even conjectural as many made coment on it. Not for self protection, not for hunting, not even to protect from foreign invaders. Simply that the people, the militia, be able to wrest power from a government, overtly or insideously, removing power form the people. Every political figure knows that to impose the governments will on the people you must disarm them. Our second amendment has been broken already with the 1934 nfa and all subsequent gun control. They are convincing the sheeple of Amereica that they need protecting from themselves. Don't let it happen.
The Second Amendment allowed for state militias on the cheep, by using citizens arms. It also was a counter balance to the power of the federal government. But the Second Amendment has been an anachronism for over 150 years. State Militias , now known as the National Guard, issue arms to its members. In addition, the most significant arms in the modern military include fighter jets, misiles, artillery, heavy weapons and such, not the kind of things most parents want floating around the neighbor. To allow anyone to own such arms by right is completely uncivilized and not the kind of world most sane people would want to raise a family in.
The 2nd Amendment was intended as a final check of government authority
The militia interpetaion...that some how the National Guard constitutes a "well regulated militia" is ridiculous...any force who ultimately is completely controlled by the regular federal armed forces is in no way securing the right of the people to keep and bear arms...even if the governor can call on them to help with hurricane relief...it still in no way means that they are the kind of militia that the Founders had in mind
"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." - Thomas Jefferson
"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." -Thomas Jefferson
The Second Amendment to the Constitution of The United States reads as follows:
'A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.' The capitalisation and punctuation are as the original version passed by Congress
Now the issue here it seems is largely what is meant by 'Militia' but before I address that consider this. When the amendments were written and passed by congress they and the constitution they amended were intended to be read in conjunction with and to provide the means to defend both the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence.
The drafters of the Declaration of Independence had experience of the use of a standing army to oppress the people.
A standing army is a tool of government and can be used by a government to enforce its rule in defiance of the wishes of the people.
A standing army tends to be distanced from the people and its members are often not from the locality in which they are stationed. They do not have much of a connection with the locals making their use against the local population much easier.
The drafters of the second amendment were fully aware of this. They had seen standing armies in Europe used against their own people when those people objected to government oppression or indifference.
Their intention was that there would be no standing army in their new country to prevent a future government using such an army against its own people.
The defence of the country was to be carried out by the armed citizens who would form a Militia as and when needed for that purpose. And should a government become oppressive to the people, to provide the means for the people to remove the government and replace it.
So despite arguments to the contrary from some. The term 'Militia' does not mean the National Guard nor does it mean the regular military forces which are under the direct control of the federal government.
The meaning of 'Militia' intended by the drafters of the Declaration of Independence, The Constitution of The United States, and The Bill of Rights, of which the Second Amendment is a part is, literally, THE PEOPLE. The individuals who make up the population of the United States.
When the Second Amendment is read, as it should be read, in conjunction with the Declaration of Independence and The Constitution of The United States. The meaning of the word 'Militia' intended by the founders of the United States is clear and unambiguous.
Brian Thwaites LL.B (Hons)
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
The FOUNDERS never said anything about bearing arms is a "god-given" right. What they DID say was that a well-governed MILITIA being necessary to the security of a free state... Where does it say ANYTHING about people being free to run amok with any kind of weapon they want? It doesn't.
The gun nuts have NOTHING to do with a well-regulated MILITIA! The time when a well-regulated militia is no longer required to protect our national security. The ONLY need for people being able to bear arms is to protect our government or any other government from being able to diminish our freedoms.
The FOUNDERS were thinking about single-shot weapons, not the assault weapons that so many people want to tote around in public.
I am for keeping a weapon for my personal safety, especially when I am traveling around. As a 73 year young woman, I am seen by some as a potential target. I'm nothing of the sort. I'm an Air Force veteran, I carry and know how to use a deadly weapon.
Bottom Line: Self restraint is necessary when owning weapons. A few years ago, an intruder trespassed on our property--I had the right to shoot the offender. I chose to only cock the shotgun I was holding while keeping my finger OFF the trigger. All it took was the sound of the shotgun to put the trespasser on the ground. A neighbor called 911 and the police took him away. I DID NOT FIRE! The problem is that too many people do not understand that a bullet or shot pellets cannot be recalled.