Gun Laws

I am 100% disabled from a car/semi-truck accident, while I was in the Navy in 1977. I have had my concealed carry permit in Ohio for almost 5 yrs. Before I took my CCW coarse, I asked if it was legal for me to have a permit,being disabled. "Of coarse it is", was the answer I got.

I usually carry a 2" .38 on my strong side(right) on belt,with an un-tucked T-shirt or regular shirt. I walk with a cane and can drop it and retrieve my gun with amazing speed because I have practiced that. Being disabled means that I or any other disabled person is an easier target. A lot of practicing is a must, to stay as proficiant as you can. Stay safe in this un-forgiving world.

Military police of any branch cannot carry firearms off duty, unless on some sort of special assignment such as prisoner transport or the like. The reason being simply that we have no jurisdiction outside of a military complex, unless otherwise specified.

This article covers HR 218 quite well: http://www.policeandsecuritynews.com/septoct04/national_ccw_law.htm

As for the second part of your question, an MP has even MORE limitations on carrying a weapon than most civilians do if they are on active duty, but simply on liberty and not in direct performance of their duties. The military doesn't authorize carriage of ANY weapon (even pepper spray) while not actively working. This may be different for those deployed to a combat zone, I'm not sure, I'm speaking for those stationed stateside or in friendly foreign nations. Now, if the servicemember was on leave in their home state and they had a legal carry permit, they are allowed the same privileges and limitations (i.e. would not be able to affect an arrest) as any average civilian with such a license.

Hopefully, this was clear and answered your question satisfactorily.

There is an apparatus at the federal level to apply for relief of disability for anyone convicted of a crime defined as a felony under federal law (meaning, federal law makes it a felony, even though it'll still be prosecuted in a state court). However, it receives absolutely no funding - ipso facto, it never happens.

Please refer to RCW 9.41.300, RCW 9.41.280, and RCW 70.108.150.

This is a very complex subject, and a short answer really does not do it justice. There are already thousands of laws and regulations about firearms in existence. What is needed is to swiftly and surely punish people that misuse firearms. Currently there is a long delay between being caught, and being punished, and punishment is FAR from certain.

As an example, it is already against the law for a person that has been convicted of a felony (serious crime) to ever have a gun again. However, when caught, these people were rarely charged with that. The Richmond VA area began a program known as Operation Exile. If a previously convicted felon was caught with a gun, it was referred to the Federal prosecutor, who charged him with violating the Federal law. Trial was speedy, and if convicted, the person was sentenced to 5 years in a Federal prison- no parole, no probation. Crime with guns dropped dramatically in that area.

Not sure exactly what you are asking. If you mean, after getting a felony how long is it before you can purchase a gun, the answer is, never, unless you have your rights restored, which you can only do under limited circumstances.

write about ratification date and proposal date and who it was by. how we came acrost it. its effect on gun sales when to and not use it. how it comes up in court etc.

http://gunlaws.com/links/linksok.htm

It may depend on where you are. In the state where I live, there is no restriction.

Not sure what you're asking, but I'll take a stab at it. If you're asking "Is it illegal to carry a handgun," the answer is, it depends on where you are. In the U.S. some states require a permit to carry a handgun concealed, but a few don't. A few states allow you to carry a handgun openly, but most don't. Two states, Wisconsin, and Illinois, and D.C. don't issue carry permits.

That is the National Shooting Sports Foundation. They promote shooting sports. Gun control attempts to prevent ownership of guns used in shooting sports. No gun= no shooting sports.

California has a whole lot of them - far to many to feasibly be written out here. Basically, if it's a centerfire rifle feeding from a detachable magazine, it can't have any features indicative of a military-style rifle, and the receiver must be from a manufacturer which hasn't been specifically banned by the California Department of Justice. A handgun which was designed to have a magazine capacity of more than 10 rounds is likewise most likely to be illegal, even with ban compliant ten round magazines.

Generally, what makes people support gun control is fear and desire for instant gratification.

In the minds of many people guns are equated to violence and crime. This is a perception that is especially common among city dwellers. People in the cities often get their image of firearms and firearm owners from television and movies where a man with a gun is either a police officer or a bad guy. It's different in the countryside where a man with a gun is your neighbor going hunting or shooting cans at the trash heap.

People fear crime, and justly so. It is scary when you are robbed or assaulted. Making the connection between guns and crime they fear guns. It is only natural to desire to remove the object of fear. People also like easy solutions, and making a gun illegal seems like an easy thing to do.

There are, of course, major failures in this logic. Guns may be used in crime, but they cannot cause crime - the are inanimate objects and do not have mystical power to control minds. Removing guns does not remove crime.

Politicians like gun control because it makes them look like they are doing something, while actually doing little work. Pro-gun control politicians generally want to be seen as tough on crime. The real causes of crime are social. Addressing them takes a lot of work and a lot of money. The positive effects take a long time to become visible. Tossing off a gun control law is much easier and can be used in a campaign right away.

There are also some people who support gun control because they or someone close to them has been harmed by someone using a gun. Grief is a very strong emotion and it can be hard to be logical about who or what you blame. It doesn't matter that the harmful act was against the law, or that another object would have been just as damaging.

In certain states you are allowed to do that but in NY 77% your not allowed. Hope this helped :)

Rhode Island has very strict gun laws (see the link Below) they have classified BB guns as firearms. You have to get a gun permit to own one and go through the regular processes for a firearm to own one.

That's actually a good question, and what the current gun rights vs. gun control debate is about. Until fairly recently (the Supreme Court's Heller decision in 2008), the second amendment was interpreted in a way that gave rights of gun ownership mainly to a "well-regulated militia" (the military) and placed limits on individual gun ownership. But thanks in large part to activism and advocacy from the National Rifle Association (NRA), as well as a rise in anti-government sentiments, congress and the courts came to accept the idea that individuals have a nearly unlimited right to own guns, whether they are members of the military or not. Further, attempts to limit the number of guns or ban so-called "assault rifles" have also failed.

Changing the Second Amendment is probably not a winning issue, since the Founding Fathers clearly wanted Americans to be able to have "well-regulated militias" to fight potential tyrants (they were concerned that the British monarch might try to re-capture the colonies). It's a matter of clarifying their intent, and addressing how & why the interpretation of the second amendment has changed so dramatically. Today, anti-government attitudes are flourishing, along with an increasing fear of crime (even though in reality the over all crime rate has been dropping for more than a decade). As a result, many people believe that it is a dangerous world and only guns can protect them. And with most members of congress unwilling to take on the power of the NRA, the trend is to create more laws that give more individual citizens more rights to own more more guns. Whether this is acceptable, or whether this trend will continue remains to be seen. I fully expect my answer to be disagreed with, but this is the best response I can offer.

A NY pistol permit doesn't serve as a carry permit. As far as carry permits go, New York is a "may issue" state, which pretty much translates to, "we don't issue, unless you have some serious connections and can throw lots of money at us".

You can do it where there are generally no people or in your backyard

There is no federal law specifically addressing the issuance of concealed-carry permits, so each state's government determines the laws around gun permits and permissions: the details.

The federal government will not allow a state to prohibit the right to carry a gun, so Illinois had to allow its residents to carry a concealed weapon as of January 2014.

It was adopted in 1791

It was to make people feel safe because they are protected with there fire arms the weapons are not bad it is what you use them for a famous saying the only enemy's for guns are rust and politics.

if you live in the republic of Ireland you can get a training licence at 14,as you may know there are very stringent firearms laws in Ireland and you must satisfy your local superintendent that you are a suitable person to be granted a firearms licence,membership of a gun club or clay pigeon shooting club is usually required

A pardon from the governor would eliminate the record of the conviction for whichever crime your were pardoned for. Making it like it never happened.