Talk:Gun law in the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Merger proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

It's been proposed that the article Gun laws in the United States (by state) be merged into this article, Gun law in the United States. Please discuss the proposed merger here. I'll start.

• Oppose This article is about U.S. federal gun laws. The other article is about state and local laws. Obviously the two subjects are somewhat related, but federal gun laws are a broad and important enough subject to warrant their own article. The state and local laws should also have their own article, which is already very long, and there's even been some discussion about breaking up that article anyway. In my view it would be much better not to merge the two articles — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:57, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose There is no point in merging an encyclopedic listing of various state gun laws into an article on Federal gun law. As Mudwater suggests above, not only would this increase the size of an already large article, the two topics simply aren't the same. SeanNovack (talk) 13:49, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support What I am thinking in the long run, is that if we create individual articles for each state's gun laws (i.e. Gun Laws in Alabama) in order to shorten the Gun laws in the United States (by state) article, that Gun Laws in the United States (by state) can be merged with this article.--Jax 0677 (talk) 17:36, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The will still be a need for an overview article. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose per Mudwater and SeanNovack. Also, the topic is sufficiently notable that this page will serve a an overview of any individual articles about State-wide gun laws. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 23:47, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment I think that the easiest way to shorten the Gun laws in the United States (by state) article is by creating articles such as Gun Laws in Alabama that can be wikified at a later time, and making Gun laws in the United States (by state) the existing few paragraphs that begin the article, in addition to a short list of links. Comments anyone?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:17, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Splitting up the other article is a separate question, because even if the other article was shortened a lot by splitting off each state section into a separate article, it still should not be merged with this article. I suggest that we settle the merge question first, then go on to discuss splitting up the other article or not, on the other article's talk page. It looks like most editors agree that the two articles should not be merged. Should be close the merge proposal now, removing the "merge from" and "merge to" templates? Or should we leave it open for longer, to give other editors more time to join the discussion? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 12:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Oppose as already been said - state-wide gun laws are notable enough in their own right, and are far too different to try to encompass them all in one article. That in mind, some of the stricter states, (NY, NJ, CA, etc...) might even warrant their own articles. -Deathsythe (talk) 12:34, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

• Comment Agreed for now then, let's NOT merge the two articles at this time. However, I would like to hear from more of you about splitting up Gun laws in the United States (by state). We can throw all of the new articles under the See Also section. Comments anyone?--Jax 0677 (talk) 00:12, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

I've started a new discussion section about the idea of splitting up Gun laws in the United States (by state) into separate state gun law articles. I would request that we discuss that idea there instead of here. So, chime in please, at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)#Splitting up the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:45, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Merger proposal 2

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result was merge here. -- Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:23, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Wicker Amendment is a very short stub, covering information of a type already included in this article in the 'Transporting firearms' section. I would therefore propose that it be merged here, per WP:MERGE#Rationales #2 (Overlap), #3 (Text) & #4 (Context). Hrafn^Talk_Stalk^(P) 07:05, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

• Support. I'd be open to further discussion, but the merger sounds reasonable to me. The Wicker Amendment article is quite short, and would fit in well in the "Transporting firearms" section of this article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 07:54, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Details needed

Which types of weapons are and are not allowed under federal law, for example automatic weapons? If all types are allowed, this is important to mention. -- Beland (talk) 13:42, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

really?

There is nothing in this article about which guns are banned like machine guns etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.62.20.190 (talk) 15:11, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

That is because fully automatic rifles are not banned. If you know a dealer with a Class 3 license they can sell you one made before a certain date.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dreg102 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 9 December 2011 (UTC) 

While the possession of fully automatic weapons (short barrelled rifles, short barreled shotguns, and a class called "any oter weapons") is not banned in many states, the procedure is as follows - complete the ATF Form 4, including permission from your local head law enforcement officer (chief of police/sheriff), two fingerprint cards, two passport quality photographs and $200. Mail that package to the ATF along with the weapon type / serial number. Once ATF approves the package (IF they approve it), the seller will be informed by ATF that the transfer is authorized. This takes about 6 months. NOT ALL STATES permit the private ownership of automatic weapons, SBRs, SBSs or AOWs - CHECK STATE AND LOCAL LAWS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.253 (talk) 00:44, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act does not "[give] firearms manufactures and dealers a unique protection against lawsuits on the grounds of negligence." On the contrary, they can still be held liable for acts of negligence, or in cases where they did not follow the legal rules and requirements for manufacturing or selling firearms. According to Democratic Underground, a pro-Democratic Party website, "The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible." As far as the Media Matters for America opinion piece, that could be balanced with a differing viewpoint, such as that of the NRA: "President George W. Bush today signed into law the National Rifle Association (NRA)-backed 'Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act' (S. 397) ending politically motivated lawsuits designed to bankrupt law-abiding American firearm manufacturers and retailers. S. 397 passed both chambers in Congress with broad bipartisan support." — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:15, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Again, the cited references clearly state that firearms manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for their own negligence, or for other unintentional or intentional acts on their own parts. They are however immune from liability for acts, such as gun crimes, committed by those who buy their guns. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 20:33, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Mudwater, sorry, but the law's exemption is unique. My references do not allow of another example when negligence claims are not allowed. That is the definition of unique. On your other point, please propose language that would suit you. Otherwise, we need to revert. This law prevents suits based on negligence, not the crime itself, which your language obscures. The claims in the Beltway shooter and other cases before this law was signed aimed to prove negligence that the company knew its products were dangerous and would be diverted to criminal use. This shouldn't be so difficult. --Zeamays (talk) 20:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

(1) Maybe we're using different definitions of the word "negligence". Are you saying that a firearms manufacturer is "negligent" because they sell a product that they know is dangerous and can be used for criminal activities? Please let me know, because -- since firearms are weapons -- this would be outside the conventional or legal meaning of the term "negligence". (2) Here is the text of the law itself. I encourage you and other editors to skim through it. Among other things, it says, "The term 'qualified civil liability action' [i.e. the type of lawsuit prohibited by the law] means a civil action or proceeding or an administrative proceeding brought by any person against a manufacturer or seller of a qualified product, or a trade association, for damages... or other relief, resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product by the person or a third party, but shall not include... an action brought against a seller for negligent entrustment or negligence per se..." So according to the text of the law itself, lawsuits alleging negligence are specifically allowed. (3) As always, other editors are strongly encourage to give their opinions here. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:13, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Answer to your question: No. I do not think that. The articles I have read indicated that the alleged negligence was in the manufacturer not taking steps to ensure that the diversion would not occur, or in accidental death cases, that safety devices had been factory-installed that would have prevented the accident. These allegations are "resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a qualified product..." So the language does mean that negligence suits (of this kind) are prohibited by this law. --Zeamays (talk) 21:22, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I don't see any argument about the word unique. If not objection, I will reinstate it. For the text, I propose this,

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) gave firearms manufactures and dealers unique protection from negligence suits that result from their use in crimes or accidents. They can still be held liable for criminal misconduct, defective products, or other forms of negligence. --Zeamays (talk) 21:28, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

Since the law itself specifically says that manufacturers and dealers can be sued for negligence, I don't think the article should state the opposite. As for the word "unique", I'm not seeing any sources for that. Again, here's the quote from Democratic Underground: "The purpose of the act is to prevent firearms manufacturers and dealers from being held liable for crimes committed with their products. However, both manufacturers and dealers can still be held liable for damages resulting from defective products, breach of contract, criminal misconduct, and other actions for which they are directly responsible." Since strong supporters of the Democratic Party are not generally known for their aversion to gun control laws, I think it's safe to say that this source is not trying to make the law sound milder than it really is. In fact, maybe that quote should be incorporated into the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:38, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but the quote you cite is, in fact, incorrect in its detail. I don't see how your "strong supporters" argument has any generality. Your approach is to look at what the law appears to be prohibiting, but that broad statement obscures what plaintiffs were alleging before this law. They weren't in fact alleging that the crime itself should be considered negligence (which no judge or jury would find credible), but as I stated above, they were alleging that the makers and distributors of firearms knew about diversion and misuse of the product and didn't take steps to end it. That argument is what got Bushmaster Int'l to agree to a settlement. There are plenty of references to that history. If that would satisfy you, I'll cite one. --Zeamays (talk) 21:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

For the reasons I've stated, I think it would be misleading for the article to say that the law protects manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits over negligence. But again, I'd be very interested in hearing the opinions of other editors. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:53, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I should have looked first, the Munoz references covers the history, indicating , "Faced with an increasing number of successful lawsuits over reckless business practices that funneled guns into the hands of criminals, the 2005 immunity law was a victory for the NRA, which "lobbied lawmakers intensely" to shield gun makers and dealers from personal injury law...." The liability was for the business practices that "...funneled guns..." It doesn't matter if you agree or disagree with allegations or this law, because I'm trying to place in the article what those allegations were, historically. Regarding your objection to the use of the word unique, again, the Munoz article covers that, useage, "...the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act was a complete deviation from basic "principles of products liability"..." This is one persons opinion, but unless you have a citation that refutes it, the word unique should stay. There isn't another product category that has this exemption from lawsuits. In the example of vaccines, for example, manufacturers are given protection by government sponsored insurance, but there is no restriction on lawsuits. --Zeamays (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

But the article should not say that the law protects manufacturers and dealers from lawsuits over "negligence" -- right? — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:36, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

How about the following?

The Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act (2005) gave firearms manufactures and dealers unique protection from lawsuits that derive from their use in crimes or accidents. They can still be held liable for criminal misconduct, defective products, or other forms of negligence. --Zeamays (talk) 23:01, 9 March 2013 (UTC)

I think that's not too bad. But I'd still be interested in other editors' opinions. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:11, 10 March 2013 (UTC)

There being no objection since the posting of Mudwater on 10 March, in it goes. --Zeamays (talk) 23:53, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

References

Rename?

Maybe I'm over thinking this, but I think the article would sound more precise if retitled to "Gun Legislation in the United States." Not too serious of an issue, but I wondered what others' thoughts were on the matter. I think the reason for this is that, in our article on "Law," it states, that the word "does not have a universally accepted definition." I was looking for the UK version of gun law/legislation and I did not find much, other than a page on Gun politics in the United Kingdom, and this is over legislation not politics (there's a separate article on that matter) so I don't have anything to really compare it to. So, your thoughts? 98.198.85.83 (talk) 21:32, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose renaming the article. In common American usage, a law governs conduct and determines what is allowed or not allowed. Legislation is a proposal to create or change a law. Some gun legislation is passed into law, and a lot of gun legislation is never passed. Anyway, per WP:COMMONNAME, "The most common name for a subject, as determined by its prevalence in reliable English-language sources, is often used as a title because it is recognizable and natural." In this case I believe that's the current article title, "Gun law in the United States". P.S. Participants in this discussion will want to be aware of this disambiguation page: Gun laws in the United States. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:58, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Understood. I'm not yet an American citizen and have not been too understanding about your legal terms (I guess it differs from country to country). But I think I see what the difference is, so thank you for your input. 98.198.85.83 (talk) 10:51, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Spam presented as references

I am preserving these here for discussion. These "references" are from commercial, spammy, POV sources. Much, much better could be provided.

References

• "USA Carry — Concealed Firearm Laws, Information and Resources". USA Carry. Luke McCoy. 2015. - Domain name registered to Luke McCoy; site advertises guns, ammo, and accessories; has a dedicated link to join the NRA.
• "Reciprocity Map of the United States". USA Carry. Luke McCoy. 2015. - Domain name registered to Luke McCoy; site advertises guns, ammo, and accessories; has a dedicated link to join the NRA.
• "State Laws regarding CCW Permits World Gun Issues". CarryConcealed.net. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) - Pro-gun site - looks like it's been dead for a bit.
• "2009 United States Traveler's Guide To The Firearm Laws of the 50 States". Global Trucker. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) - Why a trucker site? Looks like it's been dead for a bit.
• "Transporting Firearms Within The USA". firearmstransport.com. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |deadurl= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help) - Looks like it's been dead for a bit.
• "Implications for non-U.S. citizens". vrolyk.org. John Paul Vrolyk. - NOTE: THIS PAGE IS NOT BEING ACTIVELY MAINTAINED... (from site)
• "US Concealed Carry: Resource for Concealed Carry Laws, Reciprocity, CCW Permits, Gun Safety". U.S. Concealed Carry Association. Delta Defense LLC. 2015. - Site advertises guns, ammo, and accessories.

--Lightbreather (talk) 20:03, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't see any GOOD reason these sources were ever listed as References on this page. They almost seemed to be there as a resource for concealed carriers to refer to as they traversed the country! Lightbreather (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Inadequate lead

This was in the lead:

In the United States the protection against infringement of the right to keep and bear arms is addressed in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution. While there have been vigorous debates on the nature of this right, there has been a lack of clear federal court rulings defining this right until recently. The individual right to bear arms for self-defense was affirmed in the landmark United States Supreme Court cases District of Columbia v. Heller in 2008, which overturned a handgun ban in the Federal District of Columbia, and McDonald v. City of Chicago in 2010, which incorporated the individual right to the states.

This article is about gun laws in the United States, not about the bill of rights or court cases. Further, this information is not in the article body. What remains in the lead needs to be better developed, based on the body of the article.

In fact, the body needs to be improved, too, and then, the lead improved per WP:LEADFOLLOWSBODY. Lightbreather (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: (1) You said, "This article is about gun laws in the United States, not about the bill of rights or court cases." Frankly, that just doesn't make sense, because gun laws in the United States, or for that matter any laws in the United States, are hugely influenced by the Bill of Rights and by court cases. And two very important examples are District of Columbia v. Heller and McDonald v. City of Chicago, which as you probably know were Supreme Court decisions, based on the Second Amendment, that had a major impact on U.S. gun laws. (2) Lead follows body is a nice suggestion for how to write better articles. As it says at the top of that page, it's "not a Wikipedia policy or guideline", and it should not be used as an excuse for making the lead section less of a good summary of the subject of the article. In some cases it's better to expand or improve the body of the article based on the lead. (3) This article has been around for a long time, and its content is based on the work of many editors. So in the spirit of Bold, Revert, Discuss, I'm going to revert all of your recent edits. I feel that you are single-handedly hacking away at this article, making major deletions and revisions, but there's no consensus for this sudden series of edits. I suggest that you proceed in a much slower and more cautious manner, with input from other editors, so as not to engage in disruptive editing. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 23:30, 14 February 2015 (UTC)

Speaking of warnings, I object to gun related article editors who mass revert edits as if they think either a) the editor who made them is not editing in good faith, or b) it's beneath them to look at the edits. In my opinion, the many edits I've made improved the article. If you have problem with specific edits - like removing the 2A-and-Heller preamble that many seem to plop like a template into every gun related lead... Well, revert that then, and start a discussion about it. Lightbreather (talk) 01:44, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I did revert them, and I am discussing them. I'm not sure what warnings you're referring to though. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:54, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

As your edit summary said, you reverted ALL of my recent edits, though your complaint was about the 2A/court cases sentences. You warned me with a link to WP: DE, but H:REV equates the reversion of good-faith editing with disruptive editing, too. Lightbreather (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: As I said, the Second Amendment is very important when it comes to U.S. gun law, and should be covered in the article. But looking at how the article is organized, it might actually be better to put this in the body of the article. So, with this edit I moved that material out of the lead and into its own section, right after the lead. And with this edit I expanded the section, and added some references. I like to think that this expanded version of the section has a very neutral point of view, and also summarizes the situation pretty well. If you agree, I would encourage you to remove the {{Lead rewrite}} and {{POV-lead}} tags from the top of the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 17:14, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I have real-life tasks to do today, so I'll get started on this discussion, but do not expect to complete it today, or to remove the tags.

I think moving the 2A out of the lead and into the body is a good first step. I will now put my in-use template on and do a few things that I think will improve it. Lightbreather (talk) 18:34, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

Your efforts are wrong in principle. You have already been bold and, apparently, reverted. Anything else needs to happen here. Usually I wouldn't worry too much but your wikilawyering is extreme across numerous pages and so I can only assume that you think you know what you are talking about when it comes to standard practice. I am not going to revert you but someone probably should. - Sitush (talk) 00:49, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Sitush, Mudwater and I are working on this article. From my experience on GC articles, others will join in, too. I don't follow you around and rule on your content contributions, I'd appreciate the same courtesy. Lightbreather (talk) 01:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Meaning of "well-regulated"

In Heller, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled that "the adjective 'well-regulated' implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training." To re-write the lede to imply that well-regulated instead means governed by Federal Law is a giant leap of synthesis that goes entirely against the SCOTUS ruling, the SCOTUS it might be added which ultimately determines the meaning of the US Constitution and provides court decisions. To tag this article with a POV-section tag, simply in order to disregard the legally ruled meaning of "well-regulated" seems rather improper. I would suggest that the label be removed. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing this. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:32, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References

Outline

I'd like to edit the outline of this article, which is currently:

• Use of firearms
• Carrying
• Prohibited persons
• Dealers
• Acquiring from dealers
• Sales between individuals
• Movement and transport
  • Shipping firearms
  • Transporting firearms
• Undetectable guns
• Ammunition
• Antiques

(The origin of these sections was probably the NRA's "Citizen's Guide To Federal Firearms Laws," which includes the sections: Ineligible Persons, Acquiring Firearms, From Dealers, Sales Between Individuals, Temporary use of Another's Firearm, Antiques, Shipping Firearms, Transporting Firearms During Travel, Ammunition, and Dealers. Dollars to donuts that document was used as a template to create this article.)

I'd like to propose:

• Manufacture
• Trade (or Import and Export)
• Sale and transfer
  • Domestic agency and state
  • Civilian

And so on - or something along those lines. The main thing is, I don't think the current layout flows naturally or logically. Lightbreather (talk) 21:04, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I agree. The article currently covers only a portion of the laws governing firearms. Same goes for the "by state" articles. Felsic (talk) 17:05, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Now that the copyright violation material has been removed, we're left with a pretty short article. There are probably a few different ways it can be structured. I definitely think it would be good to build out the current outline of the major federal laws, that should be left in and expanded. But also having sections covering major topics -- manufacture, sale and transfer, etc. -- might make sense too, depending on how things develop. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:04, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

A neutral, fact-based article

Currently there are a number of Wikipedia articles on the subject of gun control that are seeing some pretty heated arguments. These arguments are generally POV disputes between pro-gun-control and pro-gun-rights perspectives. But this is a great article for us to avoid all that. The subject of this article is federal gun laws. The article should describe those at length, in a well-organized manner, using dry, completely neutral prose, and of course lots of good references. The article should not include any discussion at all about whether the laws are good or bad, or what different people think about them. And it should not describe the laws in ways that make either gun control or gun rights seem better or more attractive. There are plenty of other articles to get into those things. I can name a bunch, but Gun politics in the United States comes to mind, along with articles about controversial topics like Assault weapons. If any editors feel compelled to express their views, either blatantly or subtly, in the text of Wikipedia articles, I would request that they go work on those other articles. For this article, let's stick to just the facts! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:23, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. This post is not intended as a criticism of any editor. All are welcome to work on this article. I hope it becomes an exercise in cooperation, instead of contention. The recent discussions on the Second Amendment section seemed to work out pretty well, I thought. Dry facts, people, dry facts! — Mudwater ^(Talk) 02:40, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20040324/citizen-s-guide-to-federal-firearms-law, dated 24 March 2004. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and according to fair use may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, and I, too, would like to delete the copied material that I preserved here when I made the request for a copyvio review. Can I do that? Lightbreather (talk) 17:35, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Copyright violation

Large portions of this article appear to be copied from the NRA's "Citizen's Guide To Federal Firearms Laws - Summary."

This source was attributed to a couple parts,[1] but those parts were actually lifted from the Citizen's Guide.

--Lightbreather (talk) 21:41, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if I've done it right, but I have reported the article for copyvio. Lightbreather (talk) 22:01, 15 February 2015 (UTC)

You haven't done it right. If the issue is major then the article should now consist of just a templated message and no further progress can really be made until some uninvolved person checks the entirety of the thing. I can set that up for you if you want, otherwise you need to deal with it here and quickly. - Sitush (talk) 00:46, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Indeed, what has happened here is completely out of process. The copyvio template does carry in large letters the message "Do not restore or edit the blanked content on this page until the issue is resolved by an administrator, copyright clerk or OTRS agent", and in general it's best to respect that. In a case of blatant foundational copyvio like this it would have been preferable to start again from scratch. However, with one small exception which I've now dealt with, it seems to have had the right result (Sitush, do you agree?). Please see below. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:38, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Which is why I didn't restore or edit what I blanked. I proposed a new outline, and I started working on that. Thank you for removing[2] what I missed when I blanked what I did.[3][4][5] Lightbreather (talk) 17:47, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Make it a list

This article had a NRA WP:COPYVIO foundation and had turned into yet another pro-gun politics forum, which it's in jeopardy of doing again now. Why not just turn it into a List of federal gun laws in the United States, with a lead just like the one currently in this article:

Gun law in the United States is defined by a number of federal statutes. These laws regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories. They are enforced by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

Firearms ownership is regulated by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution.

As well as a "See also" to "Gun politics in the United States."

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:03, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose – "Gun law in the United States" is much better as an article rather than a list. The topic of the article is federal gun laws. That's a perfectly reasonable subject for an article, although the current version has plenty of room for improvement. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:07, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • So who's going to work on it? Aside from my discovery of the copyvio and adding summaries of existing gun-law articles, and others trying to "enshrine" the 2A here, I don't see much to indicate that it's a better article. Lightbreather (talk) 22:27, 25 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Actually, how is it better? What would be covered in this article that isn't already discussed in the myriad individual federal gun law articles plus Gun politics in the United States? Lightbreather (talk) 22:51, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

Second Amendment / Lead

Since April 3, the lead of the article has changed 13 times. I'm pinging Justlettersandnumbers, Lightbreather, Mudwater, and WeldNeck, as you have all been involved in recently editing the lead. The change from my edit of April 3rd that seems to have "stuck" is the inclusion of the Second Amendment in the lead. Personally I feel this is important, as international readers may be unaware of the 2A, and it has a big influence on the article's topic. However, everything else seems to be up in the air.

For now, I have changed the paragraph about the Second Amendment to be an exact copy of the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution article. I don't personally like mirroring it here, but it is at least relatively neutral and well-sourced while we address the two questions below. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

We have two questions here:

1: Should we change this article's lead to more closely mirror the Censorship in the United States and Internet censorship in the United States article leads?

• Comment: In particular, the Censorship in the United States article's lead sentence seems to have been largely stable since January of 2013. I feel that the two issues are pretty similar - both firearms ownership and free speech are protected by their respective amendments; both firearms ownership and free speech have some limits imposed on them; and reasonable people disagree over where the line should be drawn. I think that mirroring those two articles' leads is entirely reasonable to do. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose IF there were a "Speech law in the United States" article, I might want to look at it, its layout and quality. There is a Gun control in the United States, which might merit review compared to the censorship articles. This article is about U.S. gun laws, "laws [that] regulate the manufacture, trade, possession, transfer, record keeping, transport, and destruction of firearms, ammunition, and firearms accessories." Civilian ownership is only a part of that, and the "right to keep and bear arms" discussion is out side the scope of this article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

2: How should we describe the Second Amendment in relation to the right to keep and bear arms? Does the 2A guarantee the RKBA, protect it, regulate it, or something else?

• Comment: I feel that "regulate" is inaccurate. While the RKBA is indeed regulated (the entire topic of the article), it is not regulated by the 2A, just as the right to free speech is not regulated by the First Amendment. I also feel that "guarantee" is too strongly in favor of gun rights, and, as Lightbreather has pointed out, the RKBA is regulated. I feel that "protect" strikes the best balance without implying that this protection is absolute. Faceless Enemy (talk) 21:40, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Regulate is the neutral word. It's what appears in the second, and discussions about what that may or may nor mean can be covered in detail in the 2A article. Lightbreather (talk) 21:57, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

"The right to keep and bear arms is protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution." I think that's the best way to summarize it, at the end of the lead paragraph section. The Supreme Court has affirmed that this right, like other rights, can be subject to many restrictions, and that's explained quite clearly in the current version of the Second Amendment section of the article. But the Second Amendment itself doesn't regulate the right, it's the federal, state, and local laws that regulate it. Also, the Second Amendment has an important influence or effect on federal gun laws, so it's definitely in scope for the article. In fact I think the current Second Amendment section covers things quite nicely. Now what we need is to expand and improve the rest of the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 22:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

If we paraphrase Scalia like this - The Second Amendment offers U.S. citizens a limited right to keep and carry weapons - I could OK that. Lightbreather (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

@Lightbreather: I'm a bit surprised that an editor who has been involved in gun control articles for so long is still unfamiliar with the text of the Second Amendment. For your convenience, here it is: "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." As you can see, the word "regulated" refers to the militia, not to the right itself. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:38, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

• I like Mudwater's paraphrasing. Simple, concise and to the point. WeldNeck (talk) 19:30, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

Agreed; Mudwater's paraphrasing is fine by me. As they pointed out, there is plenty of clarification on the extent of that right further below and in the second amendment article. Faceless Enemy (talk) 11:57, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and made this change. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 00:00, 1 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2015

In spite of of this ruling the local DC governments require residents interested in firearms to Complete MPD’s Application for Firearms Registration Certificate in the presence of the seller, pass a test on DC’s firearms laws and regulations, cerifify that they are not blind, Pay fees upwards of $150, and be fingerprinted and photographed. Even then registrants may only retrieve the firearms they have already purchased if their application is approved. Dc law also bans the ownership of black powder (early gun powder in use during the revolutionary war) as it is considered ammunition

it's important to note that in DC even the founding fathers would have their rights infringed upon. If this article fails to mention that DC bans black powder in the same area it touts the 2nd amendment as having been affirmed then it's no wonder what wikipedia's bias is. 108.31.49.188 (talk) 10:54, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

References

Hello. Thanks for posting here. I can tell from your previous edits, such as \title=Gun_law_in_the_United_States&type=revision&diff=687042680&oldid=687026929 these, that you are suggesting that the first paragraph of your post be added to the article, and the second paragraph of your post is by way of explanation. I think you're saying that the D.C. gun laws violate the Second Amendment, right? Some people think that they do, and other people think that they don't. But those opinions don't really belong in the article, which should cover just the facts, "the facts" including opinions by the U.S. Supreme Court or other courts. So, I'm not going to update the article, though this could be discussed further, by us or by other editors. Note also that there are some other Wikipedia articles where these points might have an appropriate place, but be prepared to request or explain them on those articles' talk pages. These would include Gun laws in the District of Columbia, Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Gun politics in the United States. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 13:19, 23 October 2015 (UTC)

Right well while your out not fixing this page you may wanna fix this other one https://en.wiki.x.io/wiki/List_of_Roman_gladiator_types — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.31.49.188 (talk) 23:08, 23 October 2015‎ (UTC)

Republicans vs Veterans

Please be sure to include Senator Jeff Miller (R) Florida 2001 Veteran Second Amendment Act. The Department of Veterans Affairs' sweep of 260,000 is significant and a new version is allegedly in progress for voting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.43.193.56 (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2017 (UTC)

New section about gun control

A new section about gun control was added recently, here. I think it's a good idea to have a brief overview of gun control like this. But, this article is about federal gun laws, not state gun laws. It might be a good idea to also mention state laws as the new section does, but I think it should be in the context of pointing out the difference between federal and state laws. Also, the new section would be better if it had some references. What does everyone else think? (Pinging @MasterfulNerd:, who added the new section). — Mudwater ^(Talk) 03:08, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I included a reference to a Deutche Welle article in the paragraph. I am going to differentiate state vs. federal gun laws. Thanks for the notice — MasterfulNerd ^(Talk) 12:33, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

People without U.S. citizenship

The article does not say anything about foreign people wo are staying or living in the U.S. for a period of time (maybe as tourists or for a temporary job). The statement that people, who have renounced their US citizenship, are excluded from owning a gun, implicitly suggests that indeed no non-US citizen may possess a gun in the U.S. But an explicit statement may be better since there are quite a (maybe even increasing) number of non-US (e.g. European) citizens living and working in the US for a period of time.

Since it seems to be logical (and to force a check by the experts of gun-law) I am adding this conclusion to the statement mentioned above. Please check if this is true or not.--89.0.64.184 (talk) 19:12, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Not true. Green card holders are entirely able to purchase guns in the US, the same as any other resident. The issue is legal residency within a state, not US citizenship. Tourists are not residents; they cannot purchase guns while in the US. Miguel Escopeta (talk) 20:13, 21 July 2010 (UTC)

Hmm, but [6] and [7] tell something different: People with non-immigrant visas (e.g. for tourism, study or work for a limited time) can purchase guns and ammunition only if they have hunting license or permit legally issued in the U.S. And according to United States visas a non-immigrant visum applies to all people not wanting to be permanent residents to the U.S., with no distinction between tourists and temporary residents. Furthermore: If even former U.S. citizens who have renounced their citizenship are excluded from having guns, why should people who never were U.S. citizens should have more rights? Isn't renounciation of ones U.S. citizenship effectively the same as not being an U.S. citizen at all? Or is voluntary renounciation of U.S. citizenship treated as "treason" some way while being born in another country is just a fact?--SiriusB (talk) 07:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Therefore, there seems to be a contradiction between these articles and/or sources. So, I would conclude from this that even residents who are non-US citizens (including all those people who are staying in the US for a couple of years, but do not plan to become US citizens) are generally excluded from possession and carrying guns, except for legally issued hunting licences/permits, but not for self-defense. This is the only way I can understand these sources. Therefore I would suggest adding a line like "Non-U.S. residents without a valid Green card or hunting license" with citation of these references. Do these sources use the term "citizen" with different meanings? Or are they simply outdated or wrong?

I've just looked up: A Green card already implies a permanent residence, so my edit is indeed true for non-citizens without green card, or simplified, for all non-permanent residents (and non-residents).--SiriusB (talk) 07:33, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

I have added the conclusion of this thread: In general, all non-U.S. citizens are excluded. The green card is an exception for those who become permanent residents in the U.S. (thus "quasi" Americans). That effectively all non-immigrant aliens are excluded is what I conclude from this discussion and from the mentioned sources. And since this is an important information for a large number of people it should be mentioned at least somewhere. If this again is not true, and also non-immigrant aliens may possess guns for other things like hunting (namely for self-defense), then please give a valid reference for this.--SiriusB (talk) 07:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

SiriusB The article has since been updated listing the variety of people who can possess firearms in the USA Apeholder (talk) 00:49, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Apeholder: You do realize this discussion is over eight years old and SiriusB hasn't edited in over 7 months. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 00:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

That is true, but the quest for truth and accuracy never ends Apeholder (talk) 02:04, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

clarification of eligble persons

I made two edit thats were reverted, one putting "green card holders" after the term "permanent residents". This is because people often think these two terms are unconnected. The other edit was clarifying a group of eligible people were admitted lawfully on a non-immigrant basis. The extra information shouldn't really need to be discussed as it only helps the article Apeholder (talk) 00:56, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Apeholder: Yes, it would help the article, but at Wikipedia all new additions need to be reliable sourced by a third party, your additions were not. - FlightTime Phone (open channel) 01:12, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@FlightTime Phone: The entire Wikipedia article covers many sources on how the term permanent residency is also a green card. Furthermore, the references to the US code do specifically state 'do not apply to any alien who has been lawfully admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa'. I'm adding the words non-immigrant back in because that is simply more accurate and it is properly referenced by way of the US code reference. I don't know why these were revered, I'm going to add them back in because they are properly referenced Apeholder (talk) 01:46, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

This article contains obvious wrong information. I just noticed the words "possess and own" under "eligible persons". To say foreign nationals (visa-holding aliens) are eligible to own and possess firearms within the United States is basically to say that these foreigners are allowed to possess nuclear bombs in the United States. The term "firearm" excludes a long shotgun and a long rifle but includes all other guns and bombs, including nuclear bombs (see generally 18 U.S.C. § 921(a)(3); 26 U.S.C. § 5845). Under no circumstances can any non-LPR alien own any type of firearm, including a shotgun or a rifle. These non-LPRs may lawfully "use" guns (that do not belong to them of course) at a shooting range only. Like in the case of US soldiers training foreign soldiers inside military bases in the United States. --Libracarol (talk) 18:14, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

@Libracarol: No, this is correct. Aliens admitted on a non-immigrant VISA are prohibited to "receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce" as per Subsection (g)(5)(B) of this code EXCEPT when said alien falls into one of the non-immigrant VISA exceptions as provided by (y)(22) of the same code. There's no separate definition of a firearm for citizens than non-citizens. And if a US citizen can't possess a nuke, then why would a non-immigrant be able to? I appreciate this may be new to some people and frankly, incredulous, but it's a case of fact. A non-immigrant can come to the USA on holiday, do a hunting course (I don't think any state has a residency requirement), then use that hunting permit to buy a gun as per federal law. If you can provide anything different, then I'd like to see it please Apeholder (talk) 23:30, 15 November 2018 (UTC)

People who visit the US have passports of their countries and their visa is only good for about 3 months. How can such people buy and own firearms? Section 922 is not the only law, you must read all the sections in chapter 44 of title 18 [8] and chapter 23 of title 26 [9]. These sections cross-reference each other. LPRs can purchase and own firearms because the law allows them, and LPRs can use their green card or a state ID to purchase a firearm and register it. Other aliens simply cannot do this.--Libracarol (talk) 00:24, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

@Libracarol: We have a reliable secondary source that describes situations in which a foreign national may own or possess a firearm. Can you provide sources that support your assertions to the contrary? –dlthewave ☎ 03:19, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm using common sense against your nonsense. ATF cannot make a law, just like police cannot make a law. ATF is basically saying that certain foreign nationals who lawfully enter the U.S. for sporting purposes (e.g., competitions) may possess and use guns, but it doesn't say anything about ownership. Under the law, you must have a valid state ID to purchase a gun, and you must be a resident of the United States. Plus, you must fill federal forms and the gun must be registered to the owner, just like how cars are registered to their owners. You explain to us how can a foreign national have a valid state ID and become a resident of a U.S. state? If you can't explain this then what's the point of arguing. How guns are sold in Grand Theft Auto V is not how guns are sold in America.--Libracarol (talk) 09:38, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Many editors are surprised to find that they cannot edit or propose changes to an article based on "common sense". We only use information that has been published by reliable sources, and in this case the ATF is acting as a secondary source by interpreting the primary-source text of the legislation. Again, please show us the source that supports your statements. Please show the reliable source that says that guns must be registered and that the purchaser must show a state ID or become a state resident. here is another ATF source which states that a foreign passport is acceptable at the Federal level. –dlthewave ☎ 13:13, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Just wanna say I'm not attacking any editor. I'm challenging the idea of non-LPRs buying, owning, and possessing guns in the US. Nowadays any person can make up stuff and post it online. Any source can be challenged by Wiki editors and if it contains an obvious error or nonsense, it should be pointed out to the readers. There is a difference between an authoritative source and a non-authoritative source. Section 1227(a)(2)(C) of title 8 states:

Any alien who at any time after admission is convicted under any law of purchasing, selling, offering for sale, exchanging, using, owning, possessing, or carrying, or of attempting or conspiring to purchase, sell, offer for sale, exchange, use, own, possess, or carry, any weapon, part, or accessory which is a firearm or destructive device (as defined in section 921(a) of title 18) in violation of any law is deportable. (emphasis added).[10]

This section is explicitly referring to lawfully admitted aliens (visiting foreign nationals).[11] Do I need to explain what Congress is saying in this quoted section? A firearm (part or accessory) does not have to be involved in the conviction, even an attempt or conspiracy to purchase a firearm by an alien is a violation.[12] The only aliens that cannot be deported for violating the above section are LPRs. [13] [14] I think you understand now.--Libracarol (talk) 14:15, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Not sure who posted the comment above yours, but this and your comment are partly right, which is the issue. Any alien normally would be guilty of an offence listed above re: transfer, possession, etc. and yes of course deportable, but you're forgetting the 922(y)(2) exemption for some reason?

Furthermore, possession is the same as ownership. If it isn't, can you provide me with ANY federal law aside from the 2A that says US citizens can own guns? Finally, why are you removing good references in this article e.g. the Cornell link you removed recently? Apeholder (talk) 00:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with Apeholder, none of the presented sources mention an overall ban on gun ownership by foreign visitors, and we have both primary and secondary sources which outline the exemptions. The fact that foreign visitors have been prosecuted for unlawful possession of a firearm does not mean that there is a blanket ban; anyone (citizen, visitor or lawful resident) can be prosecuted for illegally possessing a firearm. @Libracarol: Is there a specific piece of article content that is being challenged? –dlthewave ☎ 16:00, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I think this comes down to the fact that the above user finds this information hard to believe, but that doesn't necessarily mean it's not correct. I purchased firearms myself before becoming a citizen and my local Sheriff's Office didn't understand what my Conditional Permanent Residency documents were and assumed it meant I was here on a temporary i.e. non-resident basis, but even then they actually said to me "we're not supposed to tell you this but you can get a permit if you have a hunting permit". What they were referring to was this exact exemption for sporting or hunting purposes as listed above. Apeholder (talk) 21:52, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

When you say "firearm", are you referring to a handgun? I will repeat. The 75 million or so foreign nationals admitted to the U.S. each year as visitors/tourists cannot lawfully purchase, sell, carry, or own, any type of firearm. [15] Those who do so will be arrested and deported. Any American who gets involved in such violation will also be arrested but not deported though. Conditional permanent residents are green card holders. Their home is the United States. Possession is not the same as ownership. Where did you get that idea from? Every gun (i.g., handgun, rifle, shotgun, etc.), must be registered. The registration occurs during the time of purchase. Anyway, even green card holders have been deported solely due to a petty gun violation. [16] Whether such deportation is right or wrong is a different matter.--Libracarol (talk) 21:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)

@Libracarol: -- When I say "firearm" I'm referring to the US code definition as per Section 921, Chapter 44 of Title 18 US Code:

921(a)(3)

The term “firearm” means (A) any weapon (including a starter gun) which will or is designed to or may readily be converted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive; (B) the frame or receiver of any such weapon; (C) any firearm muffler or firearm silencer; or (D) any destructive device. Such term does not include an antique firearm.

I don't know why you're picking apart the word firearm vs gun, it's irrelevant. The law also doesn't really mention guns, so why are you using this inaccurate word?

This is all getting quite tiresome. I'm providing links to the US Code, and your references are internet forums?

Anyway, after searching the link you posted, there was this ATF link. This provided another exemption I was unaware of. The ATF link refers to 18 U.S.C. 922(a)(9), but - as you're doing - skirts the law by basically missing out all the information. What it fails to mention another exemption to what we've been discussing above:

It shall be unlawful:

(9) for any person, other than a licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, licensed dealer, or licensed collector, who does not reside in any state to receive any firearms unless such receipt is for lawful sporting purposes

Here's yet another link laying out quite clearly that there are many exemptions to what you're proposing www.govregs.com

Furthermore, possession and ownership of a firearm are the same thing. Are you trying to say they're mutually exclusive? I own a gun, do I therefore not possess it too? If something is in my possession (non-temporary), do I not also own it?

Also, where are you getting your idea on firearm registration from? 9 states require firearm registration of some sort, and even so, that's STATE law, not federal. I don't know of any gun registration federally aside from NFA items. As for non-immigrants being able to carry anywhere, I'd be highly surprised if any state allows those who are here on a non-immigrant AND non-resident basis to get a CHP/CCW, but then again - there's about 15 or so states now that allow the concealed carry of a handgun without a permit long as that person is 21+ years of age and can lawfully own a firearm. If there's no state law overriding the federal exemptions on non-immigrant aliens being prohibited, then they may even be able to carry while on holiday here, but that's an entirely different argument.

Anyway, please feel free to provide some evidence, in federal law, of where non-immigrants in the exemption categories cannot possess firearms, but for now here are the exemptions in 922(y)(2) that I don't understand why you won't acknowledge them - Apeholder (talk) 05:56, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

(d)(5)(b)

It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or otherwise dispose of any firearm or ammunition to any person knowing or having reasonable cause to believe that

(5) who being an alien EXCEPT AS PROVIDED IN SUBSECTION (y)(2), has been admitted to the US under a non-immigrant VISA (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)))

(g)(5)(B)

it shall be unlawful for any person who, being an alien EXCEPT as provided in (y)(2), has been admitted to the US under a non-immigrant VISA (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26))) to ship or transport in interstate or foreign commerce, or possess in or affecting commerce, any firearm or ammunition; or to receive any firearm or ammunition which has been shipped or transported in interstate or foreign commerce

(s)(3)(B)(v)(II)

it shall be unlawful for any licensed importer, licensed manufacturer, or licensed dealer to sell, deliver, or transfer a handgun to an individual unless:

after the most recent proposal of such transfer by the transferee

(I) received from the transferee a statement of the transferee containing the information described in paragraph (3);

(part of which is:)

(B)(v) a statement that the transferee is not an alien who subject to subsection (y)(2), has been admitted to the US under a non-immigrant VISA (as that term is defined in section 101(a)(26) of the Immigration and Nationality Act (8 U.S.C. 1101(a)(26)))