K
Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
Guest
California, Maryland and Virginia are the only states that limit
handgun purchases to one per month. And aside from New York, Los
Angeles, Chicago and a few other municipalities, there are "virtually"
no restrictions on the numbers of handguns a person may purchase in a
30-day period.
In order to combat illegal guns and gun trafficking, several states,
notably Pennsylvania and Illinois, have proposed legislation to limit
handgun purchases to one per month.
So our question is quite simple: Why does anyone need to purchase more
than one handgun per month?
Do the math of course, and a gun owner could purchase 12 handguns per
year. A domestic partner or spouse could also purchase 12 handguns per
year making a family's personal arsenal loaded with 24 weapons.
Should two adults wish, they could continue purchasing one handgun per
month at a rate that could provide enough weaponry to start a little
war: 48 handguns in only two years; 96 handguns in 4 years. You get
the point.
Let's remember we're only talking about handguns, not assault weapons
or sniper rifles.
So even though mayors, police chiefs and gun violence prevention
advocates want to limit the trafficking of firearms through "one
handgun per month" legislation, the sensible policy doesn't put any
restrictions on the numbers of other dangerous weapons such as cop-
killing AK-47 assault rifles or civilian versions of battlefield
weapons such as AR-15's and powerful .50 caliber sniper rifles.
In short, gun owners have the ability -- due to America's appallingly
lax gun laws -- to stockpile virtually any number of deadly weapons
their hearts desire. For example, GunGuys.com posted an article and
subsequent letter from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
in Oct. 2007 about a suburban gun owner in Mundelein who was busted
for having 600 guns in his home. The gun owner wasn't charged for
"having 600 guns" mind you, but for selling them without a license.
So again we ask: Does mandating gun owners to wait 30 days before
their next "handgun" purchase infringe on anyone's rights? No, of
course not. But such a sensible policy would respect gun owners who
wish to possess handguns while at the same time reduce the trafficking
of handguns by drug dealers, gang members, and gun runners. (For the
record, we don't suggest anyone possess a handgun for his or her own
safety, but we digress).
Nonetheless, this common sense idea has faced stiff resistance from
the gun lobby and pro-gun lawmakers. In Pennsylvania, on April 3rd, a
one handgun a month law failed. And last week in Illinois, a similar
measure to limit handgun purchases to one per month, House Bill 4393,
also failed in the House.
Eric Zorn, a liberal columnist for the Chicago Tribune who supports
"gun rights" and the Second Amendment, took the middle ground, and
stated on his blog:
Yes, some people like to collect guns. Others like to own a variety so
they can hunt and target shoot in different modes.
But the 2nd Amendment wasn't enacted to protect the rights of
hobbyists. It was enacted to protect our "security," personal and
civic, and 12 new guns a year seems like more than enough to do the
job. In fact, one gun purchase a year ought to be enough.
The goal is to reduce the trafficking in guns -- straw purchases and
the like -- that puts deadly weapons in the hands of evildoers.
Attempting to limit the number of guns in circulation seems like a
reasonable step to attempt to achieve this goal that doesn't unduly
infringe on the basic right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
Again, Mr. Zorn also endorses armed citizens carrying concealed
weapons, so his "modest" position on one handgun per month legislation
should come as a surprise. And in addition to being sound public
policy, overwhelmingly voters in Illinois and across the country
support the measure.
The Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a bipartisan coalition
working to strengthen gun laws in the state, compiled facts, research
and polling on the one handgun per month proposal. The Campaign
stated:
What would [one handgun per month legislation] really do?
Laws that limit handgun sales and purchases to one per person per
month impose reasonable limits on the number of handguns that may be
sold at one time to a single purchaser, thereby preventing traffickers
from buying guns in bulk to resell to criminals.
Law-abiding citizens who want to defend their families against
intruders would be able to purchase as many as twelve handguns each
year, or 24 handguns in the case of a married couple. Collectors could
seek an exemption to enable them to purchase larger quantities.
Additionally, hunters and sportsmen would not be affected, as this
policy is aimed at preventing handgun trafficking and therefore does
not regulate shotguns and rifles.
What does the public think?
Nearly 3 out of 4 (72%) Illinois voters favor limiting the number of
handguns an individual can purchase to one handgun per month, with a
majority (55%) strongly in support of such a measure. (To read more
polling results from the 2007 Voter Survey on Gun Regulations, click
here).
A January 2006 Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and The Tarrance
Group survey, on behalf of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, found that 57%
of Americans favored a law limiting the number of handguns an
individual can purchase to one per month.
We know we sound like we are repeating ourselves, but we just don't
understand the gun lobby's opposition to limiting handgun purchases to
one per month. We're trying to make sense of our loose gun laws that
allow gun owners to stockpile entire arsenals in our communities.
We're patiently waiting for the gun lobby's answer.
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2954
handgun purchases to one per month. And aside from New York, Los
Angeles, Chicago and a few other municipalities, there are "virtually"
no restrictions on the numbers of handguns a person may purchase in a
30-day period.
In order to combat illegal guns and gun trafficking, several states,
notably Pennsylvania and Illinois, have proposed legislation to limit
handgun purchases to one per month.
So our question is quite simple: Why does anyone need to purchase more
than one handgun per month?
Do the math of course, and a gun owner could purchase 12 handguns per
year. A domestic partner or spouse could also purchase 12 handguns per
year making a family's personal arsenal loaded with 24 weapons.
Should two adults wish, they could continue purchasing one handgun per
month at a rate that could provide enough weaponry to start a little
war: 48 handguns in only two years; 96 handguns in 4 years. You get
the point.
Let's remember we're only talking about handguns, not assault weapons
or sniper rifles.
So even though mayors, police chiefs and gun violence prevention
advocates want to limit the trafficking of firearms through "one
handgun per month" legislation, the sensible policy doesn't put any
restrictions on the numbers of other dangerous weapons such as cop-
killing AK-47 assault rifles or civilian versions of battlefield
weapons such as AR-15's and powerful .50 caliber sniper rifles.
In short, gun owners have the ability -- due to America's appallingly
lax gun laws -- to stockpile virtually any number of deadly weapons
their hearts desire. For example, GunGuys.com posted an article and
subsequent letter from the Illinois Council Against Handgun Violence
in Oct. 2007 about a suburban gun owner in Mundelein who was busted
for having 600 guns in his home. The gun owner wasn't charged for
"having 600 guns" mind you, but for selling them without a license.
So again we ask: Does mandating gun owners to wait 30 days before
their next "handgun" purchase infringe on anyone's rights? No, of
course not. But such a sensible policy would respect gun owners who
wish to possess handguns while at the same time reduce the trafficking
of handguns by drug dealers, gang members, and gun runners. (For the
record, we don't suggest anyone possess a handgun for his or her own
safety, but we digress).
Nonetheless, this common sense idea has faced stiff resistance from
the gun lobby and pro-gun lawmakers. In Pennsylvania, on April 3rd, a
one handgun a month law failed. And last week in Illinois, a similar
measure to limit handgun purchases to one per month, House Bill 4393,
also failed in the House.
Eric Zorn, a liberal columnist for the Chicago Tribune who supports
"gun rights" and the Second Amendment, took the middle ground, and
stated on his blog:
Yes, some people like to collect guns. Others like to own a variety so
they can hunt and target shoot in different modes.
But the 2nd Amendment wasn't enacted to protect the rights of
hobbyists. It was enacted to protect our "security," personal and
civic, and 12 new guns a year seems like more than enough to do the
job. In fact, one gun purchase a year ought to be enough.
The goal is to reduce the trafficking in guns -- straw purchases and
the like -- that puts deadly weapons in the hands of evildoers.
Attempting to limit the number of guns in circulation seems like a
reasonable step to attempt to achieve this goal that doesn't unduly
infringe on the basic right guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment.
Again, Mr. Zorn also endorses armed citizens carrying concealed
weapons, so his "modest" position on one handgun per month legislation
should come as a surprise. And in addition to being sound public
policy, overwhelmingly voters in Illinois and across the country
support the measure.
The Illinois Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, a bipartisan coalition
working to strengthen gun laws in the state, compiled facts, research
and polling on the one handgun per month proposal. The Campaign
stated:
What would [one handgun per month legislation] really do?
Laws that limit handgun sales and purchases to one per person per
month impose reasonable limits on the number of handguns that may be
sold at one time to a single purchaser, thereby preventing traffickers
from buying guns in bulk to resell to criminals.
Law-abiding citizens who want to defend their families against
intruders would be able to purchase as many as twelve handguns each
year, or 24 handguns in the case of a married couple. Collectors could
seek an exemption to enable them to purchase larger quantities.
Additionally, hunters and sportsmen would not be affected, as this
policy is aimed at preventing handgun trafficking and therefore does
not regulate shotguns and rifles.
What does the public think?
Nearly 3 out of 4 (72%) Illinois voters favor limiting the number of
handguns an individual can purchase to one handgun per month, with a
majority (55%) strongly in support of such a measure. (To read more
polling results from the 2007 Voter Survey on Gun Regulations, click
here).
A January 2006 Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research and The Tarrance
Group survey, on behalf of Mayors Against Illegal Guns, found that 57%
of Americans favored a law limiting the number of handguns an
individual can purchase to one per month.
We know we sound like we are repeating ourselves, but we just don't
understand the gun lobby's opposition to limiting handgun purchases to
one per month. We're trying to make sense of our loose gun laws that
allow gun owners to stockpile entire arsenals in our communities.
We're patiently waiting for the gun lobby's answer.
http://www.gunguys.com/?p=2954
