They are not federally regulated. Only California and Maryland have restrictions.
Current Affairs The " another shooting in America " thread
- Status
They are not federally regulated. Only California and Maryland have restrictions.
Well, it depends what you mean by "can." If you're in the business of selling/buying guns to make a profit, you legally cannot. If your point is that people defy the law and do it anyway, I think you're correct, but it doesn't happen often and isn't often connected to gun crime. If your point is that gun shows aren't very vigilant when it comes to who should be licensed (like people who sell all the time but aren't) - you could be right, gun shows are usually poorly organized and junky in my limited experience.
The truth is that the "gun show loophole" exists, it is just far narrower a problem than is usually reported, and has pretty minimal impact on criminal activity involving guns. It's a good example of messed up dialogue on guns in America. The news sensationalizes the gun show loophole after these incidents even when it's totally irrelevant to this incident (and the huge majority of shootings). Groups like the NRA, rather than explaining it accurately (as I think I do, above), just has to fire off soundbite responses like "the gun show loophole is a myth." Neither side is interested in making sure the country has the facts about the issue and letting the country decide with that knowledge in hand.
If the "gun show loophole" has a minimal impact then why not close it? It would at least show some, small commitment to improving the situation.
The Guardian has some decent graphics that break down gun laws at state level
https://www.theguardian.com/world/interactive/2013/jan/15/gun-laws-united-states
*imagines California fire season if flamethrowers were legal, shudders
I'm agnostic as to the loophole. If they close it, I see minimal impact on anything (crime, gun rights, all of it). But I generally reject changing laws that really aren't contributors to a problem. This may be a US-centric mindset, but I'm opposed to legislation merely as a gesture.
I think it would send a message that the US government thinks that 12 or 14 year old's being able to buy a firearm is a bad thing. Rather than the current situation, where they seem to think it is OK.
It's a pretty extreme rarity that a 12 or 14 year old buys a firearm, and not one connected to the events that create the outrage we're currently seeing. Again, I don't really care what happens to the "loophole" but I'm not going to support measures that are largely intended to make the public think we're doing something when we're actually not. If passionate people want to take that objective and try and move it forward, I won't really stand in their way, either.
As an aside, if I were a gun control proponent, I probably wouldn't want to make it a focal point either. It's something that won't have any significant impact, but would buy politicians some reprieve from the idea they're not doing anything about gun violence.
They are legal in California. You have to register them with the local fire marshall.
They are illegal in Maryland though.
*shudders all over again, considers moving to Maryland
I had no idea until the question was asked to be honest. Crazy.
Whichever way you cut it, a 14 year old being able to buy a firearm should be viewed as wrong in any decent society. Any forward movement has to start somewhere and taking simple steps like this could at least get some agreement from both sides that progression, no matter how small, is possible. From there you move on to other things. At the moment nothing significant happens anyway, so why fret over how it might be perceived?
Some people don't want progression.
That does seem to be the way of it.
scratchnsurf
Player Valuation: £40m
Not really any more crazy than being able to own an assault rifle.
- Status