posted
You could always spend five minutes and do the research yourself, you know.
To answer your question, I believe the check is run through the NICS, which tells the seller whether or not a weapon has been purchased within the 30 day period. Then, depending on state laws, the sale is approved or denied.
And this is the NRA's summery of Md law on the 30-day period:
quote:A person may not purchase more than one regulated firearm (defined as any handgun or assault weapon as defined in this section) in a 30-day period. The provisions of this subsection do not apply to: (1) a private security company licensed to do business within the State, (2) the purchase of antique firearms as defined under Maryland law, (3) purchases by a licensed firearms dealer, (4) the exchange or replacement of a regulated firearm by a seller for a regulated firearm purchased from the seller by the same person seeking the exchange or replacement within the 30 day period immediately preceding the date of exchange or replacement, (5) or a person whose regulated firearm is stolen or irretrievably lost and who considers it essential that the regulated firearm be replaced immediately if the person provides the licensed regulated firearms dealer with a copy of the official police report which contains the name and address of the regulated firearm owner, a description of the regulated firearm, the location of the loss or theft, the date of the loss or theft, and the date which the loss or theft was reported to the law enforcement agency.
posted
I understand South Carolina adopted a similar one-gun-a-month policy way back in 1975.
I'm told the violent crime rate has doubled since then, but I am so far unable to find an official notation of such. Still looking.
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
I would like to know a little more about this whole MD VA scheme... if they showed that all these guns used in NYC and DC were from your states, I assume that they were traced back through channels?
If so, were the gun-runners prosecuted?
And how many guns, exactly, were in this 'flood,' because I'm told (by an admittedly pro-gun source) that:
quote:Project Lead had received trace information on only 6% of firearms recovered by New York City police in 1991 and 1992. Of firearms found at the scenes of violent crimes in New York City, only 32 had been originally sold retail in Virginia; only three of the guns "traced to Virginia" had been "found" at homicide scenes. Project Lead was unable to determine whether traced firearms had been stolen from the original buyer. According to BATF, "it is difficult to trace firearms after the first retail purchase."
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: the violent crime rate has doubled since then, but I am so far unable to find an official notation of such. Still looking.
That's a pretty far reach, Rob.
Because Joe Schmoe can only buy one handgun per month (instead of fifty), he's suddenly more likely to be victim of a crime?
Common sense tells me that a person can only operate two handguns at a time (one per hand, unless you can shoot with your feet ...?), and even that is rather silly, given the lack of control you'll probably have if you're firing anything above a .22 caliber.
posted
I'm not saying, necessarily, that the policy CAUSED the crime rate, (not directly, anyway) so much as I am saying that it failed to affect it.
But it seems increasingly true that places which enact tighter restrictions on gun purchasing retain or acquire higher gun/violent crime rates, whereas places which enact stricter punishments for USING a gun in a crime, but do not change anything about ownership, experience drops in the gun crime rate.
Would you answer the rest of the questions, please?
-------------------- "The best defense is not a good offense. The best defense is a terrifyingly accurate and devastatingly powerful offense, with multiply-overlapping kill zones and time-on-target artillery strikes." -- Laurence, Archangel of the Sword
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Visiting N.R.A. Heaven by Nicholas D. Kristof
SUQ AL-TALH, Yemen — Want to buy a submachine gun?
This little market town in the wild, wild north of Yemen has more than 50 shops selling all kinds of toys for boys. A used Uzi goes for $170, a machine pistol with silencer is $350, and a brand-new AK-47 assault rifle goes for nearly $400.
Grenades are $4 each. An antitank mine is $22. A rocket-propelled grenade launcher is $500. An arms merchant I met here might even be able to find you an antiaircraft gun or a tank. No sales tax.
This is Yemen, where we're preparing to send American soldiers to open a new front in the war on terrorism. I admire the instinct of trying to boost security here, but the bottom line is that we're going to send our troops on a poorly defined mission into a country where they're not wanted, where grenades cost $4 each.
The plan is for the Americans to train Yemeni troops. But the Yemen government's main problem in controlling terrorism is not that soldiers are poorly trained. Instead it is that for reasons of history, culture and tribal politics, the central government doesn't entirely control the hinterlands.
Americans who gripe about big government and high taxes, who believe the state that governs best governs least, would love Yemen. The central government controls the beautiful old capital, Sana, and a chunk of turf to its south and west. Beyond that is a delicate balancing act with local sheiks.
When I wanted to come up here into northern Yemen, I took an escort from the government including, for one stretch of road, a pickup truck loaded with seven soldiers and a heavy machine gun mounted in back. But more important, to avoid kidnapping (Yemen's favorite sport) it was prudent to get invitations from the leading sheiks.
"No one will pay attention to the government escort," a wise Yemeni explained to me. "But if you're invited by the sheiks, they won't dare bother you. They'll be afraid of retaliation from the sheiks."
The frailty of the government's authority was underscored on the road north, when we were stopped at a roadblock by a group of men with assault rifles. It was Yemeni code: a stick across the road means you stop, or you get your tires shot out.
It turned out that one of the men at the roadblock was owed money by a man of another tribe. So they were stopping all traffic to look for a car driven by any member of that other tribe: they planned to confiscate the car and keep it until the money was repaid. There were no police or army units to keep the road open, and the roadblock would remain until either the tribesmen got their car or the debt was paid.
Vice President Dick Cheney dropped in on Yemen last week, for a useful show of support — even if it was also a show of nervousness, for Mr. Cheney spent only two hours in the country, and he switched to a military plane that took evasive maneuvers as it landed. Opposition parties, eager to profit politically, said in a statement that the visit would "lead to more bloodshed."
American spooks worry that Yemen might provide a new base for terrorists like Osama bin Laden (who in a 1996 interview praised Yemen, his ancestral home, as a place in which he might settle). That's the reason for trying to bolster the government by training its army. It's a worthy goal, and if the training were conducted in the United States or in another country like Saudi Arabia it would not risk undermining the government's moral authority.
So why not conduct the same training, the same technology transfers, outside of Yemen?
By the way, a parting thought:
A couple of weeks ago I wrote about firearms, and I noted that England and Japan — which tightly regulate handguns — have much lower gun death rates than the United States. I got a barrage of e-mail. Much of it was thoughtful and well-reasoned criticism, but there were also plenty of blasts urging me to move to Japan or England.
Thanks for the advice. And if you're so bothered by gun registration, and so convinced that guns don't kill people, then consider moving to a nice mud-brick home here in Suq al-Talh. With you and everybody else carrying around an assault rifle, with armor-piercing rounds in your bandolier, with a couple of grenades in your pockets, you'll really feel safe. You'll love the freedom!
-------------------- "I was surprised by the matter-of-factness of Kafka's narration, and the subtle humor present as a result." (Sizer 2005)
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote: But it seems increasingly true that places which enact tighter restrictions on gun purchasing retain or acquire higher gun/violent crime rates
Snay's article says the opposite. Can you back this up?
-------------------- "Out of doubt, out of dark to the day's rising I came singing in the sun, sword unsheathing. To hope's end I rode and to heart's breaking: Now for wrath, now for ruin and a red nightfall!"
The Battle of the Pelennor Fields.
Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
Snay's article simply says that when reducing the number of handguns one can purchase in a month, the numer of weapons finding their way into criminals' hands drops.
As for Rob's detail questions, I don't know the answers. I'd suggest he take it up with the NRA, or the BATF.