Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Firearms; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page where you can find a list of open tasks. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.

This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
To-do list for Gun laws in the United States (by state): edit · history · watch · refresh
  • Add sections about gun laws in Idaho, Iowa, Lousiana, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota and Wyoming.

Contents

[edit] A polarizing issue

this issue is reallly interesting This article is clearly biased with regard to a polarizing issue in this nation. Is not up to the standards of Wikipedia. Most importantly, it doesn't even address the subject matter implied by its caption, i.e., the current state of gun-control law in California. It appears to consist of nothing more than an argument in support of assault weapons in California. Until someone can do better this article should be deleted. It tarnishes the fine reputation of Wikipedia.

B.S. You're clearly the one with the agenda. --70.160.160.175 10:13, 22 October 2005 (UTC)
Actually the page simply states the facts. It even goes so far as to mention that BOTH sides of the issue within the state of California are in agreement that the laws need to be adjusted. It looks to me like the original complaint to this article was in fact made by somebody with their own agenda. Take a look at FBI and Bureau of Justice Statistic report there, buddy. Assault weapons are used in less than 1% of firearm crime. By the way, according to the Bureau of Justice Statistics report of Sep. 2003, regarding crime between 1993 and 2001, only 10% of ALL violent crime involves firearms of any kind. Do the world a favor and don't speak your ignorance. Do some research, find the facts, then open your mouth.

[edit] Automatic Weapons

The states that prohibit the private ownership of fully-automatic weapons are: California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, New York, Rhode Island, South Carolina, and Washington (State). Furthermore, the District of Columbia prohibits such weapons.

This is according to a firearms manufacturer that routinely sells NFA full-auto guns that are transferrable to private citizens.

http://vectorarms.com/shop/index.php?main_page=page&id=8&chapter=0&zenid=6464327ae8f5606c84f932625883b681

OhioGuy2007 04:21 19 December 2007


It says there are seven states that ban automatic weapons, what are these states, and what are the laws on owning automatics in other states?

Are you referring to fully automatic firearms (NFA type) (i.e. "machine gun")? In general, if a state regulates owning NFA weapons, they follow the federal government guidelines (i.e. must have local LEO approval, must have the tax stamp, must have transfer through Class III dealer, must have registration). Izaakb 15:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The question asked is simply too ignorant to respond to effectively. Haizum 20:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
Haizum, I don't think that kind of reply is in good faith.. Not everyone has enough information to ask in the "proper way", so maybe lighten up? Izaakb 20:07, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
You don't think, you assume. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:38, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I will assume good faith and assume that you are trying, how Never incompetently, to be helpful in some way by calling another person's question "ignorant" but I cannot for the life of me determine how it is helpful.Izaakb 04:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
You don't have to assume that I'm trying to be helpful, you just have to assume. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Suggestion

== the states are clearly as follows, new york, new jersey, illinois, kansas, and alaska ==

My humble suggestion is as follows: remove the phrase "gun control" from any article where it is not either a proper noun (i.e. Gun Control Act) or specifically concerning that phrase (i.e. the phrase "gun control" was first used in the year 19xx by Sen. Foo...)

 ******It is inconcievable that one would refer to a law/act/statute/ordinance by anything other than the accepted and widely understood terms society has labelled them with. The above appears to be a non-issue. Having read the article, I can't find fault with it, except the last one, below (- clayndwoods)

Replace it with "firearms law/laws." This term is perfectly neutral. I (and probably quite a few others) dispute the neutrality of "gun control." However, there is no bias whatsoever to the term "firearms law."

In addition, "gun control" is also unclear. It has a fairly specific meaning in politics, yes, but as that old bumper sticker tells us, it's also how steadily you hold your weapon. Ditch it and go with the 100% neutral "firearms law." Paul 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

If you're going to remove the term "gun control" on non-neutrality grounds, then arguably the term "gun rights" should be removed for the same reason - it implies that there exists a human right to own guns, a position which not everyone would accept. However, although both this term and "gun control" contain subconscious biases, I would argue that it's best simply to keep them as they are, as they represent clear and coherent summaries of the two main positions on the issue.
No, if the conversation is held within the context of the United States (which this topic requires), then the term "gun rights" implies that there exists a Constitutional right to own guns, a position which everyone must accept.

[edit] Missing States

This article clearly does not address the subject implied by its title - i.e. a survey of gun-related laws in the 50 states of the US. Currently more than 80% of the article is about one state, and 47 states do not get any mention (okay, 46, if you include the sentence about Chicago in the California section). If the article is to be kept, I would rename it something like "Firearms laws of California", and put the New York/Vermont information in a section entitled "Comparison with other states". Better still, someone with appropriate expertise should write a proper article comparing laws in all 50 states. The other articles entitled "shall issue", "may issue", "no-issue" and "unrestricted" could be merged into this expanded article. 24.136.9.111 10:24, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

The other states are now added, I like the idea of having those comparison boxes per-state, perhaps that would address the "Comparison with other states"/shall-issue/may-issue concern? It would also me nice (albiet, a bit redundant) to have reciprocity (for permits) per state, like at packing.org --Osndok 23:13, 26 April 2007 (UTC)


Pennsylvania is missing. random wikipedia reader March 2008

Feel free to add it. The larger sections really should be split off into their own articles. Is there a template we can use to display the normal information for each state, like in the Traveler's Guide? - Denimadept (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wording/etc

These laws control the manufacture and distribution of certain small arms, specifically, guns. To simplify, we use the phrase "gun control", because it is, indeed accurate. Now WTF is the problem?

Alaska/'Vermont Carry', if Alaska was the first, why is it called 'Vermont Carry'? --156.26.5.221 20:26, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

Alaska adopted laws that mimicked Vermont's already existing laws. Did my edit make the idea clearer? Kythri 04:03, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the section on New York, it says:

"New York is a particularly interesting case, because New York separates all of New England from the bulk of the United States. New York laws thus have a severe impact on law-abiding citizens who wish to travel to and from New England by land."

This seems inaccurate. Federal "peaceable journey" laws would seem to allow transport THROUGH the State of New York, provided that the posession of arms was legal in both the origination and destination of the journey.

See: http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/FederalGunLaws.aspx?ID=59 And: http://www.nraila.org/images/DOJltrTSA.pdf

Kythri 05:25, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Nope. NY regularly arrests even airline passengers with packed handguns stored properly by Federal guidelines who originally were flying OVER NY, but who somehow wind up in NY due to plane malfunctions, bad weather, or whatever, forcing the plane to have to land. What should be by Federal law doesn't agree with what has been happening. Yaf 05:38, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. From the main article on Illinois There is no state preemption of firearm laws with the result that some localities, most notably Chicago and the near suburbs, have outright banned ownership of handguns. Among other things, lack of preemption makes it difficult to travel throughout Illinois with a firearm while being sure that no laws are being broken. So the term we are looking for is "preemption;" we are also looking for the ACLU to uphold Federal law over a blatant violation of it by a rogue state. Haizum 06:39, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
New York City no longer harasses travelers in airports over properly stored handguns. The Port Authority (PANYNJ) received a letter from the USAG's office in 2002 (?) regarding the McClure-Volkmer provisions of FOPA, and the harassment has ceased. Izaakb 17:29, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV

Although the law's purpose is to try to make California a safer place That's completely biased. Haizum 16:44, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Using slippery slope logic Yet another ignorant and biased comment. Haizum 16:50, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

I tried some more neutral wording on the two things you mention above. See what you think. Littleman TAMU 17:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The section on Washington state does not clearly explain what Castle Doctrine is. In fact, it's a complete misrepresentation. Haizum 16:52, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is Virginia on this list but not Maryland? Maryland is a complete joke in terms of crime and gun violence, yet it has some of the strictest laws in the country...and it was still a joke even before it enacted those laws. Haizum 16:56, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Because nobody has written it yet. If you add a NPOV section on it, you should. Wodan
  • The whole article should be deleted until a competent editor can get us started. Haizum 06:48, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I am currently not disputing the neutrality of the article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 17:04, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

The Section on Oregon seems biased by using information from a ventiment pro-gun lobby. Currently, the lobby is suing to allow a Medford teacher to carry a concealed weapon inside a high school classroom. If you could get your information from another source, that would be better. Dunstvangeet 16:42, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Suggested changes to this page

I suggest the following:

  • Change the name to "Gun (Firearm) laws in the United States (by state)". This covers any and all types of gun laws, whether they are "control" oriented or otherwise.
  • Each state section to be represented in this manner:
  1. Brief description or reference to the specific statutes regarding the state's gun laws
  2. Subsections dealing with purchase laws, possession laws, and carry laws
  3. Subsection for specific additional restrictions or laws (i.e. some states have towns that require ownership, others have state-wide or city-level restrictions such as New York City's or California's "Assault Weapon Ban")
  4. Elimination of "Issues" subsections -- stick to demonstrable references. If there have been prominent lawsuits against the state's laws, that would be relevant (i.e. the Lockyer lawsuits in California or conversely, the New York City suits against manufacturers).
  5. Elimination of things like crime statistics or reports or "Gun control issues" type things. This is not the page for that, there are plenty of others.

What say all of you?

Izaakb (Reply to my suggestion here) 18:00, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I plan to make these changes in the next few weeks unless someone has a serious objection. I will be compiling the information and rely on statute cites from FindLaw Izaakb 15:31, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As is, the article is decent - it focuses heavily on California and New York, but that is unsurprising given the rather invasive nature of gun control laws in those states. However, we should definately expand on other states in this section, even if there isn't as much to talk about - gun control in Florida or Utah, for example. 209.129.117.2 00:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I believe that changing the title as you propose would certainly be more accurate, as it is not just about gun control but is rather about Gun (Firearm) Laws. I also believe your other proposed changes are a good idea, too. Yaf 01:29, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. Any law that is not the 2nd Amendment itself, and the Federal laws surrounding it is inherently gun control because said law would therefore be a state law which then either mandates further restrictions not sanctioned by a representative Federal government, or is in contradiction with some aspect of Federal law and is also not sanctioned by a representative Federal government. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:27, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
I think these are useful comments. Haizum. I understand you feel strongly about gun control. However, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not an opinion board and while your POV has a lot of adherents, whether or not other laws are valid in your opinion isn't the point. They are laws and they are enforced for better or for worse. There are also plenty of Wiki articles which describe the phenomena of gun control/gun rights in the USA. I think a page which has verifiable, statutory-related review of state gun laws would be a good thing as a reference, rather than simply discounting the 20,000+ gun laws on the books. Also, we can discuss Federalism and your theory of how comity and Federal supremacy is supposed to work, but for the purpose of this article, how about sticking to the statutory reality?
I am working on a template which could be used for each state. I found the NRA's "gun laws by state" as a good model (just for formatting) and I think most people, regardless of how they feel about gun rights/gun control can agree it would be useful. http://www.nraila.org/GunLaws/ If you click on a state, it opens a PDF file with a printable flyer. It has a table at the top of basic relevant laws (i.e. "permit to purchase, registration, licensing, permit to carry" etc) I can post a suggested template and we can go from there. Izaakb 14:01, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
A personal attack would feel very good in response to your unwarranted condescension - perhaps I'll save it for later, but I digress. The fact of the matter is, you aren't creating an article about "gun laws", no, you are writing about gun control. To write a "gun laws" article that summarizes the laws on the books "for better or for worse," one would have to visit the respective website of the respective state and find the respective codes that are relevant to "gun laws." However, what you have done is taken material from pro-gun lobbying elements and are attempting to erase the obvious implication of the collective compilation - that said laws are designed as gun control. Ergo, you lost the argument a long time ago. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:56, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
From the article:
  • Many US states have legislated their own gun control laws
  • The state level bans vary significantly in their form, content, and level of restriction.
  • California has some of the strictest gun control laws
  • has led to many restrictions on semi-automatic firearms.
  • a lengthy list of specific firearms that are banned by name
  • banned by characteristic
  • a total ban on the manufacture, sale, transfer or distribution of firearms or ammunition in San Francisco
  • Handgun owners in San Francisco must turn over their handguns
  • Illinois has some of the most restrictive firearm laws in the country.
  • have outright banned ownership of handguns.
  • Maryland tightly restricts
  • Individuals [] must produce documentation of death threats...even then, permits have been denied in some cases.
  • first get a purchase permit and then get a license for a shotgun or a rifle.
  • Private sales are required to be registered with the state.
  • New York State has a ban
  • New York's laws are not uniform throughout the state.
  • New York City is known for having some of the strictest gun laws in the country.
  • Vermont is notable in that it has no gun control laws
  • concealed carry by ordinary citizens is still illegal.
...and yet you claim that this article isn't about bans, resitrictions, prohibitions, and controls; so it should be named otherwise. Please recuse yourself from this discussion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
malum in se and malum prohibitum also play a role in this discussion. Laws that restrict gun posession based on age (not letting 9 year olds buy shotguns) or the firepower of the weapon (not letting Joe Average posess a 20mm Vulcan Cannon) could be presented as laws that are malum in se, whereas laws that arbitrarily control gun ownership based on appearance or locality are clearly malum prohibitum. Note that most, if not all of the state laws mentioned in this article could be classified as malum prohibitum, but I'm being generous for the moment. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:26, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Haizum, first off, I want you to understand there was no condescension. I feel your response isn't really replying to what I was offering to do at all. My point is simply that the article is not well written and is suffering from a great deal of scatter-shot POV issues -- I feel you are trying to pontificate the "μολὼν λαβέ" point of view on Wikipedia rather than simply share information, which is the point here. Anyhow, when they do "molon labe" what are you going to do about it? Write a Wikipedia article? Come now. There is a time and a place and Wikipedia isn't it. Read between the lines. Izaakb 02:16, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The next infraction, be it a lack of AGF or ad hominem attacking my signature, will result in an ANI report. Since you wisely saved yourself a lot of time by not attempting to rebut overwhelming evidence that this article is about Gun Control, poorly written as it may be, we'll consider the discussion surrounding the title settled.
If you would like to summarize "gun laws" by state without mentioning gun control, feel free to start another article with .gov resources as opposed to, say, Packing.org and the NRA/NRAILA. I'll be very interested to see how you plan to overlook the glaring differences in "gun laws" between New York and Vermont in such an article. Have fun with that. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
A re-write to remove the present scattershot approach presented in this article seems worthwhile. My vote still stands, favoring the renaming of the article and also improving its quality. Giving undue weight to gun control laws regarding continuations of the Assault Weapon Ban -- that apply only in a few states (CA, IL, NY, MA, and DC) -- is clearly POV, as the federal assault weapons ban sunsetted across the rest of the nation in 2004. Describing firearm laws in 45 states and 5 gun control states as Gun control by State is clearly POV. Yaf 02:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't matter what your vote is, and it doesn't matter what my vote is. The article was started as Gun Control, and was written as such. If you have a problem with POV, then fix it. If you have a problem with "poor writing," then fix it. Having an unrepresentative majority bogart the article title is completely unacceptable. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:03, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"I suggest that this article be renamed 'State Laws' because it covers state laws in addition to gun laws."--Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:11, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Have started to fix the POV problems with the article per your suggestion. I feel this is better than just "barking on the discussion page" about all the issues and doing nothing to improve the article. Yaf 03:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
"California has some of the strictest firearm laws of the United States," what a brilliant edit! No longer will anyone think this article is about Gun Control. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Haizum, I can type μολὼν λαβέ without "making fun" of your signature. Infraction?? What are you talking about?? Go ahead and report all you like, be my guest. I am absolutely not trying to escalate this, ok? I can also type other things in Greek like Πρέπει να χαλαρώσετε. I am sorry that you seem to feel I am not assuming good faith, I felt the same about your A personal attack would feel very good in response to your unwarranted condescension comment. My point is simply this: This article stinks as it is. The fact that I chose to ignore your list of comments doesn't mean that I don't have anything to say about them -- let's agree they all are bad edits and remove them all. And as far as my choice of references, I stated above I would use publicly available sources like Findlaw. Izaakb 04:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but you are clearly stating your intent to sanction the glossing over of facts. The word ban appears countless times in this article, and for good reason; many a state and locality has a gun ban of some sort - it's the law. A quick dictionary.com definition of ban yeilds, to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict, yet you (and someone else) refuse to accept that a ban is a restriction and that the title and content clearly represent an article regarding Gun Control, not a collage of "gun laws." The proper course of action would have been to remove the laws that are malum in se whilst keeping those that are malum prohibitum, that is, those that are widely accepted as controlling measures accepted as law only because they are law. This has not been done in the slightest. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:20, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Giving undue weight to gun control laws regarding continuations of the Assault Weapon Ban -- that apply only in a few states (CA, IL, NY, MA, and DC) -- is clearly POV, as the federal assault weapons ban sunsetted across the rest of the nation in 2004. Describing firearm laws in 45 states and 5 gun control states as Gun control by State is clearly POV. Yaf 04:45, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't even know where to begin with this sort of comment. Just because the AWB expired, doesn't mean that the 5 states that still adhere to it's guidelines are the only states/localities that have gun control laws. San Franciso currently has an outright ban, was that part of the AWB guidelines? Answer: No. I am the resident expert. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
The level of gun control also doesn't exclusively deal with the provisions of the expired AWB. The issuance of concealed carry permits, places off-limits, # of purchases per month, car travel, gun registration, etc all have to do with gun control. Virginia, one of the most gun-friendly states has:
  • One gun a month rules
  • Rules regarding open carry firearm restrictions
  • General College Carry Restrictions Offical Attorney General Opinion
  • Gun Free School Zone act, CHP holders are allowed to have guns on school grounds in their personal vehicles as long as they stay in the car
  • Ban regarding firearms in VA General Assembly.
So, your premise of "undue weight" is completely misguided; the AWB is only a facet. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 05:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Haizum, while you may have a lot of information about gun law, making comments like I am the resident expert and your general attitude towards others (i.e. declaring the "discussion settled") comes across as combative. Wikipedia is built by concensus and you may not declare a discussion settled, no matter how convinced you are of it. Others disagree. If you are a resident expert as you merely claim, then how about guiding, rather than bullying, to make your points, ok? Can someone please state what qualifications make one a "resident expert" in firearms law / gun control laws? Above, I listed how I think the article should be structured. How about proposing your own list or amending mine? That would give you more credibility as an expert. It seems everyone except you feels the article should be re-written -- how about suggesting rather than criticising?Izaakb 14:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The tag requests that an expert be involved, and though I am not the be all and end all, I am the resident expert on a relative basis. To further my position, I would like to state a few simple matters of fact:

Without citing policy, it stands to reason that the intent of the creator was to start a "Gun Control by State" article to expand upond the dominant article, Gun_politics_in_the_United_States. It also appears that the article did not face deletion in its original form. Because the article satisfied any and all initial litmus tests, I believe we are obligated to work on the article in a fashion compliant with the original template - "Gun Control by State." If there exists in the article laws that are not exclusive to gun control, and are more so general "gun laws," then clearly those laws are nonessential and distracting from both the intent of the creator, and the guidelines of the template. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 22:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Now that's better.
  • The article was started as a Gun Control article.

I think this is relevant, but not binding. But we should certainly give weight to it.

  • The article contained laws specific and exclusive to gun control.

Gun laws by definition nowadays are gun control, except arguably for the handful of municipalities which require gun ownership, don't you think?

That is why I brought up malum in se and malum prohibitum. I don't think prohibiting felons on parole from owning firearms is necessarily "gun control," nor do I think prohibiting lawful Joe Average from owning an M1_Abrams is "gun control." Both are based on sound public safety concerns, not arbitrary and debatable restrictions. So, yes, I agree. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:23, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
  • The article also contained laws not specific and exclusive to gun control.

That is what prompted my interest in a refocus.

Exactly, a refocus - which would suggest removing content (laws) that were not exclusive to gun control. Broadening the article title did not seem like an attempt to refocus. The former option seems a lot more obvious (to me at least), and a lot less controversial. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:32, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I think this is the most compelling. That this article is a sub to another which discusses politics is very relevant.

Indeed. The phrase "gun control" has deliberately been removed from this article, yet the "Gun Control" subsections of Gun_politics_in_the_United_States have not been touched and there is a link to this page in the "Gun control laws" subsection. This page should conform to the logical procession of subsections and their respective links. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:38, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I still think that a rewrite whereby each state section has a somewhat-standard format would be useful, perhaps a table with a consistent descriptive (i.e. "permit required to purchase handguns/longarms? permit required to carry concealed/open? etc) that would make glancing at the article more useful -- that was my comment about using the NRA-ILA's page format (or pick your favorite table-maker). Izaakb 23:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
When I first saw this article, undue weight was given to gun control laws in relatively gun friendly states. For example, Virginia's laws were presented in full, but Maryland (one of the most restrictive states) was not even mentioned. Naturally I was appalled and called for a complete rewrite for the sake of NPOV. The result has been completely backwards:
If California, Maryland, DC, New Jersy, and others want to have the most pervasive, invasive, and restrictive gun control laws of their own volition, then it is not POV when a Gun Control article has more content regarding their respective gun control laws - that's just being accurate. As long as the article covers each state's gun control laws (aside from Federal laws), then there should be no problem with regards to POV. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Haizum, I think you've finally made your point and I agree with you. Perhaps if you'd said this up front it would have taken less hassle? My idea was partly to create a survey for each state, rather than selective ones which I feel is a POV problem as you've pointed out. And again, for the record, when I quoted μολὼν λαβέ, I was not, by any means, making fun of your sig. Izaakb 15:21, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Here is what I have in mind ( very general). Add hot links to the statutes as well. (Findlaw), possibly additional fields. I think this hits the major "gun control" issues and using the statute links rather than reciting them makes it much cleaner IMHO ( am referring to the California section which reprints the whole section of statutes)

[edit] South Dakota

Subject/Law Longarms Handguns Relevant Statutes Notes
Permit to Purchase? No No SDCL §43(1) 48 Hour waiting period on Handguns.
Firearm registration? No No None none.
"Assault weapon" law? No No None none.
Owner license required? No No None none.
Carry permits issued? No Yes SDCL 23-7-7 none.
State Preemption of local restrictions? No Yes SDCL §7-18A-36 none.
NFA weapons restricted? No No  ? Federal restrictions only.

South Dakota has few additional restrictions beyond those imposed by Federal law. Notably, South Dakota has a 48 hour waiting period on the purchase of handguns. Carry permits are issued for concealed carry and South Dakota is considered a Shall Issue state.


That is about it. What say ye? Izaakb 17:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Looks great. Think about including "peacable journey" laws which control the movement of weapons within the state. Some states/localities flagrantly ignore (violate) Federal preemption regarding the interstate transportation of firearms[1], and I think that's pretty notable as far as gun control goes. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
There have been at least 2 lawsuits brought under the McClure-Volkmer amendment (deprivation of civil rights) against municipalities. The biggest offender was PANYNJ police at the NY area airports, from my information, that has ceased completely in the last 2 years due to a letter written to the Authority by USAG. If you have some specific instances of arrests or cases with state code being used in a prosecution, then do post it pls. I know some states/cities have peaceable journey requirements, but most don't. Maybe a line called "Peaceable Journey requirements?" Izaakb 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I don't understand the Alabama PJ entry. Unless you have a permit, you can't have a handgun concealed anywhere in the vehicle. This is in violation of Federal law (so it appears). --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:50, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
McClure-Volkmer allows a state to specify the manner in which a firearm is transported (because it is silent on the manner in which the firearm is transported). The amendment provided for "transport" across state lines, not for carrying. Some states (i.e. Vermont) would allow PJ with the pistol in your lap, but other states (i.e NJ/NY) specify it must be in a locked container outside of the cab (i.e. trunk). Whether or not it is a violation of Fed law is a matter for the courts, really. I just plan to list the laws as they are. Maybe putting them up here will shed some light on it and someone can challenge it, although the USSC has let stand jurisdictions' laws with seemingly incompatible restrictions (i.e. Morton Grove case from 1983) Izaakb 04:25, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I still don't see the logic in this title though. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 19:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
which title is that? The old or the new? I agreed that it should be reverted as it is a sub of the Gun Politics article -- of which "gun control" is a political issue. Izaakb 20:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 20:38, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Overall, the new format looks fairly reasonable. Propose we use "Long guns" in place of "Longarms" as a column heading as a Google search for "Longarms" shows only a few instances, and long guns even has its own article on WP. Have added a sample content section for Florida, to show what I think the preferred content format should look like. As for the title, I prefer the current title over the older "gun control" title, as a good bit of the content is not about gun control, but is instead about Gun (Firearm) laws in the United States (by state). Focusing on AWB-related gun control law in the article would mean the article only applies in about 5 localities (i.e., 4 states plus D.C.), not ... in the United States (by state). I don't propose a POV fork to capture firearm laws in the United States (by state), and then see this current article contract to be just about gun control related to AWB-continuations in only 5 localities in the US instead of the broader topic. Am open to suggestions. Yaf 03:38, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
Izaakb, will you please explain to this user that the AWB type laws are not the only gun control laws? Maryland doesn't use AWB laws yet it is one of the most gun-controlling states in the nation. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yaf, I agree with Haizum on this:
  1. The parent article is Gun_politics_in_the_United_States, so the basis and original intent of the article was to be about political issues, of which gun control is definitely a political issue.
  2. Gun control laws are not limited to AWB-type laws (or gun restriction laws, case in point Kennesaw, Georgia which requires each homeowner to own a handgun.
  3. I agree about the longarm vs long gun change.
I say the article be re-named back to Gun Control Laws in the United States. The reader can clearly see it is by state and having the extra "(by state)" is superfluous, IMHO.Izaakb 19:22, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Yaf is currently helping me with the Gun control subsection of Gun_politics_in_the_United_States. Another set of eyes would be good; that subsection will inevitably become a summary for this page so we need to make it very concise, yet accurate, and yet not necessarily focusing on any particular state (for the sake of Neutrality). See the the respective talk page for a summary of changes. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:46, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • a good bit of the content is not about gun control
Then remove it. If an article is titled "Tiger", and then someone starts including lion information, and maybe a little tabby information, the article title does not then become 'Cats.' --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:04, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
How about I start adding information on fireworks laws so we can title it "Things that Go BANG Laws (by state)." What should we learn from this terrible idea? The title preceds the content. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 03:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • Focusing on AWB-related gun control law in the article
The only person focusing on AWB laws is you, since you don't seem to understand that there are gun control laws besides the AWB. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:06, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
  • about gun control related to AWB-continuations in only 5 localities in the US instead of the broader topic.
The article is about gun control in all 50 states because all 50 states have gun control laws, not merely 5 localities. If those 5 localites want to have the longest list of gun control laws on Wikipedia, that's their own fault - we are here to report FACTS --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:09, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Illinois

I've expanded the existing Illinois section, and added the "standard format" table. I've tried to retain the existing material in this section, in some parts without changing it, in some parts substantially rephrasing it. I am not a lawyer. This is my first contribution to Wikipedia. Mudwater 01:40, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for contributing. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:38, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

On December 31, 2006, an editor who was not signed in added this text to the Illinois section of the article: "upon this regulations of ban of assault weapons in cook county. Concerning from late 2006 to present high capacity mags are allowed. As long as all fallowing procedures to obtain the weapon are fallowed."

I'm looking at Cook County ordinance 06-O-50 as referenced in the footnote. This ordinance was passed on November 14, 2006. It seems to ban the possession of high capacity magazines, but gives residents 90 days to get rid of any that they already have. That would be until February 12, 2007.

Section 6-1(d) defines a large capacity magazine as a magazine that holds more than 10 rounds, with a few exceptions such as .22 caliber. Section 6-2(a) says, "No person shall... possess any assault weapon or large capacity magazine." Section 6-2(d) is the part about having 90 days to get rid of any that you have already.

I am not a lawyer, I'm just interpreting what I think the new law says. If anyone else has an opinion on all this your input is encouraged. Thanks. Mudwater 16:04, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Izaakb has removed the text I was asking about, so we're all set. Thanks. Mudwater 00:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
Please refrain from using "high capacity" in the article. Without the use of qutoation marks, it's POV -- defining a magazine that holds more than "10" as "high" is completely arbitrary. Instead of using quotations, it's preferable to just paraphrase the law(s) which restrict magazines with a capacity greater than 10 rounds. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 01:37, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
That makes sense to me. Thanks for the edit. Mudwater 01:58, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


Some statutes define the term "high capacity" as it relates to magazines, or they use the term "Large Capacity Ammunition Feeding Device" (LCAFD) (i.e. see N.Y.P.L. Sec 265.23) which comes directly from ATF usage. Either way it is appropriate to use quotes (a) to refer to the langauge of that statute or (b) to avoid POV. Izaakb 04:01, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
If a specific title or direct quotation requires it, then use quotes. I don't see this as being problematic; the ATF should not be considered a neutral entity anyways. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 04:53, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Moved it

I may be wrong for shooting first and asking questions later, but the parenthenses are not needed in the title. At the very least, Firearm should not be capitalized; it is neither a proper noun nor the beginning of the article title. Matt Yeager ♫ (Talk?) 00:15, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure this is clear to everyone, Matt Yeager has renamed the article, from "Gun (Firearm) laws in the United States (by state)" to "Gun laws in the United States (by state)". I thought the old name was okay, but I do prefer the new one. In my opinion it would be even better to rename the article again, to "Gun laws in the United States by state", removing the other set of parentheses but leaving the "by state" part. But, I'm not going to rename it again now. Instead I would request that other Wikipedians leave their comments and opinions here. -- Mudwater 12:42, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

The article title is supposed to be "Gun control in the United States by state," because this article links from the parent article subsection "Gun control." Unfortunately some editors are still living in 1984. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 21:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Gun law in the US page

I've created Gun law in the United States by extracting most of the American content from Gun law, where it was dominating the page. I created the new page before discovering that this page exists, and I'm curious as to why all US gun law (federal, state, local) is not covered on one page. I suppose running this page and the (federal) gun law in the US page together would be overly long - perhaps Gun law in the United States should contain a brief summary of the 2nd amendment and the issues surrounding it, summary of federal laws, and a brief summary of state laws, with links to the second amendment page, a page on federal gun law, and this page.

Gun law isn't something I feel strongly about since it isn't much of an issue where I live (New Zealand) - basically my involvement here is about well organised pages where everything is where you would expect it to be found. On that note, I think 'gun law' is a more neutral and therefore better title than 'gun control'. --Helenalex 07:21, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

I think 'gun law' is a more neutral and therefore better title than 'gun control'. The fact that it is a categorically incorrect title supersedes how neutral you think it is. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 08:38, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree that gun law is a more neutral descriptor than gun control, and should preferentially be used. Yaf 13:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Why make me repeat myself? The fact that it is a categorically incorrect title supersedes how neutral you think it is. It's not my fault if you don't have the proper legal background. I'm telling you it's categorically incorrect regardless of a trifling opinion. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:11, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crockery

This article was started as a "gun control" article, and should have remained so. Unfortunately, agenda driven editors thought it would be slick to include more general information relevant to general gun laws to in effect "1984" the original article out of existence. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 09:27, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Having only been watching this page for a few days, can you please explain what the purpose of the original (gun control) page was, and how it differs from the current page? I'd also like to add that name calling ('agenda driven', '1984') isn't helpful and doesn't advance your argument. --Helenalex 22:59, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
The purpose of the original article was to provide information regarding specific gun control laws; laws that regulate the production/distribution/ownership of firearms without the reason being a specific safety concern, meaning, laws that are malum prohibitum, as opposed to laws that are malum en se. ex: Total gun ban in San Fransisco = malum prohibitum; laws against personal ownership of chemical/nuclear weapons = malum en se.
If I really wanted to erase the issue, I could just start adding unrelated laws to this article then demand that the article be changed to "Laws by state," which would in effect "1984" this whole stew of BS article writing. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 23:09, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I don't speak Latin, but from what you've said, and from the current content of the page, the article has been broadened from being about laws which restrict people's ability to buy/carry etc firearms to being about all laws concerning the personal possession/use/transport of firearms. Is this correct? If not, please enlighten me further. If so...
I understand that this article is not how you originally envisaged it, and that this must be annoying. However I disagree that the article has been twisted or '1984ed' (I assume you're referring to the Orwell novel here?). I assume your concern is to show how various states have tried to restrict ownership etc of guns. But it is surely relevant to also show how various states have gone in the opposite direction, ie allowing the carrying of concealed handguns. While this is a broadening of the issue, it in no way 'erases' it in the way the introduction of non gun related laws would. If you want to focus purely on efforts to control guns, perhaps a better idea would be to start a page such as Gun control movement in the United States, which could cover the philosophy of gun control, gun control groups, and successes in gun control. Although it doesn't fit your vision, this is a useful page, and it makes sense to have all gun-related US state laws on the one page, rather than making a distinction between laws which restrict, allow and simply regulate gun use/ownership etc. --Helenalex 23:33, 24 February 2007 (UTC)
I'm fine with this article with regards to its content, but I'm not happy that came into being at the expense of another; mainly because it has disguised the issue of gun control -- as if there is no gun control movement and that the restrictions are just another series of laws. It's similar to adding a little content to an "Anti-Semetic Laws of Nazi Germany" article, then renaming the article "German Social Laws of 1939," then acting like it's not big deal and not POV. Sure, the new article is probably useful, but it was at the expense of another perfectly acceptable article. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 02:02, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
A better analogy might be expanding an article on anti-Semetic laws of Nazi Germany to 'Nazi German laws regarding Jews' and including positive laws as well. I'm assuming that there weren't any, but if there were it would make sense to mention them. Anyway, I would suggest again that you start a page on the gun control movement rather than frittering away your time and energy getting annoyed at what happened to this page. --Helenalex 22:03, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Right. --Haizum μολὼν λαβέ 00:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Concealed carry for long guns

I reverted the comment that CCW permits do not apply to long guns, as it all depends. For example, under Florida law, even long guns must be concealed except when in use under a rather limited set of conditions (hunting, target shooting, self-defense, etc.) Especially, for example, if someone lives in a condominium, and wishes to cross common property areas, say from a parking lot to a particular condo, it is illegal to openly carry the long gun to or from a car or truck except under rather limited circumstances (during exercising legal self defense, mostly). In general, the long gun must be concealed when carried in public. However, it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon of any kind, including a long gun, without a permit in public. Hence, the concealed carry permit is required to enable carrying any gun concealed in a public area. This points out the difference between a CHL (concealed handgun license) and a CCW (carrying concealed weapon) permit. The CCW applies to a wide variety of weapons, not just handguns. A CHL applies only to a handgun, and, in some case, just one particular handgun by some state laws. Yaf 01:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense, and thanks for the explanation. I'm curious though about your example of carrying a long gun from a parking lot to a condo when in Florida. It's pretty difficult to literally conceal a long gun. Would carrying it enclosed in a case, unloaded, be legal? I hope so. -- Mudwater 01:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
Yes, provided you have a CCW permit! Concealment is not the same as literally concealed :-) (Thank goodness!) Specifically, the gun must be securely encased, preferably in a commercial softcase with a zipper, or stowed in a similar zippered covering for transport. This is not the same requirement as requiring the gun to be encased securely, however, in, say, an aluminum case with a lock.
Let me explain by going back to a handgun example for a moment. If a handgun is in a holster with a snapped strap, then it is securely encased, and it is legal to transport it this way in a car, with or without a CCW in Florida. This is not the same as requiring a handgun to be completely encased securely, however, with no part of it visible. For example, a soft bag opened at one end with a handgun in it is not securely encased, even though it does mean the handgun is concealed. (A Crown liquor bottle bag with a handgun in it that is concealed but which is not securely encased (there is no zipper!) is a common legal case that seems to come up about every other month in Florida!)
Likewise for a long gun, as long as it is securely encased (this doesn't even require all parts be concealed) it is considered legal for transport with or without a CCW permit. However, by the same token, if you go across a public area, you literally step into an unintended technical omission created by mistake by Florida legislators under current Florida gun law since you are now carrying a concealed weapon. The gun must be concealed in public, even if a long gun, by Florida law. A zippered case is considered to be adequate for concealment for a long gun. However, under existing Florida law, once you put the long gun in the zippered case and it becomes concealed under the law, you must have a CCW permit to possess it in public areas, such as in the commons areas of condos, and such as in the common hallways or parking lot areas of a condo. Otherwise, you have committed a felony.
There are other reasons for having a CCW that apply to a long gun, too. Having a CCW excuses one from committing a school zone gun law felony if one strays accidentally within 1,000 feet unintentionally of even a one-room school house when going around a blind curve. If you have a CCW, then this becomes a misdeameanor with a minimal fine ($25, as I recall), instead of being a major felony with prison time. Yaf 02:10, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Virginia Open Carry

I went ahead and removed the statement regarding CHP holders primarily using open carry in restaurants, because not only does it appear to be uncited, but the statement appears to be worded wrong. Perhaps it was meant to say that open carry is primarily done by CHP holders, along with the statement about Virginia law in restaurants which serve alcohol? I am a Virginia resident and a CHP holder and I frequent many bars and clubs and alcohol-serving restaurants, and never have I seen an open carry for my entire stay here, and I live next to many, many naval bases. Additionally, Virginians are harangued about not carrying open because it is a safety issue, and about mixing guns and alcohol in the safety courses they have to take. I really just think the statement was worded poorly so I rearranged it to make more sense. Open Carry is primarily done by CHP holders (a reasonable statement), and that only open carry is allowed inside restaurants which serve alcohol (not just any restaurant). Firebird84 22:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Material copied from CarryConcealed.net

The New Hampshire section of this page is a blatant (and poor!) copy-and-paste job from http://www.carryconcealed.net/legal/newhampshire-ccw-state-laws.php -- the site claims a copyright and mentions nothing about Wikipedia. Can someone remotely familiar with New Hampshire gun laws fix this up? (I'm also not sure how to tag a 'section' as a copyvio.) Fogster 21:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

It's not just New Hampshire, it's a lot of states. Looking at the history of the article, this was done starting on on 29 May 2007. First several IP addresses copy and pasted the concealed carry information for Georgia, Oklahoma, and Pennsylvania, then Clarkbob did it for the remaining states that did not have any info in the article, i.e. Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho, Iowa, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maine, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming, and, on 5 June 2007, the District of Columbia. On 16 June 2007, text from CarryConcealed.net was copy and pasted for several states that already had some information in this article, i.e. Nebraska and Nevada.
These sections all include embedded links to CarryConcealed.net as references, and the obvious intention of these edits was to improve the article by adding concealed carry information, with proper citations, especially for states that didn't have any info at all. I do have reservations about this however. One is that it's best, in general, not to copy material from other sources word for word. I've gotten the impression that the articles in Wikipedia are supposed to be original material, with some quotations of other sources allowed, but at the moment I can't find a policy or guideline that clearly states that. I am thinking though that the copied material might be a copyright violation and therefore not allowed — see Wikipedia:Copyright FAQ#Can I add something to Wikipedia that I got from somewhere else? and Wikipedia:Copyrights#Using copyrighted work from others.
Also, a lot of the copied material is written in legal language that's not particularly easy to read. I believe the previously existing sections of the article were all comprised of original material, and, while we're not talking Pulitzer prize here, I think they did a pretty good job of explaining the main points in a way that was well organized and easy to understand. On the other hand, the text that's been added does improve the article somewhat, since a lot of states didn't have any information at all before.
I'm not sure if these good faith edits should be removed or not, and I would encourage other editors to give their opinions on this subject in this section of the talk page. — Mudwater 16:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
I think what makes this in interesting issue is that CarryConcealed.net (or, from where I would have suspected they came, packing.org) are in and of themselves utilities of summary. They summarize the laws, as this wikipedia article purports to do. Normally I would suggest 'summarizing' any citation, but (as I said...) this already is a summary. My suggestion is to make them block-quotes, citing the source from which the links are. --Osndok 20:53, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
I'll second that. Nburden 21:19, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] External links

Per Wikipedia:External links, "Adding external links can be a service to our readers, but they should be kept to a minimum of those that are meritable, accessible and appropriate to the article... it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic." Since there are dozens or hundreds of web sites that document state gun laws in the U.S., I think we need to restrict ourselves to the most important, largest, and well known sites, and those with a national scope. In other words, what we have now is about right, give or take a few. So, I'm going to remove the recent good faith addition of the external link to GeorgiaCarry.org. — Mudwater 18:35, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Original research?

An editor has added the "original research" tag to this article. The tag says, "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims. Please improve the article by adding references. See the talk page for details." There are already quite a few references in the article, but, since it covers a large amount of detailed information, I'd say the more the merrier when it comes to good footnotes. But, does the article contain original research? Not according to my understanding of "Wikipedia:No original research". Anyone else have an opinion on this? — Mudwater 01:48, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Hi! My reading on that was that a lot of the article, in whole sections, is unsourced. There is no way to know what is material created by editors here, and what is imported from reliable sources. I definitely didn't want to just cut out tons of possibly good material, and wanted to get some talk started on it. Perhaps a good way to start each state section would be a simple reposting (with links) to the relevant laws, and then any notable reactions to those laws from reliable sources? Going section by section like that could help to eventually eliminate any opinions or information that aren't notable or sourced, cutting the original research out by default. • Lawrence Cohen 02:16, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
A lot of the article "is material created by editors here", in the sense that the editors have written new material that describes state gun laws. That's perfectly appropriate. In fact I'd say it's good, since the articles in Wikipedia should be written by the editors, not copied from other sources, except for attributed quotations. In this article, some of the sections have good footnotes or embedded links to reliable references, while other sections could use some help in that area. Hopefully more references will be found and added to the article. But, according to "Wikipedia:No original research", "Original research (OR) is a term used in Wikipedia to refer to unpublished facts, arguments, concepts, statements, or theories. The term also applies to any unpublished analysis or synthesis of published material that appears to advance a position — or, in the words of Wikipedia's co-founder Jimmy Wales, would amount to a 'novel narrative or historical interpretation.'" That's different from sections of an article needing more or better references. — Mudwater 02:41, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
It's been almost two weeks and no one else has said anything about this. So, I'm removing the tag that says "This article or section may contain original research or unverified claims." I'm leaving the ones that say "This article needs additional citations for verification" and "This article or section is in need of attention from an expert on the subject." — Mudwater 04:08, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Texas -- convicted felons

A recent addition to the Texas section says, "Felons are allowed to own fire arms 5 years after there probation is up, but only in their homes for personal protection." Is that correct? I thought that federal law prohibited convicted felons from owning firearms, unless they had been pardoned or otherwise had their records cleared. — Mudwater 16:55, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds very suspicious, since any convicted felon is federally prohibited from purchase or possession of any firearm. If the state did pass such a law, it would be null and void under the US Constitution (Federal Supremacy clause). izaakb ~talk ~contribs 14:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the sentence in question. — Mudwater 03:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Undefined terms

This article uses a couple of terms without defining what they mean, which may be unclear to someone (like me) who isn't familiar with the subject area. The template uses 'NFA', which I assume means National Firearms Act, although it never actually says so anywhere; and also 'Peaceable journey', which isn't defined anywhere on Wikipedia, and in fact is only used on this page. Someone either needs to write the Peaceable journey article, or explain what it means somewhere in this article. Terraxos (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Possible copyright infringement

This article has been tagged as containing a possible copyright infringement. It does in fact contain material that was copied from ConcealedCarry.net. A discussion of this situation is taking place at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 February 16/Articles. Feel free to join the discussion there. I have created a new version of the article with the copyrighted material removed, at Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp. Please do not edit the old or new versions of the article at this time, they need to be reviewed by an administrator. — Mudwater 20:56, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

That's true. Some sections are just copied, not even caring about the formatting (look at the "frequently asked questions" sentence in the New Hampshire section). Most states deserve a major cleanup, although some states have some text which doesn't look like it was copied from concealedcarry.net (e.g. California) Admiral Norton (talk) 21:04, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, the article's very uneven, and some states are a lot better than others. But the current issue is the copied material. I think I've fixed that with the new version referenced above -- take a look if you like, and/or join the discussion at the other link -- but an administrator has to agree. — Mudwater 21:17, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily. The copyvio template instructions are given to avoid people just removing the template, and even if they weren't, we could just ignore them. On many occasions, I myself have acted as the "administrator" in order to help alleviate the backlog, and because I believe I am knowledgeable enough to do so. Once we've removed it all, the page can go live. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:48, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
The current page looks much much better, and is probably ready to go live, if people at this page wouldn't have a problem with a few empty sections. The only last question I have at the moment is the Wisconsin section. It passes the google search, but still looks like it may have come from an alternate site. Alternatively, it may have simply been written without proper wikification. The Evil Spartan (talk) 22:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm ready to update the article and remove the template if you think it's okay. What would happen then at Wikipedia:Copyright problems/2008 February 16/Articles, would we just note that the problem has been fixed, so the article shouldn't be deleted? Also, I copied your comment from Talk:Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp to here, so that the discussion is all in one place. Regarding the Wisconsin section, I agree that it looks a bit strange, but I would propose leaving it the way it is if we can't show that it's a copy vio. I'm open to further discussion though. Note to others: The draft of the revised article is now at Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp. — Mudwater 23:21, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Yeah, go ahead, move it over, just make sure you reference Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp in the edit summary, in keeping with GFDL. If you want to make a note at the copyright page, go ahead; alternatively, the reviewing admin would probably be able to infer it from the edit history. The Evil Spartan (talk) 01:48, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll update the article, and make a note on the copyright page too. But, I'm not sure what you mean by "reference Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp in the edit summary, in keeping with GFDL." I mean, I know what GFDL is, but I was going to reference this section of the Talk page in the edit summary. Let me know if that sounds okay, otherwise I'll just go ahead. — Mudwater 01:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I mean, make your edit summary something like this: per talk: removing copyvio, transfering material from [[Gun laws in the United States (by state)/Temp]]. GFDL just means you have to give credit to whoever made the changes. And User:Admiral Norton made two significant changes which need to be credited in the history. The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Okay, we're all set. — Mudwater 04:38, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Georgia

I have tried to fill out the Georgia law section. I started with the Florida section, becuase their laws are similar in nature and I liked the format. TheGuruFromAU (talk) 18:24, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


The sectio0n on Oregon is wrong. You cannot carry a handgun in a public school. Currently, at this moment, a teacher is trying to allow herself to carry a handgun for children's and her safety, by the district is debating it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.136.39 (talk) 15:10, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

You can carry a concealed handgun in a public school, but it isn't pre-empted and the district in question has a carry restriction. Admiral Norton (talk) 11:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop whining

There is nothing wrong with this article on Wiki. If you are liberally biased and you feel guns should be restricted, you've got to do more research. It's proven in MANY other countries that crimes INCREASED after gun control, cause the public was un-armed. The criminals won't give up their guns.
And besides, if our fore-fathers knew we were trying to destroy the second amendment they worked so hard for, they'd come for the past and beat the crap out of us. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.170.136.39 (talk) 15:18, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed split of California

An editor has suggested splitting the California section into a separate article. I am creating this talk page section for a discussion of the proposed split. — Mudwater (Talk) 20:27, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

No need, coz WP is not a crystall ball. Moreover the section itself doesnt have references. --Tomb of the Unknown Warrior tomb 09:35, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
It's been more than a month and no one has given any reasons to split the article, so I've removed the Splitsection template. — Mudwater (Talk) 13:45, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Hawaii

Hawaii also has a 10 round mag limit on handguns. Just thought that should be included. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.95.175.48 (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WV open carry bans

Is there some thorough list of West Virginia local ordinances banning open carry? So far I have been directed to cities of Charleston and Dunbar, but I'm unable to find anything forbidding open carry in Dunbar on the official site with city ordinances. Admiral Norton (talk) 12:32, 1 May 2008 (UTC)