Gun Control (in USA by state)

Many US states have legislated their own gun control laws, independent of existing federal gun control. Some have also created so-called assault weapon bans that are independent, though often similar to, the expired federal assault weapons ban. The state level bans vary significantly in their form, content, and level of restriction. Most US states have a state constitutional amendment similar to the Second Amendment of the Bill of Rights. This often raises legal issues on the legality of some of the legislations.

California

California has one of the strictest gun control laws of the United States. The Roberti-Roos Assault Weapons Control Act of 1989, its subsequent augmentation in 1999, and the .50 Caliber BMG Regulation Act of 2004 has led to many restrictions on semi-automatic firearms. In addition to a lengthy list of specific firearms that are banned by name, the following firearms are banned by characteristic:

• (1) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(A) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon.

(B) A thumbhole stock.

(C) A folding or telescoping stock.

(D) A grenade launcher or flare launcher.

(E) A flash suppressor.

(F) A forward pistol grip.

• (2) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has a fixed magazine with the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

• (3) A semiautomatic, centerfire rifle that has an overall length of less than 30 inches.

• (4) A semiautomatic pistol that has the capacity to accept a detachable magazine and any one of the following:

(A) A threaded barrel, capable of accepting a flash suppressor, forward handgrip, or silencer.

(B) A second handgrip.

(C) A shroud that is attached to, or partially or completely encircles, the barrel that allows the bearer to fire the weapon without burning his or her hand, except a slide that encloses the barrel.

(D) The capacity to accept a detachable magazine at some location outside of the pistol grip.

• (5) A semiautomatic pistol with a fixed magazine that has the capacity to accept more than 10 rounds.

• (6) A semiautomatic shotgun that has both of the following:

(A) A folding or telescoping stock.

(B) A pistol grip that protrudes conspicuously beneath the action of the weapon, thumbhole stock, or vertical handgrip.

• (7) A semiautomatic shotgun that has the ability to accept a detachable magazine.
• (8) Any shotgun with a revolving cylinder.

There are also numerous other laws, such as prohibition on possession of tracer ammunition, handgun armor piercing ammunition, .50 BMG ammunition and rifles, and the sale or transfer of magazines with a capacity of over 10 rounds. All rifles are normally exempt for the original owner if properly registered at the time of the acts which prohibited them.

In addition, the law states that any weapon that is part of the AR-15 series or AK series is also an assault weapon, regardless of manufacturer, which dates back to failed 1989 ban. However, the Caifornia Supreme Court have declared the identification of assault weapon by series to be too dubious and difficult for the average citizen to make without specific and clear model identification guidelines. The court therefore overturned the "series" identification portion of the law in their ruling of Harrot v. County of Kings, filed 6/28/2001 [1]. The implications of this case is that only firearms specifically listed by exact model name or conforming to explicit exterior characteristics (such as a pistol grip) can be banned under current legislation. This leads to the consequence that AR and AK "series" rifles can be legally purchased and possessed in California if the model is not explicitly banned and as long as the owner does not add the visual characteristics which turn it into an assault weapon (i.e. pistol grip, flash suppressor, etc). The California Department of Justice is yet to comment on the implications of this 2001 state supreme court ruling.

Issues with the California laws

Despite purporting to make California a safer place, both sides agree that there are many firearms that are legal in California that are functionally identical to prohibited weapons, and evidence of the effectiveness of such laws is hard to come by. Both sides also agree that the law needs to be revised to make it more clear so ordinary people can understand what constitutes an assault weapon and what does not.

When the act was being debated in the legislature, the Association of California Cities, a prominent supporter, claimed that California law enforcement agencies feared that some groups in large cities might undertake successful rebellions against civil order if armed with modern weapons. In spite of hundreds of thousands of such "assault weapons" in the public hands for some decades, no such events have ever occurred anywhere in the USA. Prominent members of black churches in L.A., as well as Senators Boxer (D-CA) and Feinstein (D-CA), have claimed that the only real purpose of such weapons is to kill large numbers of people, and therefore there is no reason to permit them. Some gun rights advocates claim that the primary uses of these firearms in civilian hands has been, and continues to be the sport of recreational target-shooting (there were no reported deaths or injuries related to the sport of target shooting in 1999, 2000, and 2001). Most gun rights supporters base their authority on the 2nd Amendment, which states that keeping and bearing arms is necessary to the security of a free state.

Based on engineering differences, ease of modification, and their high level of expertise, CRPA members see nothing special about assault weapons except their appearance, which is exactly what the gun collectors want, and what the legislature wants to prohibit. The legislature has thus been accused of being paternalistic and somewhat frivolous for creating the Assault Weapons Control Act. Another example of politically based gun laws is the ban of all ammunition with the word "Magnum" in the name by some parts of Los Angeles, when in fact the word Magnum is rather meaningless in ammunition nomenclature, with its reputation largely based on movies, not ballistics.

Using slippery slope logic, gun rights advocates have argued that the only real purpose of these "assault weapons" bans is to make the public used to the idea that firearms can be banned by government action and the public simply must accept any bans the government will choose to impose in the future. According to gun rights advocates, these bans have purely symbolic and propaganda purposes with no chance of reducing violent crime. Supporters of the ban counter that the banned features of these weapons were designed for military use. Supporters also argue that the features that define an "assault weapon" make it useless for hunting and less effective for target shooting, but more effective in combat. This argument enrages gun groups because gun control lobbyists are not interested in guns and would not know the difference between a legal version and an outlawed version, and that they just set up straw man arguments that "machine guns" designed for combat should have no place in a peaceful society, though the banned guns are not capable of fully automatic "rapid" fire. Gun rights advocates assert that exterior features which make up the cornerstone of the ban such as a pistol grip or a stock that folds are only similar to military weapons through a cosmetic relationship, and the removal of such features simply restricts law abiding citizens' rights while not reducing crime.

New York

New York state has a ban that is an exact mirror of the former federal one without a sunset provision.

Related articles

Federal assault weapons ban