Saturday, April 01, 2017

Worst Three States for Gun Rights?

Which are the worst three states for exercising your right to keep and bear arms? There are several contenders for that dubious distinction. The worst states can be found with the answers to a couple of questions.

First: Do you have to ask government permission to purchase a firearm? Some states require that you obtain permission before purchasing handguns. A smaller subset require that you obtain permission before purchasing any gun. That infringement is a must have for the worst states.  There are twelve states that have the requirement for all guns.  They are California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Washington State. Maryland does not make the list, because you do not need a permit to purchase most rifles and shotguns.

Second: Does the state claim the power to arbitrarily deny people the right to bear arms outside of the home, even after jumping through the hoops to obtain a permit?  The power may be vested in police chiefs, a board or committee, or some other appendage of the state.

The clear infringement is the state can arbitrarily say "sure, you meet the legal qualifications; you have not committed a felony. You haven't been convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence. You have not been involuntarily committed to a mental hospital. You have taken the proper course, passed the test, and are legally allowed by law to own weapons...but...the semi-feudal authority figure does not like the cut of your jib, so he says "Denied", and your rights are infringed. This often takes the form of a subjective judgment that you do not have a "good reason" to have a permit. Strangely, those with money and political connections are usually able to come up with "good reasons".  Not having legal access to carry outside the home cuts the list down to six states.

California, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and New York are at the top of the list for states hostile to the exercise of Second Amendment rights.

Of those six states, picking the worst three is much more difficult. There are differences. Delaware Requires a background check, but not a separate license to purchase. While the state is "may issue" in law, it is reported as being "shall issue" in practice. It comes off the list.

Massachusetts requires a permit to buy a gun. They require a permit to carry a gun. One permit will allow you to do both, so people are opting for that permit instead of alternatives that are only slightly less onerous.  Because of this , the number of people with Massachusetts carry permits is a respectable 7.6% of adults.  Getting a permit may be difficult in Massachusetts. A permit is not guaranteed. Most Massachusetts residents  who want one can get one and may bear arms.  Massachusetts gets dropped off the list.

California bans private sales. You must go through a government controlled dealer to legally buy a gun. You have to register guns that you make yourself. But California does not require a special state permit to buy a gun. Many areas of California issue concealed carry permits on essentially a "shall issue" basis. California is a contender because of the insane and recent spate of anti-rights laws, but they are off the list of the top three.  That leaves the three worst states: Hawaii, New York, and New Jersey.

New Jersey is the worst of the three. While they issue more permits to carry than Hawaii, the permits nearly all go to retired judges, police officers, and people with considerable "pull" (political connections).  It is extremely difficult to obtain a New Jersey carry permit. New Jersey had about 1200 permits active in 2016.  All other states issue more carry permits than that. All firearms ownership and use in New Jersey is controlled by statute.  That is, everything about firearms that is not permitted, is forbidden. There are regular stories about people with innocent intentions being caught up in firearms laws that defy common sense. New Jersey is the only state that defines a tubular magazine fed .22 hunting rifle as an "assault weapon".  For a while, a Daisy BB gun was considered an "assault weapon" in New Jersey.  A large, subjective part of what makes New Jersey the worst, is the state structure seems quite willing to ignore their own rules, such as time limits on issuing permits. The impression is the rule of law is more the rule by local power brokers in New Jersey. New Jersey is one of the six states that has no right to keep and bear arms provision in the state constitution.

New York might not have made the list except for the "SAFE" Act passed in 2013.  New York eliminated the New York State lifetime handgun permit. Permits now have to be renewed every five years. The SAFE act requires that all firearm purchases go through a government dealer, with extremely limited exceptions. The act requires that all ammunition purchases be done through a licensed dealer, a provision that is not yet fully law in California. There is widespread resistance to the SAFE Act, especially in upstate New York. But 43 percent of New York State residents live in New York City, where it is very difficult to obtain a permit to even purchase a pistol, let alone carry one. In California, while it is very difficult to obtain a permit to carry in the urban centers, it is much easier to purchase handguns legally. In California, carry permits are valid throughout the state. State carry permits in New York are not valid in New York City.  Stories where New York authorities ignore their own firearms law to impose more stringent restrictions are rampant. New York is another of the six states that have no right to keep and bear arms in the state constitution.

Hawaii is as bad as New Jersey for most of their firearm laws. They are worse when it comes to issuing carry permits. In a fair number of years, there are no permits issued to private citizens for self defense for the entire state.  You have to apply to a permit authority to buy any firearm legally.  The authority to buy long guns only lasts for one year. The authority to buy a handgun only lasts for 10 days. There are a fairly large number of long guns that were grandfathered in the law before July 1, 1994. They are not required to be registered. No one knows just how many exist.  Hawaii has a better reputation for following their own rules than New Jersey or New York. The Hawaii Constitution's right to bear arms provision is a copy of the Second Amendment.

Reasonable people can differ on the three worst states for the exercise of Second Amendment rights. Nearly every list will contain New Jersey. Contentions exist about the other two. My vote is for New York and Hawaii.

©2017 by Dean Weingarten: Permission to share is granted when this notice and link are included.

Gun Watch


Jerry The Geek said...

No, you don't need a permit to buy a gun in Oregon.
There is no procedure other than the ATF thingie, which is one phone call away.
You must be thinking of California, which is right next door but has more glamor and glitz.

We get a lot of retired Californians here in Oregon; they have all this money and when they retire they come up here to live among the real folks. We know they're shitty folks, but we talk nice to them and take their money because they overpay on everything. They expect to get screwed, and we try hard not to disappoint them.

But no ... we don't ask them to sit up and beg for a gun permit. There are no gun permits in Oregon. The sheriffs have to live in town, and they kind of want to live to collect their retirement. They mostly don't come from California.

KUETSA said...

In NY State all that is required to purchase a long gun is the passing of a federal NICS check. Upstate counties had lifetime pistol permits that are now 5 years since NY SAFE ACT. Downstate counties always had 5 year renewals. NYC is a separate communist country. The rest of the state is catching up quick after The NY SAFE ACT. The Gorsuch Supreme Court had better slap progressive communist democrats BACK TO CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY! The NY SAFE ACT MUST BE OVERTURNED! (It seems the only peaceful way to end the armed standoff) NY SAFE has a 4% compliance rate.

Rocket Shoes said... NJ 1855 assault rifle

Dean Weingarten said...

The "ATF thingie" is government permission. If the government does not approve you with that phone call, no sale. Of course, all your personal information and the gun's serial number are recorded on government forms which are turned over to the government and kept by the government forever.

Anonymous said...

What too many fail to understand is the ATF "thingie" is unconstitutional from the beginning. ATF its self is unconstitutional. the right of the citizens to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, How many ways can you read that command to get a different meaning? Plain English, Shall Not is an absolute command. Infringe is an all inclusive term, government can not do anything that obstructs our right to keep and bear arms. there is no definition of what arms are. Shall not be infringed means government can not create a definition. shall not be infringed means government can not create any limitations on a guaranteed right. If I want to own a bazooka and could afford to buy it I could own it. Now if I used it then I could face some real problems. If I went deer hunting with an M-60 I could face some problems. an M-79 actually has what is called a canister round filled with buckshot. Not very sporting to take down an entire wing of geese. No intelligent person I know would hunt with a claymore mine. 840 steel 32 caliber balls does not make good deer meat. It does make useless hamburger out of several deer. People that have no common sense do not live long.

Anonymous said...

Can anyone explain to me why we have over 16 intelligence agencies? Is it so one agency can tell another agency we are more intelligent than you are? Tell me what has government ever done that speaks of great intelligence. Hitler had his gestopo and his brown shirts and his SS. We have DHS, NSA and several other groups of trash, that are by their missions unconstitutional. thank the communist democrats for all of these unconstitutional agencies.

Anonymous said...

MY hope is that Supreme court justice Gorsuch is the constitutionalist he is touted to be, then maybe we can get the word infringe explained correctly. As I have stated before the phrase SHALL NOT is the strongest words to demand legal compliance. Put Shall Not and Infringe together and they become an absolute command. Neither Congress or the states have the power or authority to ignore that command. The constitution is a contract. A contract is a legal agreement between two or more parties. Only the words specifically written in that contract are allowed to be considered. no party to a contract has the authority to change, leave out or ignore any word, not even punctuation marks, without the consent of all parties to that contract. Any change must be approved by all parties to the contract or those changes have no enforceable effect. contracts can not be interpreted. If any thing is not clear it must be addressed by all concerned and changed with mutual agreement. Our constitution has written into it the amendment /Change process, to prevent interpretation. simple example, The constitution could say "we the citizens" or it could say "All citizens". try giving the word all a different meaning, whereas We could mean any number of other meanings. Who is we, this group or that group or some combination of groups. Where All is everybody no matter how you look at it.

The word infringe is the same as All in its effect. Infringe is a word that has no other meaning. Infringe includes any thing possibly related to the issue.

The Framers of the constitution picked every word in it very carefully for the word's specific meaning. No words or punctuation marks can be changed or added or left out without the constitutional amendment process. Acts and Laws are not Amendments. Point in fact, Congress had no constitutional authority to pass the 1934 gun control act. shall Not be infringed is the limit written in the constitution.

Anonymous said...

Jerry what is it you do not understand about getting approval by telephone being any different than getting a permit using a piece of paper? getting the permit by any means is still getting a permit. ATF form 4473 has to be filled out before that phone call is made, that is your paper permit. when I had my FFL the form 4473 was a one sided yellow page. Now ATF form 4473 is a trifold six page document. As I see it the entire process is unconstitutional. Your name as a gun owner is recorded for ever. the records kept by the dealer you may never see record exactly where each weapon went and who it was sold to. When I had my FFL I specially designed paper work to comply with the required records keeping. When I turned in my license ATF asked for permission to reprint the forms in their regulations manual so that other dealers could be encouraged to use it. When a gun dealer closes his shop all records must be sent to ATF.

Anonymous said...

For those that are incapable of understanding the above, 1934 gun control act is the same as 1934 (NFA) national firearms act the important word here is ACT notice the difference between ACT and AMENDMRNT? try very hard to understand that an ACT or a LAW is not an enforceable AMENDMENT. If we get into it with Mexico or North Korea every male will need to be armed. these unconstitutional weapons laws make us very vulnerable to armed attack. Once we are attacked there will be no time to change laws and pass out arms. the liberals want us disarmed to create and complete their open borders agenda. a country without borders is not a country. the Goal of the NWO is to create a world with no borders, just a world full of slaves. too many cultures do not mix so the Goal of the NWO will never work. World History is a fact that proves it will never work.