At age 19, monthly one-gun purchase limit is gone

[SecularMotion]

RICHMOND, Va. — After 19 years, the one-handgun-a-month law that ended Virginia's reputation as the East Coast arsenal for criminals has passed quietly into history.

The law, a legacy of former Gov. L. Douglas Wilder, faded into oblivion at midnight Sunday, the moment the Republican-run General Assembly appointed for its permanent repeal.

Now, rather than being limited to just one of the latest models from Glock, Sig Sauer or Smith & Wesson per month, you can walk out of a licensed Virginia gun shop with an armload if you have the money and can pass an instant background check.

http://www.therepublic.com/view/story/f55c8b3f948b40ea99a912dc9da9bf7f/VA--South-Portico

[Remmah2]

1. I can't afford one gun a month.

nt

[permatex]

5. Yeah

they get them from the ATF.

[oneshooter]

30. You do know that you can't hide your origional comment with an edit.

Original version with no edits.
4. But people who work for Mexican drug cartels can.
It's important that drug dealers have easy access to weapons.

Why do you hide so, scared?

Oneshooter
Armed and Livin in Texas

[Turbineguy]

35. Not scared

just decided that there is really nothing for me in this forum. I have nothing to contribute and nothing to take away. I have fixed my profile so this forum will not show up on my "latest threads" page.

[permatex]

2. Ok,

and the problem with this is...............
The only people this law impacted were honest citizens not the criminals.
Another win for gun rights.
Where oh where is that backlash I heard about?

[Hoyt]

6. Yea right, honest citizens need to buy an assault rifle or pistol a month. That's serious addiction.

I think after a few, it's time for a psychological evaluation.

[permatex]

7. And the problem with, IN YOUR OWN WORDS,

honest citizens being able to buy more than one firearm a month is.............
So what if it's a serious addiction? What you think has jack to do with what?

[Hoyt]

11. "Honest" citizens can buy a lot of things that are legal, but indicative of perversion - swastikas,

confederate flags are a few closely related examples.

[permatex]

12. Again, and your point is...........?

Legal is legal no matter what it is. The only people this now, thankfully, defunct law impacted were honest citizens. The criminals didn't give a hoot about 1 gun a month.

[Tejas]

64. "Nazis" and "racists" are his labels for lawful gunowners?

[4th law of robotics]

17. I think people who buy hundreds of pairs of shoes

assuming they only have two feet are perhaps a bit unhinged.

That's certainly not something I would waste my money on.

Then again I would never consider using the law to stop them from doing this.

[Hoyt]

25. Shoes and lethal weapons aren't in the same category, except to right wing gun toters, militia types

compound dwellers, bigots, and maybe a few misguided liberals.

[4th law of robotics]

31. Wow, an impressive series of personal insults and broad brush stereotypes

But I suppose if I knew my argument were completely devoid of supporting evidence I might tend to lash out in such a way as well.

Please provide stats that people who buy 2 guns per month are significantly more dangerous to society than those who buy 1 gun a month.

[Hoyt]

44. You guys crack me up. Always wanting stats for something that is clear to anyone not stuck on guns.

This is politics, we are talking about whether more and more guns are good for society, now and long term. I personally think more yahoos -- and yes the vast majority of gun lovers and toters are Tbag bigots (not necessarily those here) -- carrying guns is not in our best interest.

The gun culture would have us just sit quietly and watch another 100 million guns added to the pot during the next decade.

Sooner or later, we are going to have to bite the bullet and deal with this junk.

[4th law of robotics]

48. Yes, if you make factual claims you must back them with facts

saying it's clear to you is irrelevant.

Creationism is clear to some people. As is the causal link between vaccines and autism.

And I have no doubt that to *you* the link is clear.

But I was more interested in reality. Is the link also clear in the real world (ie: outside of your imagination)?

If so, provide evidence. If not then preface your statements with "these statements are not backed by a subjective reality and are the sole opinion of Hoyt, no one else".

[Hoyt]

49. Using your example - I'm the realistist, you are gun fundie.

I can predict a logical future with ever more guns. Fortunately 95% of population are not gun obsessed, and they don't need to carry into public.

Besides, we can't prove God exists or not, but I'm pretty sure of answer/facts.

[4th law of robotics]

80. You're the realist because you refuse to use facts?

Actually you find the mere mention of them to be unpleasant.

Fascinating. This is some impressive projection.

Tell me about your mother . . .

[4th law of robotics]

82. I just want you to be clear on what you're arguing

facts are irrelevant, what you *feel* to be true is the only reality.

I don't suppose you'd accept anyone else's feelings as proof if they contradicted yours would you?

[permatex]

51. So in other words

all you have are,(cue music), feelings, nothing more than feelings. Why is it when you are asked to provide proof of your statements, you launch a distraction, why is that?
Is it because you are so devoid of logic and fact that that's all you have left?

[Hoyt]

53. What do you have that "proves" guns are good for society?

[permatex]

54. I never said they were good or bad

they are just tools that can be used for good or bad, nothing more, nothing less. Now, how about the proof I asked for?

[Hoyt]

55. I just gave you proof that you have nothing but your opinion.

Mine may not be better in your opinion, but more guns, more carriers, more supporters of koresh, weaver, and more, are clearly not in society's interest.

I suppose you would have said Newton, Columbus, etc., had no stats either back in their day.

[permatex]

57. What proof?

My proof lies in poll after poll that shows support for more gun control laws are at an all time low, my proof lies in the fact that we now have 49 states, soon to be 50, that have some form of conceal carry laws, my proof lies in the FBI stats that show violent crime is at a 20 year low but yet gun ownership is rising.

Whats your proof? I mean besides your feelings and opinion.

[Hoyt]

65. And there are states that have harsh laws for immigrants, bad banking oversight,

lax pollution laws, etc. They are wrong too.

That's not proof of whether something is good for society.

[permatex]

66. You just got spanked and you don't realize it.

All you have is deflect, deflect, deflect. I guess when faced with fact, thats all you have.

[4th law of robotics]

83. "I suppose you would have said Newton, Columbus, etc., had no stats either back in their day."

This . . can't . . . no. . . a human being could not possibly have made this thought.


Are you a random word generator?

[Hoyt]

84. You just can't understand a reference to "flat earthers" who wouldn't change their minds either

because there was no "proof" the world was round or there was gravity.

[4th law of robotics]

85. Um, there is proof for both those things

you are the flat earther in this analogy.

You are the one insisting on some TRUTH (!) in absence of evidence.

You really don't think there is evidence that the earth is round or that gravity exists?

[Hoyt]

86. Not then. Seriously, you should not be making life and death decisions.

They need to beef up testing for permits.

[4th law of robotics]

87. Do you even read what you write?

You are repeatedly ask to prove your claims. You scoff at the notion and say that if there's no proof of gravity or that the earth is round why should you have to back your feelings with evidence.

I point out that there is evidence for both those things and you go off on some even more bizarre tangent.

Are you feeling ok? Maybe take a break from the internet for a while. Go for a walk or something.

[Hoyt]

88. You haven't proven guns help. Your only attempt at proof is saying a bunch of right wingers support

guns, so that proves they are good.

[4th law of robotics]

89. Burden of proof is, as always

on the side of those who would restrict our freedoms.

Prove that the 2nd amendment is a threat.

And no I never mentioned right wingers. What are you talking about?

[Clames]

61. Sitting quietly isn't far from what your side is doing now.

Bunch of keyboard commandos that do little besides complain and insult. Don't spend money, don't write letters, don't do anything substantial which is why anti-gun groups have such dismal membership.

[Hoyt]

70. One would hope that those who pollute society with guns, might change

someday. I know the tbag gun club won't, but some of you just might accept the obvious truth.

[permatex]

71. The obvious truth according to who?

You?

[rl6214]

76. But he has hope...

[Hoyt]

81. I do have hope that some of you will outgrow your infantile dependence on guns.

[rl6214]

92. You are projecting your term "infantile" on someone that has NO dependence on guns.

[NewMoonTherian]

43. And those items are protected by the first amendment.

I despise the Nazi swastika(there are many other swastikas used by different cultures with different meanings), but I'm not trying to warp the meaning of the first amendment to allow the government to restrict its use.

[Hoyt]

46. You get my point. Many things that are "legal" are not moral or good for society.

We need to treat guns like cigarettes and change people's attitudes toward the dang things. Glamorizing guns is not in our best interest, well unless one profits from guns (and many do).

[permatex]

52. Not working out to well is it?

Support for new gun control laws are at an all time low.
And who determines whether glamorizing guns is or isn't in our best interest? You?

[NewMoonTherian]

60. I'm not even sure what constitutes glamorizing.

There are some pretty clearcut cases where that does take place, but I don't think encouraging the responsible carry of handguns is glamorizing them.

[permatex]

63. I'm not sure either

was just mocking him.

[NewMoonTherian]

59. As long as you're content to try to change attitudes, and not laws...

we'll get along. I don't agree, but we'll get along.

[atreides1]

28. I don't get it

I support the Second Amendment and the all the others as well...I'm an NRA member, though with pasty asshats like Lapierre, Chris Cox, and Ted Nugent...i've decided not to renew my membership...not much use for an organization that deep down is an advocate for a one party government...history has shown that those types of governments become ditatorships!

But given that most humans only have two hands, why would anyone need more then two guns?

And an addiction of any kind shows a lack of inner strength, evne if it is legal!

[permatex]

32. Your kidding me, right?

You think that because humans only have 2 hands, we shouldn't have more that 2 guns?
You can't be serious!

I enjoy owning and shooting all types of firearms, so what? It was a tongue in cheek comment when I told Hoyt that I was addicted to guns, I didn't think anyone would take me seriously.
Stunning.

[Hoyt]

47. "Addicted to guns" -- that was clearly obvious long ago.

[permatex]

50. Define a long time ago

considering I've only been here for a week or so.
Define addicted to guns, if you mean that I enjoy firearms, then, thats all it is, an admiration for fine tools, I also enjoy working on my classic car restoring it with my tools, does that make me addicted to hand tools I use to work on said vehicle?

If thats what you think, then so be it.

[Clames]

42. How many spoons do you have?

How many wrenches, saws, knives, flashlights, hammers, shovels, and rakes do you have? Do you have more than one car or bike?

[4th law of robotics]

16. People supporting a ban need to provide evidence

you have to demonstrate that some real harm comes from people buying more than one gun a month (and you not liking it doesn't count as real harm) and that a ban like this would be effective in preventing said harm.

That's how it works.

So provide evidence.

[Clames]

3. Any legitimate evidence to support this statement...

...the one-handgun-a-month law that ended Virginia's reputation as the East Coast arsenal for criminals...

Law didn't change a damn thing when it was enacted and it won't change anything with its demise. Cue the whining from the anti-gunners in 3....2....1...

[Callisto32]

8. That is where I decided to stop reading.

Lol.

[SecularMotion]

9. Vote to Repeal “One Gun a Month”

Virginia’s gun laws were strengthened in the early 1990s by the passage of the one-gun-a-month law and by 1994’s Brady Law establishing background checks on gun purchasers. Before then, Virginia had gotten the reputation of being a great place for out-of-state gun dealers to purchase cheap guns to sell illegally in other states. This process, known as straw purchasing, led to guns purchased in Virginia being used in criminal acts in Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington, DC, and New Jersey. At one point, Virginia gun dealers were found to supply more than 40% of guns seized in crimes in New York City.

In a statement issued by Delegate Morrissey(D) following the House vote, he said, “this is a very sad day for Virginia. Governor Wilder’s signature piece of legislation that limited a purchase to one handgun a month has been overturned.” Morrissey went on to say, “Before this piece of legislation passed in 1993, Virginia was known as the ‘Straw Purchase Capitol of the East Coast’. The repeal of this law has set Virginia back almost 2 decades.”

http://www.vahousedems.com/p/salsa/web/press_release/public/?press_release_KEY=819

[Clames]

14. None of that substantiates the effect of the law.

Operative word there is "effect". Try again.

[SecularMotion]

18. Guns from the South

"The restriction had an immediate impact on Virginia guns found at crime scenes out of state. According to the Journal of the American Medical Association and ATF records of traced firearms used in crimes, 41 percent of crime scene guns found in New York City in 1991 originated in Virginia. Two years after the restriction was put in place Virginia guns only accounted for 15 percent of total guns used in crime there.

The net effect of the restriction did not hold up over time, however, and by 2006 Virginia was once again a top supplier of guns used in out of state crime. Colin Goddard, a survivor of the 2007 Virginia Tech mass shooting and spokesperson for the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, notes that guns trafficked from Virginia are caused by ever increasing exceptions to the one-handgun-per-month restriction.

“Lobby groups like the NRA started taking away pieces of the law until they could claim it was redundant. The law did not apply to private sales, collectors, and not if you had a concealed handgun permit,” said Goddard in a telephone interview. “Basically everyone was exempted except gun traffickers.”

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2012/jul/03/guns-south/

[Clames]

37. You must be one of those who thinks correlation equals causation.

In other words, those who slept through math class. Those of us who didn't sleep though our math classes (many, many of them in my case) learned that such spikes or drops do not hold much value especially when establishing a trend in the data points. Errata does interesting things. Also, you can blame the NRA for weakening the law all you want. Fact is (and you'd know this if you troubled yourself to actually READ the law) is that most of those exceptions where already in place. As was cited in the report linked by DanTex (something else you have failed to read) there was notation about certain applications that applied to private buyers, collectors, and others.


Try again. But please do some reading this time.

[SecularMotion]

38. Your condescending attitude shows you have no argument when faced with facts.

Your denial of the effect of the law after 2 years is laughable.

[Clames]

40. Your willful ignorance shows you have no argument when faced with facts.

Fact:

Since the implementation of the thirty-day prohibition on mulitple handgun purchases in 1993, purchasers are required, under 18.2-308.2:2(Q), to apply for a Multiple Handgun Purchase Certificate which authorizes the purchase of more than one handgun in a thirty-day period. To receive a certificate, the purpose must be for lawful business use, lawful personal use, inclusion in a collector series, a bulk purchase from an estate sale, or for similar purposes.

Your clinging to the the notion that it was the NRA that later weakened the law when it had such exemptions from its onset is laughable. Sad too. I deny that anyone can conclusively PROVE that it was the law, and only the law, that caused such a decline in the TRACING of guns to Virginia (the report states that it is not known if there was an impact of trafficking volume due to listed limitations). Sorry, your technical ignorance on this subject will continue to trip you until you actually start doing your own research and cease parroting the shoddy work of anti-gun organizations who have no interest in objectivity.

[gejohnston]

41. according to the ATF,

The plurality of DC crime guns were from Maryland, while most NYC are from New York. Since the average crime gun is over ten years old, they are not being bought and sent to the black market new, esp. when you consider the black market price for a gun is less than retail.

BTW, multiple handgun purchases are still reported to the ATF. Has been law since 1968.

[DanTex]

10. Yup. The Virginia State Crime Commission did a report on the effects of the law.

http://leg2.state.va.us/dls/h&sdocs.nsf/fc86c2b17a1cf388852570f9006f1299/60ab93d32c1eeac0852562b7007995a7/$FILE/HD28_1996.pdf
After passing the law Virginia dropped from #1 to #8 as the source of crime guns on the East Coast. Yet again, the facts and statistics are one side, and the gun loons on the other!

[permatex]

13. Gun loons

where have I heard that before, oh yeah, over at MikeB302000 website. How original.

[DanTex]

15. Really? Someone else has used the term "gun loon" before? What a shock!!!

[Clames]

20. Yup. You and your boys love insults like that.

"gun loons", "gun nuts", "gun lovers", "gun sympathizers" (wtf that means anyway)....list goes on. Very predictable.

[permatex]

33. Ah, ah, ah,

don't forget "gun religionists".

[rl6214]

77. And then there is our favorite from north of the border...

Gun Militant

Haven't heard that one since she was tombstoned though.

[Clames]

19. Relevant statement you seem to have glossed over.

The Virginia Department of State Police report confirmed that only 8% of the applications for multiple handgun purchases have been denied.

So basically there is no evidence that this law had any real, long term impact (considering it was commissioned and based on only 2 years, at the most, of evidence) over the course of its existence and you can only point to one rather old report. Seems that the anti-gun parrots have tripped themselves up again in their rush to attach numbers to anything they can to support their cause. I keep seeing that Virginia was responsible for 40% of the guns traced back but the only figure I can see is a 39% that was assigned to S.C. that was referenced in this report.

[SecularMotion]

21. There was no long term impact after the NRA weakened the law

“Lobby groups like the NRA started taking away pieces of the law until they could claim it was redundant. The law did not apply to private sales, collectors, and not if you had a concealed handgun permit,” said Goddard in a telephone interview. “Basically everyone was exempted except gun traffickers.”

http://www.connectionnewspapers.com/news/2012/jul/03/guns-south/

[Clames]

22. According to the report cited...

...the law already did not apply to private sales or collectors from the day it was put into practice. Hence the provision for an application process.

The report cited also said Virginia dropped from #1 to #8. Yet...

Virginia is the number one out-of-state source of crime guns in New York, and one of the top suppliers nationally,” said Bloomberg. “If they care about innocent people and police officers being shot, they should be strengthening laws — as we have done in New York — to keep guns away from criminals, not weakening them.”

Seems someone is cooking the numbers and it isn't who you wish it would be...

[Dr_Scholl]

24. Virginia has a lower violent crime and murder rate than New York.

Bloomberg needs to STFU and stop embarrasing himself.

[DanTex]

23. LOL. I see that denialism has become second nature to the gun fanatics!

The number of illegal guns trafficked from Virginia dropped dramatically after the law was passed. This is an example of what scientifically literate people call "empirical evidence". The report is "old" because the law was old. The low denial rate doesn't account for would-be gun traffickers who were deterred from even applying for a waiver. In fact, it shows that legitimate gun owners were not unduly affected by this. Etc.

Do I really have to explain this stuff? Seriously, now matter how low my expectations are, the gungeoneers always seem to find new depths of ignorance that I never imagined were possible.

[Clames]

26. Did it?

The stated the number of guns TRACED dropped. It specifically states there is little to imply that the law impacted the actual numbers trafficked due to secondary markets. Do I really need to spell out plain English in black and white for you? Obviously you didn't even read the report YOU CITED.

[DanTex]

27. LOL. No wonder there never seem to be any pro-gunners in scientific circles...

The BATF has dropped Virginia from first to eight on its list of East Coast source states for guns used in criminal actions.

The person who takes issue with this in the report is Dr. Paul Blackman, lobbyist and researcher for the National Rifle Association. Gee, what a shock, the NRA lobbyist disagrees with the study! LOL.

Please tell me you are not really this clueless. That you are able to distinguish the conclusions of the study from the comments of a gun lobbyist.

On edit, here's another fun sentence from the report:

Dr Blackman (NRA lobbyist) did not present any documentation of statistical data to support his comments.

Well, whaddyaknow! The DU pro-gunners aren't the only gun nuts that make dumb arguments that they can't back with any data!

[Clames]

39. Are you going to properly respond or aren't you?

You specifically stated "trafficked". The report you cite specifically stated "traced". If you have difficulty understanding the difference then I suggest you enlist the aid of a Webster's dictionary or Google the terms.

[DanTex]

67. I see dumb people.

This is you one post ago:

The stated the number of guns TRACED dropped. It specifically states there is little to imply that the law impacted the actual numbers trafficked due to secondary markets. Do I really need to spell out plain English in black and white for you? Obviously you didn't even read the report YOU CITED.

This is me pointing out that the study concluded that the actual amount of gun trafficking was significantly impacted by the law, and the only person who tried to deny this was the NRA lobbyist:

The person who takes issue with this in the report is Dr. Paul Blackman, lobbyist and researcher for the National Rifle Association. Gee, what a shock, the NRA lobbyist disagrees with the study! LOL.

And this last post is you trying to run away from your dishonesty/ignorance. Sorry, it didn't work.

[Clames]

93. I see failure of reading comprehension.

The study YOU cited specifically states that it is unknown how the law impacted trafficking due to secondary sources. Just proving your ignorance and the fact you didn't even read that study.

[S_B_Jackson]

79. The one-handgun-a-month law sure as hell didn't stop Mike Bloomberg's whining about

"all our guns are coming from Virginia".......it's repeal won't change Mikey's tune.

[gregoire]

29. So VA is going to flood NYC with even more guns

That's what this issue is really about. Most of the violent deaths in NYC are the fault of gun owners in VA. Now VA is going to murder even more.

[permatex]

34. Suuuuuuuuuuuure they are

pull the other one, it's got bells.
What a stupid statement.

[friendly_iconoclast]

36. In much the same way drunk driving deaths are the fault of Ford, Honda, Chevrolet, etc.

You need to contact defense lawyers in New York ASAP. I see *many* appeals in the future:

"Your Honor, my client deserves a new trial. His conviction was based on a false premise; the murder was actually committed by a plumber from Front Royal, Virginia..."

By remote control, one presumes...

[gregoire]

56. If Ford was targeting known drunks...

and their products were illegal then your analogy would hold water. Instead we have violent people buying guns then giving or selling them to people in NYC that they know will cause crime. Those idiots in VA know exactly what they're doing.

[gejohnston]

68. what violent people are those?

and why are illegal guns so much below retail on the illegal market?

[SkatmanRoth]

45. Spoons make people fat

Completing a silverware purchase for a bridal registry results in an obese newlywed and guilt resides with who?

[ileus]

58. I picked up my gun for the month...

Ruger SR22

http://cdn.gunsamerica.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/gun+wi+case+and+accessories1.JPG



My wife want's on now.

[permatex]

62. My next acquisition is going to be the Valmet Mod. 76 ,223 cal.

for about $1800.00 if the little lady of the house will let me.

[ileus]

69. One of the best if not the best...

[ileus]

72. Does ANYONE here realize CHP holders were exempt from this law?

Why would you celebrate a law that didn't apply to a class of citizens?

If this law was meant to help curb straw purchases why did it not apply to all Virginian citizens?


Let's face it...this was feel good law that did nothing for anyone but hassle honest Virginian citizens.

[gejohnston]

73. as someone who does not live in Virginia,

no I did not know that.

[permatex]

74. Oh lord

now you've done it, introduced fact into their fiction.

[rl6214]

75. Must not be that important to you since you didn't comment on it.

[cantbeserious]

78. If One Can Fire Only One Gun At A Time - Why The Need For Dozens To Hundreds Of Guns In One Haul?

eom

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

90. Technically, you can fire two guns at a time.

Not to mention that different guns serve different purposes. It's not like one gun can "do it all"

[4th law of robotics]

91. How many cars can you drive at once?

Or how many shoes can one person wear at a time?

Does it matter? Shall we limit people to buying only one pair of shoes at a time because it isn't practical to buy more?