One major problem with gun laws.

[Deadric Damodred]

Gun laws can be very confusing because they are so different from state to state. But what makes them even more confusing is that in some states they are even different depending on what part of the state you are in. Here's a good example:

In Missouri, if you don't have a CWP, you can still have a loaded handgun in your car as long as you are eligible to own one and it is in the glove compartment. This law is the same everywhere in the state. As a matter-of-fact, all Missouri's gun laws are the same no matter where you are in the state; it's very simple and easy to understand. However, in Illinois, the gun laws are different depending are where you are at. You can own a handgun in one part of the state, but if you drive through other parts of the state with it in your car, even unloaded and locked in a box in the trunk, you are committing a crime. In some parts of Illinois "assault weapons" are illegal (Cook County), but in other parts they are ok.

Now I want to avoid talking about State regulation verus Federal regulation, because I think both sides already have a pretty good idea of what their wants of federal legislation would be. I know it would be a whole heck of a lot easier if gun laws were uniform all over the nation, but that's never going to happen. However, I think individual States need to figure out what it is they want. If they are going to be anti-gun, at least make it the same for the entire state, that way it's not going to be confusing for people who are passing through. This "this is ok in this part of the state, but not in this part of the state" stuff has got to stop.

[Statistical]

1. Most states have passed pre-emption.

Gives all authority on gun control to the state. Most also include language saying any local ordinances are non-enforceable.

Illinois however has Chicago. Every elected offical in Chicago is rabidly antigun. Anti every aspect of guns. No compromise.

There have been a couple attempts at geting pre-emption in IL but the delegates from Chicago have blocked that.

This is why IL is just one of 2 states with no form of private conceal carry in the entire country.

Pre-emption simplifies a lot of the laws.

[Hoopla Phil]

2. My one problem with most gun "control" laws?

They invariably, only affect those willing to obey the law.

[Endangered Specie]

3. How about second amendment rights being incorporated...

and no state can pass gun control legislation, much like no state can pass free speech restricting legislation.

[Deadric Damodred]

4. That's probably not far off.

Now that the NRA has appealed Chicago's ban to the SCOTUS, it's almost a given that we'll get a 5-4 decision in our favor for incorporation.

[Statistical]

5. Well don't give NRA too much credit.

It is Alan Gura as lead plantiff. NRA loves to stamp their name on anything that is going good and deny anything that is going bad. When Mr Gura sued DC (Heller v. DC) the NRA tried to kill the case. They then tried to get it merged with their case so they could settle w/ the DC.

Not until the circuit court sided w/ Heller did NRA suddenly become supportive.
The way they tell it now it is like it was their idea from the beginning.

I do agree it will be 5-4. I can't see any of the 5 who voted in favor of Heller turning around and saying a fundamental civil right is restricted to feds only.

Of course even if the 2nd is incorporated there will still be gun laws.

[X_Digger]

6. And even then..

.. I doubt many states are going to rush right out in the wake of a Heller II victory and scrub their laws to comply. Expect a flurry of local lawsuits.

[michreject]

7. I don't believe that this is entirely true

but if you drive through other parts of the state with it in your car, even unloaded and locked in a box in the trunk, you are committing a crime.

There is such a thing called a "peaceful journey law". You can go from point A to point B without breaking any laws. The problem arrises when you deviate off course, such as a visiting Granny and whatnot.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00000926---A000-.html

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

[Deadric Damodred]

8. I am willing to bet..

...that the police in Chicago would ignore that and arrest a person passing through the city and state if they pulled that person over and found they had an unloaded handgun locked in the trunk with the ammunition in a seperate container.

[one-eyed fat man]

9. The law you are quoting was passed in 1986

It was to mitigate some of the problems with a couple of states routinely rousting travelers, even airline passengers with firearms in their checked baggage on connecting flights. It was particularly egregious at Boston's Logan airport in the 70's. It was mostly a revenue producing trap.

Now if you are legally transporting a cased and unloaded firearm, are stopped for a "broken taillight" on I-94 by an Illinois State Policeman and he "requests" to search your trunk.............What do you say?