there were several discussions recently that prompted me to think about the "benefit" of limiting the ability of one to purchase (gain control of) a handgun only in the state of one's residence.
apparently this is not the case for at least some long guns (shotguns).
The only consequence of this Fed law (that I can see) seems to be that it allows tyrannical states like MA to make the lives of their resident gun owners miserable by limiting what they can and cannot buy. It allows the state to keep tabs on what their residents buy, i.e. the state could enforce the whole registration nonsense, if the state is so inclined.
In other words this law allows individual states to attempt to control gun owners if the state is so inclined. Without this federal law, the whole EOPS approved roster and AG "black list of guns" etc, are utterly useless, IMO.
I do not see how this Fed law prevents criminal activity! It simply prevents people living in states like MA from enjoying their 2nd A rights. It's not like the background check in NH is worse than that in MA and a criminal will be sold a gun in NH but never in MA.
I am aware that the requirements for handgun ownership are different in different states. If we agree that in order to own a gun in a given state one has to satisfy the state's requirements for ownership in that particular state, it still does not explain why one should not be able to buy (and even gain control) of the gun anywhere else. Conceptually it makes no sense.
Am I missing something here?
How did this limitation come to be? Was that a part of the 1998 gun control legislation? Is this limitation trying to accomplish anything besides gun-control in its most basic form?
thanks for any comments,
Alexi
apparently this is not the case for at least some long guns (shotguns).
The only consequence of this Fed law (that I can see) seems to be that it allows tyrannical states like MA to make the lives of their resident gun owners miserable by limiting what they can and cannot buy. It allows the state to keep tabs on what their residents buy, i.e. the state could enforce the whole registration nonsense, if the state is so inclined.
In other words this law allows individual states to attempt to control gun owners if the state is so inclined. Without this federal law, the whole EOPS approved roster and AG "black list of guns" etc, are utterly useless, IMO.
I do not see how this Fed law prevents criminal activity! It simply prevents people living in states like MA from enjoying their 2nd A rights. It's not like the background check in NH is worse than that in MA and a criminal will be sold a gun in NH but never in MA.
I am aware that the requirements for handgun ownership are different in different states. If we agree that in order to own a gun in a given state one has to satisfy the state's requirements for ownership in that particular state, it still does not explain why one should not be able to buy (and even gain control) of the gun anywhere else. Conceptually it makes no sense.
Am I missing something here?
How did this limitation come to be? Was that a part of the 1998 gun control legislation? Is this limitation trying to accomplish anything besides gun-control in its most basic form?
thanks for any comments,
Alexi
)I'd imagine only residents of states with firearms rosters as bad as MA will be seriously inconvenienced by that law. 
