Talk:Gun laws in the United States by state/Archive 3

Additional citations?
Recently a Refimprove tag was added to this article ("This article needs additional citations for verification....) But, should this article have a Refimprove tag?  Why or why not, and if yes, what additional references would justify taking off the tag?  I'll start.
 * No, the tag should be taken off because the references currently in the article are sufficient. This article is a summary of, and convenient place to navigate to, the 51 state articles, each of which should have their own detailed references.  Of course many of the state sections in this article contain summary tables, and like any Wikipedia article this one should include reliable references that substantiate the facts.  But the article already contains such references.  They're in the "External links" section, which links to web sites -- seven of them at the moment -- that substantiate all the summary tables.  Additionally there are some inline footnotes that are left over from when the article was split up a few months ago.  I'm interested to hear other editors' opinions on this subject.  Exactly what level of referencing, or what types of references, would be good enough for taking off the tag? — Mudwater (Talk) 11:58, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Each state has it's own section in this article, with a link to their own respective article - it appears to me that those individual articles's references have been used to corroborate information in this article. That's totally fine. However, when those individual articles have no references whatsoever, Delaware and Ohio examples, there's an issue - and that's 'where does the information come from?' - I can tell you right now, I have no idea. External links, are external link not references - they can be used in the same capacity as references - only if they are cited using . -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 09:45, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) References do not have to be in-line footnotes. Per Citing sources, "A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not displayed as an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a References section."  Per External links, "Sites that have been used as sources in the creation of an article should be cited in the article, and linked as references, either in-line or in a references section. Links to these source sites are not "external links" for the purposes of this guideline... "  So the tags are in fact not mandatory.  However the current "External links" section should be called "References".  (2) So, the general (non-footnote) references serve to validate the information in the article.  Based on that, would you agree that the Refimprove tag can be removed?  You bring up the point that some of the state articles, like Delaware and Ohio, have no references.  Then maybe those articles, and not this one, should have the tag. — Mudwater (Talk) 11:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll remove the f\tage per this discussion - maybe the content used in this article that is unsourced in their seperate article's should be removed too? -- MST  ☆  R   (Chat Me!) 05:51, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Individual state articles
Now that each state has its own article, it might be a good idea to just have the tables here and put any text only in each state's individual article. In fact, I've already done this with Arizona's section. What does everyone think? Hoplophile (talk) 10:45, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * To me that seems reasonable. As you know, this is a continuation of the discussion in the  section above.  There seemed, or seems, to be a fair amount of support for splitting the article in this way, and so far there are state gun law articles for 12 states.  For states with their own articles, like Arizona, leaving just the table in this article -- preceded by a Main template linking to the state article -- sounds like a good way to go. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

New table entry
I'd like to suggest a new entry for the tables: whether or not State law provides for enforceability of "no guns allowed" signs posted by commercial establishments. In some states such signs have no law behind them, and the only legal repercussion for carrying in spite of such a sign is Trespass. In other states the signs have the force of law, but only if they meet specific requirements for content, form and location. And in still others, any such sign has force of law. It would be good to cover these distinctions with references where appropriate to the controlling statute. Some of the tables do contain this information, but it is buried in other entries and thus it is difficult to get an overview; one state has an "opt-out statute" entry, but that description is terribly obscure. — Jhardin@impsec (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that adding that information to the notes of the concealed carry/open carry sections of the tables is a good idea, but Im not sure I think a seperate line is a good idea, as it doesn't make sense in all states, and it is really just a detail about concealed/open carry. You can easily go down the path of making sections for every twist and turn of the laws (Castle law, is it SYG or not, is it MMD or not, etc) which would make the tables difficult to read. I think if we can put it in as a note easily, great, but otherwise if readers need that level of detail, they should go to the text. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:44, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It already is a separate item in one state as the "opt-out status" I noted. I'd accept a standardization of the description, and omission of the entry indicating "signs have no legal force". Jhardin@impsec (talk) 18:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Im not sure what you mean by "I'd accept..." Is there some problem with that particular entry you are pointing out? Gaijin42 (talk) 18:42, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * By "I'd accept" I mean I wouldn't object further. "opt out" in that entry is a terrible way to indicate something is about signage. I'd suggest a standard entry description, perhaps "gun-free zones" because that term is very well known. Jhardin@impsec (talk) 18:48, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with GFZ is that usually means places like schools, courthouses, etc that are mandatorily exempt. But I suppose it accurately covers the signage umbrella too. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:08, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That might not present a problem. The entry could list locations that are prohibited by State law in excess of Federal prohibitions, as well as signage laws. Jhardin@impsec (talk) 19:31, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Florida Handgun purchase
In the State of Florida, to obtain a new handgun of any type, requires that one be fingerprinted at a local sheriff's office and that is checked with the national registry of criminals. It is also run through the FBI for verification. Then one must wait three days before possession of the firearm, which can only be picked up at a licensed firearm dealer's place of business. A concealed carry permit (CCW) requires schooling by a registered agent, a firing test to ascertain proficiency with the weapon and a test to ascertain knowledge of rules ands state laws governing handgun possession. If one does not have a CCW permit, they may have a weapon in their vehicle if in a location which is difficult to reach (trunk, glove compartment or case in unreachable area of the car). They may freely exercise their "castle rights" in their home and on their property.

If duly licensed, their weapon must be concealed. Brandishing is illegal. Imprinting such as by wind while worn under a shirt of a carried handgun is usually not illegal unless the garment is too tight and intended to display the fact that the person is armed. A weapon may be carried anywhere in a vehicle but must be out of general sight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.200.140.33 (talk) 21:01, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Peaceable Journey laws?
I came here to find out about Peaceable Journey laws. It is mentioned several times but there is no section or page that explains what it is. Sheherazahde (talk) 05:28, 18 April 2013 (UTC)
 * I can give you a quick rundown, but I don't really have any sources close at hands to actually add to the article...maybe I'll do that later.


 * Anyway, the Peaceable Journey law that was added to the 1986 Firearm Owners Protection Act works like this: So long as the firearm is legal in the state you live in and the state you are going to, you don't have to worry about whether it is legal in any of the states in between so long as you:


 * 1) Keep the firearm unloaded in a locked container outside of the passenger compartment, and
 * 2) do not linger in any state where the firearm is illegal. In other words, you can stop for gas and and a bathroom break, but if you stop for any longer than that you can be arrested for possessing an illegal firearm.


 * This law was created so that people traveling by car from, say, Pennsylvania to New Hampshire for something like a shooting competition can't be prosecuted in New York for having a pistol without a permit. - Bardbom (talk) 07:52, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * Thanks. That's what I wanted to know.  I really think that sort of information should be in the article. Sheherazahde (talk) 22:08, 16 June 2013 (UTC)


 * It is in the article, in brief summary form, in the "Common subjects of state laws" section. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:09, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

No standardization of tables?
I am just wondering why the tables are not standardized among states. Is there a specific reason why different states have different categories? Just compare the tables for Alabama, Alaska, and Arizona for an example of the inconsistency. 64.71.89.252 (talk) 15:59, 1 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The article kind of evolved that way over time. Note also that the tables are transcluded from the individual state articles, so for example to change the table for Alabama one would edit the "Gun laws in Alabama" article, not the "Gun laws in the United States by state" article.  In my opinion, it's okay for the tables to stay the way they are, not standardized.  But if an effort was made to standardize them, then I think three things would be important.  (1) No information should be lost from the existing tables.  (2) It should still be easy for editors to edit the tables, so keeping them as standard wikitables, instead of using a template, might be preferable.  (3) There should be a consensus here on this talk page about what exactly the standardized table should look like.  But I'm really not sure it would be worth the effort.  — Mudwater (Talk) 23:30, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Ammunition laws
As with registration expiration, I think ammunition laws should be included on tables at some point. Several jurisdictions (DC, MA) define ammunition to include spent shell cases that can be used in reloading. DC and NJ require a firearms registration certificate to buy ammunition. In DC originally one could only legally possess ammunition for the registered caliber and that restriction was removed about 20 months ago, meaning it if you have a registered .9mm pistol you can buy and possess .22, .223, .40, 45, 30-08 etc, just not 50 bmg since no 50 bmg long guns are allowed in DC.

NRA-ILA has a section on ammunition for each state and we should as well. It especially should be done and correct here since NRA-ILA is filled with so much incorrect and dated information (at least half a dozen major aspects of DC firearms law are incorrect on the NRA-ILA site).108.18.64.127 (talk) 01:29, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Expiry term of registration
In DC registrations on handguns and long guns expire every three years and must be renewed. This means every three years a new background check and fees, and potentially non grandfathering should registered firearm weapon be taken off "allowed' list for each and every firearm owned.  Any other states with expiring registration (of weapons ownership not ccw)?108.18.64.127 (talk) 00:40, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * None, that I'm aware of. There is absolutely no reason for it other than to punish law-abiding gun owners. Washington D.C. has been fighting tooth and nail since the Heller ruling to keep gun ownership as difficult and expensive as possible, and this is another example of that. - Bardbom (talk) 02:01, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Gun laws in DC are certainly now less onerous in most ways than quite a few states. If you decide you want a handgun in DC and are not prohibited by the NCIC, you order the handgun and ten days later you have it. So it is certainly less restrictive in the key issues than for example than current NJ or Maryland realties which are 3 to 6 months to get a handgun. Since 2008 what has been going on is significant reductions in the restrictions first in 2010 and then with several changes in 2012. I am not arguing for any of those DC restrictions, but they are less than in many other places now. I just did want clarification on whether any other jurisdiction had expiry of registration. I was under the impression that Massachusetts FID also had an expiry date. s that not the case?108.18.64.127 (talk) 13:21, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Magazine capacity
I recently reverted two edits by Lightbreather, here and here. I think the article should not refer to "high capacity magazines" or "large capacity magazines", since those terms are POV. I'm pretty sure that the laws that restrict magazines tend not to use those terms, and just restrict magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition. But on the other hand, if most of the laws really do use those terms, then maybe the article really should mention it, along the lines of "certain magazines that they have defined as "high-capacity magazines" or "large-capacity magazines"" -- similar to how the article already says that "some states and localities place additional restrictions on certain semi-automatic firearms that they have defined as "assault weapons"". What do other editors think about this? "P.S." The background or context is that this particular article has achieved a high level of neutrality, despite its controversial subject matter, by describing gun laws in a totally NPOV manner, and without entering into any areas of controversy. Yes, this article is "as dry as dust", and I mean that in a good way. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:12, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MW, for starting a discussion. I have absolutely no intention of POV-ing the article, just reflecting that, regardless of how some feel about it, the terms "high-capacity magazine" and "large-capacity magazine" are now commonly used  when talking about these laws... Just as "assault weapon" has become common use. Lightbreather (talk) 01:47, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, but we need to take into consideration the context in which these terms are used. Politicians and the media are notorious for using hyperbole to make a point or get attention. We're not here to assist them with their job, just to report factual information especially on controversial subjects. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 18:51, 15 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Examples of use in news:
 * "http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/03/15/conn-officials-tell-gun-owners-to-relinquish-or-destroy-banned-assault-weapons/?intcmp=latestnews"
 * "http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Attempted+murder+accused+faces+charges+weapons+drugs/9622376/story.html"
 * "http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303730804579440231622201174"
 * "http://www.boston.com/news/education/2014/03/14/conn-agency-offers-advice-gun-magazine-owners/5kjfM45kYAp4MKPToI4KOI/story.html"
 * "http://www.nbcconnecticut.com/news/local/State-Urges-Gun-Owners-to-Turn-in-Unregistered-Assault-Rifle-Weapon-Connecticut-250409491.html"
 * "http://articles.philly.com/2014-03-14/news/48225884_1_greenwald-gun-advocates-bill"
 * "http://www.nj.com/politics/index.ssf/2014/03/assembly_committee_approves_lower_limit_for_gun_magazines.html"
 * "http://abclocal.go.com/kfsn/story?section=news/local&id=9465888"
 * "http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Supreme-Court-won-t-block-ban-on-guns-5312320.php"
 * "http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/3/12/justice-kennedy-deniesrequesttoblockgunmagazinelaw.html"
 * "http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/11/gun-rights-will-scotus-block-implementat"
 * "http://reason.com/blog/2014/03/10/gun-owners-ask-scotus-to-block-implement"
 * "http://www.fresnobee.com/2014/03/08/3811031/california-cities-ban-high-capacity.html"
 * "http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_25298263/sunnyvales-ammo-magazine-ban-is-effect-but-what"
 * "http://posttrib.suntimes.com/news/porter/25827376-418/high-speed-chase-ends-with-crash-five-arrests-marijuana-seized.html"
 * "http://nocera.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/02/20/the-gun-report-february-20-2014/"
 * "http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/S-F-wins-ruling-on-high-capacity-gun-magazines-5249792.php"
 * "http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-oxy-guns-20140218,0,5618801.story#axzz2w4ZkQH3l"
 * "http://articles.courant.com/2014-02-15/news/hc-guns-malloy-compromise-0215-20140214_1_post-office-applications-malloy"
 * "http://www.aurorasentinel.com/news/senator-says-didnt-mean-hurt-aurora-victims/"
 * "http://www.msnbc.com/morning-joe/good-thing-aurora-shooter-had-100-round-mag"
 * "http://learning.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/01/06/weekly-news-quiz-dec-31-2013-jan-6-2014/"
 * "http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/16/us/sheriffs-refuse-to-enforce-laws-on-gun-control.html"
 * "http://nypost.com/2012/07/30/gun-for-the-road/"


 * Vendors: "http://www.google.com/#q=high-capacity+magazine&safe=active&tbm=shop"


 * Enthusiasts: "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z_RcXbAz_o8"


 * The NRA: "http://www.nrastandandfight.com/video/high-capacity"

--Lightbreather (talk) 22:55, 15 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The terms "large capacity magazine" or "high capacity magazine" are often used, so if you do a google search, you'll get a lot of hits. But those terms are associated with a pro-gun-control agenda, and are disputed by pro-gun-rights groups, which makes them POV.  Our goal for this article should be a completely neutral point of view, achieved by avoiding any judgmental statements or biased terminology.  That's why the article refers to "magazines that can hold more than a certain number of rounds of ammunition", and, in my opinion, this should not be changed. — Mudwater (Talk) 15:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree. Furthermore, if you're just a "gun enthusiast" and you are actually shopping for magazines (for example in the Vendors search above which results in parts for toy guns, not actual firearms) capacity is relative. A "standard capacity" magazine is whatever was issued with the gun, a magazine that can hold even a single additional round is technically a "high capacity magazine" even though its a misnomer to call it that. --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 19:05, 17 March 2014 (UTC)

State Pre-emption
The section titled "Common subjects of state laws" includes the statement, "Some states have state preemption for many or all gun laws, which means that only the state can legally regulate firearms. In other states, local governments can pass their own gun laws more restrictive than those of the state."

In light of McDonald v. Chicago, this presents a confusing set of circumstances IMO to the reader. One interpretation of the above phrase is that state or local governments can ban firearms completely and we know this to not be true. Can we come up with better wording and an additional entry? I attempted to, but it was reverted by. The text that I created was, "In some states, local governments can pass their own gun laws more restrictive than those of the state, but not to the extent that firearm ownership or possession is effectively prohibited." --Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (talk) 16:41, 13 May 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm open to rewording the statement. But, I think it should still use the phrase "state preemption", and explain what that means.  That section of the article is intended to explain the different rows in the state summary tables, which you can see by comparing the section to the tables.  And in my opinion, the way it's written now is not confusing, and does not suggest that local governments can ban firearm ownership or possession.  It just says that, without preemption, local governments can pass laws that are more restrictive than the state laws.  This is a sentence or short paragraph to briefly explain preemption; I don't see the need to point out that local governments can't ban gun ownership or otherwise violate the Second Amendment, and I don't think that the current wording suggests that they can. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:20, 14 May 2014 (UTC)

Felons
I'm not a dangerous man by all means, I'm a loving ,caring, grandfather in Indianapolis Indiana. I have custody of 2 of 4 grandchildren. I was in a motel in 2004 gave 4 pain pills to a guy who threw money on my bed for the pills, which I didn't ask for. So because of that with the mark money, because he was a cop, I was arrested and and served 3 of the 6 years in prison. It happened in July of 2004, and sentenced in December of 2004 served my time and no trouble since. My charge was dealing in a controlled substance 1,2,&3. I have my family and I want to protect them. Can I have a pistol in my house? Can I apply for a license to carry or just to have one in my home to protect? Or do I take a chance on hopefully not becoming a statistic? Brada3932 (talk) 19:39, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Request for Comment
What articles should be included in the "See also" section of "Gun laws in the United States by state"? — Mudwater (Talk) 22:08, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Interested editors are encouraged to review the discussion, immediately above, that took place before the request for comment. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:09, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - summoned by bot. I suggest you re-write your RfC to ask for position/comment on something specific rather than just pointing editors to a long discussion. Flat Out (talk) 02:45, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment - MOS:SEEALSO suggest this is a matter of editorial judgement and common sense. It's for tangentially related topics. Listing need be relevant and reflect links that would be present in a comprehensive article written on the topic and be limited to a reasonable number. List of Federal subjects of Russia by murder rate? How is this relevant to Gun laws in the United States by state? Brazil? Latin America? Mexico? There's no need for this poorly composed RFC.-Serialjoepsycho- (talk) 02:14, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment - this is not an appropriately formed RfC and should be closed. Flat Out (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Proposal - Amending my previous comment. The two editors Mudwater and Timeshifter have little reason to dispute the "see also" section of this article since they've both proposed a series of articles that are highly relevant: Firearm death rates in the United States by state, Gun politics in the United States, Gun violence in the United States, and Right to keep and bear arms in the United States. I don't see what the issue is. -Darouet (talk) 00:56, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

potential rename
Since knife and other weapon laws are in many states intrinsically related (often the exact same laws) I propose that this article (and probably the related state level articles) be renamed to Weapons laws in the United States by state or less succinctly Gun and knife laws in the United States by state. I have made a matching proposal at the Wisconsin article, which is precipitated by the recent passage of knife laws related to local pre-emption, concealed carry, etc. which are very similar to the information we are already covering under "guns" Gaijin42 (talk) 17:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose: I see what you mean, but it's the gun laws that are the main thing. And I think most readers will be looking for articles about gun laws.  Furthermore, most of the state articles only cover firearms.  On the other hand, including information about knives and other weapons could be a plus, and I wouldn't discourage it.  That said, I still think it would be better not to rename the articles.  "P.S." I think it would be better to have this discussion in one place, so I suggest consolidating the Wisconsin discussion into this one. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:25, 27 January 2016 (UTC)


 * If we were to do a rename I'd vote for "Gun politics...by state". That's a more inclusive title wthat's allow more issues to be included than just the laws themselves, like local political groups, crime issues, etc. Or even "Weapons politics...." Felsic2 (talk) 19:30, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem I see with a change in that direction, is that it takes something fairly objective "the laws in this state are X", and opens it to something a lot more subjective and more subject to pov warring. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Too late - there's nothing objective about any of this. Felsic2 (talk) 19:40, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: What's great about this article is that it summarizes the different states' gun laws, and nothing else. It says nothing about gun politics, or the various opinions and arguments about guns.  The article is therefore a refreshing island of objectivity amid a sea of debate and blabbering.  And the same applies to the associated state articles.  The key to success and happiness is to keep it that way.  Editors should feel free to embellish the Gun politics in the United States article, or the many related articles that already exist.  Or if someone thinks that "Gun politics in [name of state]" is a good topic for an article, they can go ahead and create that.  — Mudwater (Talk) 20:32, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Across the Wiki, articles are titled "gun laws" and "gun politics" with no clear distinction. See Overview of gun laws by nation and look down the list. See Template:Gun politics by country. It's an arbitrary distinction. Felsic2 (talk) 22:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

"See also" section
Mudwater deleted the "see also" section. See diff. "Undid edits by Timeshifter. The implication is that firearm death rates are directly linked to gun laws. That might be, but this article is about the dry, boring facts of the law, without editorializing or speculation)." There should be a "see also" section.

The deleted link was Firearm death rates in the United States by state. How is that not a related link? There should be more "see also" links. --Timeshifter (talk) 05:08, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * In your edit summary you said, WP:NPOV requires all significant viewpoints. And there was no "see also" section at all. Add more links to balance it. But, this article is about state and local gun laws in the United States.  It's not about what people think or say about the laws, or their opinions about the effects of the laws, or the political debates about the laws.  By presenting, as I said in the edit summary, "the dry, boring facts of the law, without editorializing or speculation", and avoiding all arguments about gun control, the article maintains a neutral point of view.  But, there are plenty of other articles for those types of debates.  Examples include Gun politics in the United States, Gun violence in the United States, and Right to keep and bear arms in the United States. — Mudwater (Talk) 12:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * A link is not an argument about anything. And articles have "see also" sections. The non-neutral action is yours by removing the link, and the "see also" section. Thus blocking more links. The implication is that gun laws have nothing to do with anything. The solution is to add more links to the "see also" section. I suggest you do that rather than edit war. For example; start with all the links you mentioned. WP:NPOV is met more by addition, than subtraction. We allow the readers to make up their own minds. We don't channel their minds. --Timeshifter (talk) 15:56, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The article isn't required to have a "see also" section. It should only have one if it makes the article better.  And this article is better without one, because it's more neutral by just stating what the laws are, without implying or suggesting anything about their effects. — Mudwater (Talk) 16:46, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a cowardly viewpoint, and assumes stupidity on the part of the reader. Some MOS guidance: "The links in the 'See also' section might be only indirectly related to the topic of the article because one purpose of 'See also' links is to enable readers to explore tangentially related topics. ... Editors should provide a brief annotation when a link's relevance is not immediately apparent, when the meaning of the term may not be generally known, or when the term is ambiguous." --Timeshifter (talk) 22:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry you feel that way. Also, I'm hoping that other editors will give their opinions on this question. — Mudwater (Talk) 22:58, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * From the MOS: "The links in the 'See also' section should be relevant, should reflect the links that would be present in a comprehensive article on the topic..." Wikipedia does not shy away from all significant viewpoints. Comprehensive article would cover all angles including the history and competing viewpoints on all aspects of gun laws. And much more.


 * That is why there are many spinoff articles for many topics on Wikipedia. No one article could cover a topic. That is true for many topics on Wikipedia. Mudwater, you wrote: "It's not about what people think or say about the laws, or their opinions about the effects of the laws, or the political debates about the laws." Yes, it is. And there are articles about that. And that is what "see also" sections are for. The article links to a few such as: Gun laws in California. It has a "see also" section. --Timeshifter (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I think having a "See also" section that only includes a link to Firearm death rates in the United States by state does potentially represent editorializing. If it was the case that the "See also" section was filled with links to pages which represented "all significant viewpoints" it might be OK to include Firearm death rates in the United States by state. It's probably not OK if Firearm death rates in the United States by state is the only link. NickCT (talk) 13:24, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with ; having just the one link feels like editorializing. The section should either be expanded or left out. Faceless Enemy (talk) 12:02, 6 October 2015 (UTC)

(unindent). Per discussion here, I added a list of "see also" links to the article. Instead of just one. I never intended that there be just one link in the "see also" section. I assumed people would add more. "See also" sections can have few, or a lot of, links. It varies by article. And in any case people can add more, remove some, substitute better ones. Here is one possible list:

--Timeshifter (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Firearm death rates in the United States by state
 * Gun politics in the United States
 * Homicide in world cities
 * Latin American cities by murder rate
 * List of Brazilian states by murder rate
 * List of cities by murder rate
 * List of countries by firearm-related death rate
 * List of countries by intentional death rate - homicide plus suicide.
 * List of countries by intentional homicide rate by decade
 * List of countries by intentional homicide rate
 * List of countries by suicide rate
 * List of federal subjects of Russia by murder rate
 * List of Mexican states by homicides
 * List of U.S. states by homicide rate
 * List of U.S. states by incarceration rate
 * List of United States cities by crime rate (2012). 250,000+
 * Number of guns per capita by country
 * Right to keep and bear arms in the United States
 * United States cities by crime rate (100,000–250,000)
 * United States cities by crime rate (60,000-100,000)


 * It's possible that a consensus of editors could come up with a reasonable and NPOV list of "see also" articles, but this isn't it. Most of these articles are obviously unrelated to the subject of gun laws in the United States.  "List of federal subjects of Russia by murder rate?"  No, I'm just not seeing it.  — Mudwater (Talk) 00:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Discuss their removal before removing each one. Some people see the relation of guns to homicide rates. And some people compare homicide rates and gun laws between countries. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:41, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The problem is if you take similar demographic, same region states, ie the most comparable, for example Maryland and Virginia, those results invert more often than not, and states like Virginia with more guns and less gun laws have less murder than the most comparable states with less guns and gun laws? The articles dealing with that are politicized and don't control for that. The "gun death" articles also don't control for overall rates of homicide+suicide, where many developed democracies with few guns exceed the US (eg South Korea and Japan), and many are within +/- 20%, not the order of magnitude differences suggested by only gun death. Why bring those publicized arguments -- which turn on controlling for or not controlling for demographic differences -- here in the objective article on the states laws? Those wiki articles don't reflect trends, where we saw US murder rates significantly decline most in the places were gun laws were relaxed.Explainador (talk) 14:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Please stop edit warring, Mudwater. Leave the "see also" section. Do not remove it altogether. Consensus is against its wholesale removal. --Timeshifter (talk) 01:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "List of federal subjects of Russia by murder rate"? C'mon, gimme a break. — Mudwater (Talk) 01:52, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I removed it. Please do not remove the whole "see also" section. "Subjects" are like states in the USA. Are you going to go down and waste time discussing each murder rate list (Brazil, Mexico). Believe it or not, some people (unlike you it seems) see the related nature of murder rates in the states and cities of countries, and gun laws. The links are a starting point. --Timeshifter (talk) 02:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I was using "List of federal subjects of Russia by murder rate" as an example. Sorry, I thought that was obvious.  Most of those articles are obviously unrelated to gun laws in the Unites States by state.  I'm wondering how many other editors think that most of those articles should stay in the See Also section.  "List of Brazilian states by murder rate"? "List of Mexican states by homicides"? "Number of guns per capita by country"? And so on.  Sorry, the See Also section you are proposing is clearly inappropriate. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:17, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * "Number of guns per capita by country" is blindingly obviously related. To most people except you. All of this is discussed in the media comparing gun laws in various US states and countries, to guns per capita in various states and countries. And comparing gun laws and guns per capita worldwide to murder rates in various locations worldwide. Frequently discussed in the media. Do I have to paint a picture for you with arrows and circles? --Timeshifter (talk) 02:25, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Other editors are strongly encouraged to give their opinions on this question. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:29, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'll have to agree with Mudwater that the vast majority of those links do not belong in the "See Also" section. Most of them are only tangentially related at best. The focus of the chosen links also seems to be WP:UNDUE. -- Bardbom (talk) 03:26, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Okay then, how about this? — Mudwater (Talk) 15:46, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Looks good to me. -- Bardbom (talk) 22:07, 16 October 2015 (UTC)

Index of gun politics articles. This makes for a shorter "see also" list. --Timeshifter (talk) 13:18, 17 October 2015 (UTC)

These 2 links are obviously related to this article, and frequently discussed in the media in relation to gun laws in the US: People frequently discuss US state gun laws in relation to firearm-related deaths and homicide rates in other states, and in other countries, in relation to their gun laws. Current list:
 * List of U.S. states by homicide rate
 * List of countries by firearm-related death rate

--Timeshifter (talk) 17:07, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Index of gun politics articles
 * Firearm death rates in the United States by state
 * List of countries by firearm-related death rate
 * Gun law in the United States
 * Gun politics in the United States
 * Gun violence in the United States
 * Right to keep and bear arms in the United States
 * Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * List of U.S. states by homicide rate


 * List of U.S. states by homicide rate is pretty redundant with Firearm death rates in the United States by state, and it's also not a good fit because homicide rates include killings that are not done with firearms. List of countries by firearm-related death rate is not closely related because this article as about the laws of different U.S. states, not the laws of different countries.  But, even with those two removed, the Related Articles would be better if there were fewer of them.  That way we'd be linking to the most relevant ones, and not building a long laundry list of articles that are only indirectly related.  I propose this:
 * Gun law in the United States
 * Gun politics in the United States
 * Gun violence in the United States
 * Right to keep and bear arms in the United States
 * In fact it would be even better if it listed only one related article -- Gun law in the United States, which talks about federal laws (as opposed to the state and local laws covered by this article.) — Mudwater (Talk) 01:23, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of those topics (and plenty of others) are already in the "US Gun Legal Box" near the top of the article. Why not just use that and skip the "see also" section entirely? Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:53, 22 October 2015 (UTC)


 * That's an excellent point, now that you mention it. The "See also" section was only recently added anyway. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:10, 22 October 2015 (UTC)

(unindent). Mudwater, please stop edit warring. You yet again removed Firearm death rates in the United States by state. Even though several people said it should be in a "see also" section. That article is not linked in the box at the top for "Firearm legal topics of the United States of America". And as I said it is common to compare US states to countries in Europe. USA and Europe are similar in total population. Many US states are similar in size to European countries. You will find many such comparisons in the media and Wikipedia articles. Homicide rates and gun laws by state and worldwide are frequently compared and discussed in the media. Stop trying to delete a significant viewpoint. But I will just put List of U.S. states by homicide rate in the list. People can find links to country lists from there.

I removed 2 articles from see also that are in the box at the top of the page. None of the links below are in that box.

Here is the current "see also" section:


 * Note: Please see many links in the box at the top of the page called ""Firearm legal topics of the United States of America".

--Timeshifter (talk) 21:57, 25 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Index of gun politics articles
 * Right to keep and bear arms in the United States
 * Second Amendment to the United States Constitution
 * Gun violence in the United States
 * Firearm death rates in the United States by state.
 * List of countries by firearm-related death rate
 * List of U.S. states by homicide rate

Those are pointless to include in this article. Firearm death rate article by state or country are quite politicized. It is over 90% suicide+homicide, and makes the US look worse than s. Korea and Japan, when Japan and S. Korea have higher per capita Suicide+homicide rates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Explainador (talk • contribs) 13:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Stand Your Ground Law
What makes "Stand Your Ground Law" a gun law? Is murder a gun law too because most are committed with guns? Felsic2 (talk) 00:12, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm inclined to agree that a stand-your-ground law is a law about self-defense in general, and not about guns specifically. And there would be other laws in this category -- for example, are you allowed to kill someone (by whatever means) if they are stealing your property but not directly threatening your person.  So I would be in favor of removing this row from the state summary tables that have it.  But let's wait a while and see what other editors think. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * While the argument above is certainly technically true 1) guns are the most common weapon used in self defense. 2) all uses of guns in self defense are affected by such laws. Due to these close relationships, I think the rows are appropriate.  Beyond that, in the both pro-rights and pro-control agenda and lobbying groups, stand your ground and self defense laws are a major focus and topic, and in the media passing or repealing of such laws is generally covered as a victory/loss for such groups and in the context of the gun control debate. However this feeds into the discussion in the section immediately above, in which a rename to "weapons laws" would be more inclusive of such topics. Gaijin42 (talk) 01:07, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * This article isn't about the agendas of lobbying groups. Felsic2 (talk) 04:13, 10 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Agreed; most reliable sources tend to lump them into gun laws, though they are technically about when it is permissible to use deadly force in general, rather than whether or not someone can legally own a given firearm or accessory. Faceless Enemy (talk) 01:42, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Sources? Felsic2 (talk) 04:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Hundreds. Gaijin42 (talk) 03:15, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-guncontrol-health-idUSKCN0WC2YL
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=qNk3ZaRto7wC&pg=PT15&dq=gun+control+stand+your+ground&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvqP6z1LfLAhXsn4MKHXZ-CBUQ6AEIITAB#v=onepage&q=gun%20control%20stand%20your%20ground&f=false
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=0TfvCgAAQBAJ&pg=PT124&dq=gun+control+stand+your+ground&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvqP6z1LfLAhXsn4MKHXZ-CBUQ6AEIJzAC#v=onepage&q=gun%20control%20stand%20your%20ground&f=false
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=R80YBwAAQBAJ&pg=PA131&dq=gun+control+stand+your+ground&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvqP6z1LfLAhXsn4MKHXZ-CBUQ6AEIMjAE#v=onepage&q=gun%20control%20stand%20your%20ground&f=false
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=b-EbCgAAQBAJ&pg=PA193&dq=gun+control+stand+your+ground&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjvqP6z1LfLAhXsn4MKHXZ-CBUQ6AEIPjAG#v=onepage&q=gun%20control%20stand%20your%20ground&f=false
 * https://books.google.com/books?id=56g1o1WUcloC&pg=PA49&dq=gun+control+stand+your+ground&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiP7IeT1bfLAhVCx4MKHQI7CXY4ChDoAQg3MAU#v=onepage&q=gun%20control%20stand%20your%20ground&f=false
 * Thanks. We should add those to the SYG article. Felsic2 (talk) 19:38, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I added (talk) 19:45, 12 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If SYG and "Castle Doctrine" are gun laws, then we oughta merge over the huge table at Castle_doctrine. It's undue weight at that article, taking up a big chunk of it. Either that, or just summarize the table more briefly. Felsic2 (talk) 22:46, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * See Talk:Castle_doctrine Felsic2 (talk) 22:47, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Agree. if we put self defense, stand your ground, castle doctrine laws in these charts we would have to add knife laws in my opinion, as well as laws concerning dangerous animals such as some dogs. We would also have to add various laws concerning deadly weapons definitions r(how walking down a city street with a crossbow, or a baseball bat can be legal or illegal depending on case law and code in a jurisdiction -- and what you tell law enforcement is your reason for doing so.Explainador (talk) 14:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Promulgation to these tables from state laws articles?
Taking a look a the District of Columbia's laws, I saw it was out of date. A dozen regulations that were passed in the wake of the 2008 Heller were subsequently removed as draconian due to litigation orders, or litigation threats. Even though some notation of reductions were made, more recent reductions in DC gun laws were not and I removed them today (no longer an eye test, no longer any expiration for registration, no longer any written test required on DC gun laws). There are even others with significant deviation between extant code footnoted in the article and the current facts, eg DC code cited by Wikipedia on caliber restrictions to registered firearm. For example the article cites code: https://beta.code.dccouncil.us/dc/council/code/sections/7-2505.02.html which still states "(3) The ammunition to be sold or transferred is of the same caliber or gauge as the firearm described in the registration certificate, or other proof in the case of nonresident;" even though this has been thrown out and cannot be enforced (except 50BMG and certain penetrating rounds). Do the changes I made DC state laws to reflect current laws and registration requirements get promulgated automatically over here?Explainador (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. The summary table for each state is actually in the article about gun laws for that state.  So for example changes to the summary table in the article "Gun laws in the District of Columbia" are automatically promulgated to this article -- though it's possible that you would not see that right away. — Mudwater (Talk) 21:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Ref errors
There are ref errors in the tables. How do I fix them? I can't find the templates they are belonging to. Please use the ping function to reply back to me. Thanks --Jennica ✿ / talk 03:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * This might be because the tables are transcluded from each article.Terrorist96 (talk) 04:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * BTW it looks like ref 38 got messed up after your fixes.Terrorist96 (talk) 05:04, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, the summary tables from the state articles are transcluded here. So, as I think you already figured out, any reference in a summary table has to be defined within the table, like this, and not later in the state article, or it'll be undefined here.  Also, I think there's some script that names references ":0", and that has resulted in multiple references having the same name when transcluded here.  That's all a bit inconvenient, but it's worth it to have the tables transcluded, instead of doubly defined as they were in the bad old days. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:39, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Article name
Today the article was renamed from "Gun laws in the United States by state" to "List of gun laws in the United States by state", without any prior discussion. This article has been around for a long time, and that's a big change, so, let's talk about it first, and see what everybody thinks. As for myself, I'm opposed to renaming the article. Although it has list-like qualities, it's not really a list. Pinging who did the move. Let's leave this thread open for a few weeks to give other editors a chance to chime in. Thanks. — Mudwater (Talk) 23:31, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's not a list. It's a brief overview of each state/territory.Terrorist96 (talk) 05:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)

Background checks required for private sales?
For the item, "Background checks required for private sales?", many states list something like, "A person acquiring a handgun must have either a handgun certificate or a concealed handgun permit and has therefore been subject to a background check."

This is not a background check, this is an FOI card or the like. The user is checked one time, each acquisition is not run like a NICS or State Police check on each and every sale.

This is covered by, "State Permit to Purchase?" Flagging the mere need for an FOI card as a "background check" blurs the meaning of an actual background check being needed.

Drmemory (talk) 07:45, 7 July 2017 (UTC)


 * In all of those states, you have to pass a background check to purchase a firearm in a private sale. In some of those states, they only do the background check when you get the permit, or renew the permit after a few years, and in other states (Illinois is one example) they redo the background check each time you purchase a firearm.  This is in contrast to other states (where that table entry is marked "no"), where no background check is required for private sales, i.e. it's legal to sell a gun to someone who has not been the subject of a background check. — Mudwater (Talk) 10:58, 7 July 2017 (UTC)