Template talk:USgunlegalbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United States (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject iconThis template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 

Image[edit]

I've removed the image from the template Template:USgunlegalbox it was used in, for it's the view of only one side in the gun debate in the US that gun ownership is fundamental to the US and the image appears to be endorsing that view by presenting the gun over a flag-like background, apparently symbolising the US. You might try something like a gun over a question mark or vice-versa as an alternative. Jamesday 03:35, 21 August 2005 (UTC)

  • I disagree, I don't think the gun and flag endorses any particular view. It just indicates that the topic is guns in the U.S. --JW1805 16:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
It might equally be argued that the gun is a defacement of the flag, implying that guns are inconsistent with the flag's ideals. —Tamfang 19:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Context is required for discussion of Constitution and guns[edit]

The Constitution was written in a completely different time than today. The guns of that period were much less lethal than today and far more conspicuos. No one could walk into a Dennys and start blasting away. One shot and the guy would have to reload, which would take quite a while.

Also the Constitution expressly condoned slavery. The gun rights people put heavy emphasis on this ammendment, but it sure aint sacred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.12.208.181 (talkcontribs) 15:15, 26 March 2006

This is not the place to resolve such questions. —Tamfang 20:38, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Addition of Hunting license[edit]

I added Hunting license as a link, because I think that is an important article our users and editors would likely want to link to and to read. Bearian (talk) 16:58, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The other links in the navbox are for articles about specific laws, or specific sets of laws. Hunting license is about hunting licenses in general, not specific laws, and it's also not limited to the U.S., which the other articles are. So, although that's kind of a nice article, I'm taking it back out. Mudwater (Talk) 22:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Exclusion of State Laws[edit]

Individual state laws should not be included as it would excessively bloat the template, and are already included under the heading of "Gun laws in the U.S.—by state" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.234.154 (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2013 (UTC)

International treaties for arms control?[edit]

Should Arms industry#International treaties for arms control be included in a box titled "U.S. Firearms Legal Topics"? Every other link in the box is to a federal firearms (civilian) law article/topic - not international treaties. (There are a couple of state laws, too.)

I removed it here,[1] but another editor put it back with this edit.[2] --Lightbreather (talk) 23:52, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Overstyling[edit]

per discussion at MOS:ACCESSBILITY, I have undone the overstyling. Frietjes (talk) 14:41, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

Which laws are gun laws?[edit]

These three article were just added to the list by @Terrorist96:. However the first two are not specifically firearms laws. They're more like self-defence laws. And a Taser is not a firearm. Felsic2 (talk) 23:00, 8 February 2017 (UTC)

I figured it was a box related to the second amendment in the US in general, and all three of those would fall under that.Terrorist96 (talk) 23:03, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
The title is "Firearm legal topics of the United States of America". Felsic2 (talk) 23:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure that the first two would even qualify as 2nd Amendment laws. Felsic2 (talk) 23:43, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
2nd amendment protects the right to self defense. If you still object, feel free to remove it.Terrorist96 (talk) 00:32, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Only indirectly. Neither article mentions the 2nd Amendment. In any case, self-defence laws aren't the same thing as firearms laws. Otherwise we'd include all laws that concern the use of weapons, such as homicide, etc. No offence, but I will remove these three to keep the template focused. Felsic2 (talk) 17:41, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
I took out straw purchase too - it's a general principle in law. Felsic2 (talk) 17:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)

"Assault weapon" in quotes[edit]

It seems to me that, in the template, the term "assault weapon" should not be in quotes. An assault weapon is defined in different ways by different laws, but basically it's a semi-automatic firearm with a detachable magazine and a pistol grip, and sometimes other military-style features. Some say that these features are functional, some say that they're cosmetic, but that's what an assault weapon is. An assault rifle, by contrast, is a military firearm capable of automatic fire, often but not necessarily with an option of burst fire and/or semi-automatic fire. The two terms are often confused or conflated, and, of course, there's much heated debate about assault weapons, but, such things do exist, even if only because they've been legally defined to exist. It's more neutral to leave the quotes off, and of course we should strive for a neutral point of view. P.S. Along somewhat similar lines are "high-capacity magazines". I'd say the quotes should be left off of that also -- even though whether or not they're actually high-capacity is a matter of some disagreement. (Pinging those who have added quotes recently: @Illegitimate Barrister and Miguel Escopeta:) Mudwater (Talk) 23:48, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to go ahead and take the quotes back off. That's how the template was before. If anyone has an opinion on this either way, please post it here. Mudwater (Talk) 00:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Yet, the Maxim 500 has been declared an "assault weapon" and banned in MA, NJ, and CA. Yet, it is a muzzleloader, i.e., a single shot rifle. It just happens to have an integral suppressor on it, too, to protect the shooter's hearing. Likewise, bolt action, single shot rifles in California are treated as assault weapons, too, if they happen to be chambered in 50 BMG. Yet, the same rifle chambered in a Barrett proprietary cartridge with the same ballistics performance, becomes different and such rifles are not considered "assault weapons". So, no, "assault weapons" are not always semi-automatic firearms with a detachable magazine, a pistol grip, and other military-style features. That is but an historical definition, established during the now sunset Assault Weapons Ban, which ended in 2004. This was the reason I restored the quotes, as it is clearly not an assault weapon category, but is simply what is termed an assault weapon by anyone looking to ban firearms. Likewise, "high capacity magazines" are simply the normal size magazines that were long considered standard; i.e., 30 round mags. The arbitrary cutoff is now 10 rounds, except where it isn't. (There are some municipalities where only 7 rounds is the current limit, before "high capacity" illegality becomes invoked.) Ten or seven rounds was never the standard capacity size for most semi-automatic rifles or pistols. When terms clearly reflect other than factually what an item is, then the use of quotes still seem appropriate. Of course, it is a slippery slope. The liberties of our youth are no longer the liberties of our present. And, language does evolve, while media push agendas. To indicate non-factual terminology, the use of quotes still seems appropriate. Specifically, I don't consider single shot muzzleloaders and single shot rifles to be assault weapons. And, most states don't either. But, some do. Hence the use of "assault weapon". Miguel Escopeta (talk) 18:00, 13 November 2017 (UTC)