How to make sure that only the rich and the criminals own firearms...

[spin]

Representative Kenneth Dunkin has introduced HB0687 into the Illinois House of Representatives.

FIREARM OWNERS ID-INSURANCE

Synopsis As Introduced
Amends the Firearm Owners Identification Card Act. Provides that any person who owns a firearm in this State shall maintain a policy of liability insurance in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Provides that a person shall be deemed the owner of a firearm after the firearm is lost or stolen until such loss or theft is reported to the police department or sheriff of the jurisdiction in which the owner resides. Provides that the Department of State Police shall revoke and seize a Firearm Owner's Identification Card previously issued under this Act if the Department finds that the person to whom such card was issued possesses or acquires a firearm and does not submit evidence to the Department of State Police that he or she has been issued in his or her name a liability insurance policy in the amount of at least $1,000,000 specifically covering any damages resulting from negligent or willful acts involving the use of such firearm while it is owned by such person. Effective January 1, 2010.
http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/BillStatus.asp?DocTypeID=HB&DocNum=687&GAID=10&SessionID=76&LegID=41158

It would be very expensive to obtain a $1,000,000 liability policy that would cover damages for both negligent and willful acts involving the insured owners firearm. This assumes that you could find an insurance company that would write such a policy. If you did find a company, what requirements would they impose?

So the very rich could afford the policy and of course the gang-bangers would merely continue on as usual since they don't bother with FOID cards anyhow. If the law passes, it would appear that if the average cashed strapped citizen was unable or unwilling to get a policy, his FOID card would be revoked and his firearms could be confiscated.

It looks like Illinois and especially Chicago is trying to become the most criminal friendly state and city in the country by making sure the average honest citizen has no means of self defense from armed criminals.

Perhaps some of the local hoods here in Florida will see a bright future and journey to the Windy City.

But this is the crazy season when all sorts of stupid laws are introduced in state legislatures and Congress. Most will never go anywhere. But these laws, which are usually introduced by Democrats, only fire up the NRA and the Republicans.

As Democrats we need to stop shooting ourselves in the foot. If we adopted a more pro-gun attitude and worked on prosecuting criminals rather than honest citizens we could easily have a 20 year or more run as the dominate political party. If we do pass draconian gun laws, we might have this woman in our future.

[Chulanowa]

1. The 2nd amendment rights of the impoverished are already in the gutter

Guns aren't cheap, after all. An average around $200 for a handgun, plus licensing and registration, plus the cost of ammo, and if you're actually serious about it, gun use and safety training. It doesn't help that generally the poorer you are, them ore likely you are to need a gun for self-defense in the first place.

All this insurance thing is doing is raising the bar as to how rich you have to be to enjoy your constitutional rights. I don't recall seeing many of you, if any, who had a problem with this situation when you were above the bar, so I don't see any reason for you to complain too much if you end up beneath it.

[Lex1775]

4. ?

"plus licensing and registration"

Sucks to be where you are. Most places in the US still don't force you to license or register your firearms, so that cost isn't a concern. Also, until fairly recently, handgun ammo was cheap and plentiful. It still is (at least here in AZ) if you want to shoot .22 or 9mm.

[spin]

6. Sorry, quality firearms cost much more than $200...

for a used S&W revolver in excellent condition you can expect to shell out $300 up. You might be able to buy a new Glock 19 for $450.

But a quality firearm properly maintained can outlast you, and your children and possibly your grandchildren. I own firearms that have had considerably more than 10,000 rounds run through them. They still look new and function perfectly.

Ammo is expensive, but reloads are far more reasonable and you can reload your own ammo. If you like to shoot high priced ammo like .44 mag, reloading can reduce your price considerably.

As a hobby, shooting is relatively inexpensive. Consider buying a boat to enjoy fishing. Perhaps you want to buy a motor home for vacations. Or many just a jet ski for fun.

Licensing and registration all depends of where you live. In Florida, there is no license or registration requirements for firearms. If you want to carry a weapon concealed you have to get a carry permit. The permit will cost you $117 and is good for 7 years after which you can renew for $65. You need a passport photo and if you have no proof of training you can add the cost of a concealed weapons class. Not unreasonable at all.

I've known many some who were under the poverty level who owned firearms and visited the range I shot at on a fairly frequent basis. Many retired individuals with social security and perhaps a small pension as well as many people with average income would shoot weekly.

So I have no real complaints about the current cost of my hobby in Florida. I definitely would be upset if costly registration schemes or outrageously expensive liability insurance caused me to lose my firearms and my right to defend myself.

[Chulanowa]

10. I'm puzzled

At first you make my point about the cost of firearms - if you're hurting for money to keep you and your family fed and clothed, the prices you rattled off are pretty exorbitant.

Then you tell me (as far as I can tell) that my concerns are unfounded because you've met poor people at the firing range.

I also notice you talk a lot about your wants, your needs, how upset you'd be if your gun moved out of your price range. No comment about those for whom the gun is already out of reach for, no comment as to the curious state where one of our constitutional rights is completely tied to corporate profit...

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

12. A poor person still has the same rights as a rich person.

Just because they cannot afford guns does not mean they don't have a right to possess one.

[Chulanowa]

15. What point is there in having a right without the ability to exercise it?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4PYTKrKJfU&feature=related

Judith: Here! I've got an idea: Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb - which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans' - but that he can have the *right* to have babies.
Francis: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother... sister, sorry.
Reg: What's the *point*?
Francis: What?
Reg: What's the point of fighting for his right to have babies, when he can't have babies?
Francis: It is symbolic of our struggle against oppression.
Reg: It's symbolic of his struggle against reality.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

16. I've been in lots of home in the projects. I've seen a lot of X-boxes and flat screen TV's in..

some of those homes. If they felt they needed a firearm for safety they could find one that would do a reasonable job for much less than an X-box 360.

David

[iverglas]

26. maybe

they actually put their children first.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

28. Who said anything about them having children?

[Chulanowa]

31. Did they pack sixteen kids with different daddies into the Cadillac...

On their way to get some weave put in, too?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

33. I find your comments to be racist and completely uncalled for.

[Chulanowa]

34. Really?

I find your comments to be pretty much the same.

"I've been in lots of homes in the projects" - Who lives in "the projects"?
"I've seen a lot of Xboxes and flat screen TV's" - 'Course you did. We all know poor people don't really exist

You're already selling us the welfare queen bullshit, bucko. I'm just seeing if you want to go all the way with it.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

36. I don't know who lives in the projects where you live.

I've worked around 4 housing projects, 2 had predominately african american residents and 2 had pretty even ratios of african american, hispanic and white residents. In my experience, even people living in subsidized housing save money to buy things they want really badly. Your assumption that I was referring to african americans is very telling of your personal bigotry.

David

[spin]

18. As I stated...

I've known many disadvantaged people who owned firearms in Florida and were able to enjoy the hobby by shooting at the range.

Many other poor people who didn't shoot on a regular basis also owned firearms for self defense. They didn't have a gun collection by any means, but they were able to afford a used .38 special or a shotgun. Of course, many chose to buy a very cheap and often unreliable weapon often in a caliber not suitable for self defense. When someone showed up at the range with one of these weapons for practice, we would advise buying a quality weapon. Quite often our advice was followed and the individual did obtain an adequate weapon. Economic status wasn't a huge deterrent if the individual had serious concerns about his/her safety.

One individual I remember had had a heart transplant years before and the drugs he was taking to stop rejection had caused serious health problems. His wife was working at a low paying job and she had cancer. He had no health insurance and was depending on assistance from Florida.

His problem was a fear of his daughter’s ex-boyfriend who had a long criminal record. In fear of violent attack, he purchased a firearm and came to the range to learn how to use it. His medication caused him to have a bad tremor in both his arms and hands.

Both I and the range master went out on the range with him and set up a target at seven feet. Despite his shaking, he was able to fire six shots into the 4" bull’s-eye of the target. The range master and I were both surprised. When the range master left, I continued to help him practice.

He found shooting so enjoyable and relaxing that he decided to show up on a weekly basis. Over a period of time he purchased two other handguns and became quite proficient with them. One was a used .22 cal S&W target revolver which was inexpensive to shoot. The other was a used .1911 style .45 auto tricked out with many accessories. One of the range members often reloaded .45 ammo for him to shoot through this weapon.

If Florida would have had an expensive licensing or registration system, he might never have been able to purchase his first firearm. I'm sure the firearms and the ammunition strained his resources but added considerably to his enjoyment of life. He made many friends at the range and probably enjoyed the conversations in the lobby as much as he did the shooting.

Fortunately, he never did have to use his weapons in self defense. But because of the weapons he no longer lived in fear.

Of course there are people who were in worse financial condition then he was. Many of those people live in very dangerous environments. I feel compassion for the most disadvantaged in our society and I make every effort to elect politicians who will attempt to address their problems. Unfortunately, all too often the people we elect only show concern for the truly poor when running for office.

Perhaps we could start a program where qualified impoverished people could obtain weapons seized from criminals. I would also be in favor of a good firearms training program for these individuals. Crime would probably drop significantly in their communities. It's a great idea, but our Congress is unlikely to ever pass such a law. Maybe we could do this at a state level.

As for the comment:

I also notice you talk a lot about your wants, your needs, how upset you'd be if your gun moved out of your price range. No comment about those for whom the gun is already out of reach for, no comment as to the curious state where one of our constitutional rights is completely tied to corporate profit...

I currently have a collection of firearms that suits all my needs. If I maintain my firearms, I should have no need for any new weapons. Therefore, I am not worried about future price increases for firearms. I believe that I have explained that in states like Florida which do not impose huge fees on gun owners; almost all citizens can own a weapon for self defense.

I am concerned with useless expensive schemes that would making my firearms so expensive to merely possess that I would have to sell them. The firearms liability insurance law might do this. This law would do nothing to reduce crime and might increase it.

Yes, the firearms industry does make a profit on the weapons they manufacture. And so does Nike, who sells shoes manufactured in foreign sweat shops for an exorbitant price. The companies I’ve bought firearms from manufactured their products in the states. I don’t believe you’ll find any firearms companies listed among the most profitable corporations in the country.

The Second Amendment states:

"a well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

It doesn’t say that you will be provided with arms but merely with the right to keep and bear arms.

[Hoopla Phil]

20. Florida sounds a lot like Texas. Thank you btw

for leading other states into common sense gun control. Without the progressive forward thinking of Florida to make issuing a CHL mandatory to those who qualify, I doubt that Texas would have such a law.

[spin]

21. In 1987 Texas thought concealed carry was a joke...

In 1987, Florida bucked a national trend by passing legislation based on the principle that the great majority of the citizenry should be able to obtain a license to carry concealed weapons. There would be no requirement to demonstrate special need, celebrity status or political connection. The applicant, upon demonstrating basic firearms capability and knowledge, would receive a license unless the State could prove ineligibility due to criminal behavior or diminished capacity. At that time, less than ten states had this type of “Shall Issue” laws on the books and the great majority of states prohibited concealed carry altogether.

That same year, a concealed handgun bill was laughed off the floor of the Texas legislature. The major media outlets treated the entire idea as a joke. Eight years later, the smiles froze, the Democrat governor was history and the Texas Right to Carry bill was law. By 1995-6, the domino effect was in full swing with numerous other states following with initial legislation or shall-issue reform. In no small part, the rapid spread of Shall Issue States was fueled by heartland reaction to the election of Bill Clinton and his success with anti-gun legislation. By late 2003, the number of States with Right -To -Carry programs has reached the mid-30s and the growth in reciprocity among the states is almost impossible to track or even fathom.
http://www.gunblast.com/Cumpston_RTC.htm

The above info is from 2003. This map is from 2008.

[Hoopla Phil]

39. Yep Texas lost a good and popular Governor over the issue.

Ann Richards vetoed a carry bill passed by the state legislature. Then a couple of years later she vetoed a referendum that had been passed by the voters of the state. Next election Shrub was elected Governor on the promise that if he was elected he would sign the carry bill. That one issue alone was the catalyst that put him into politics and on into the Whitehouse. My how strange things work out. If only Ann Richards had signed that bill, would shrub ever have been president?

[spin]

45. There is an excellent possibility that the pro-gun vote...

was the deciding factor.

How many good Democrats have lost elections because they felt they had to follow the liberal anti-gun views of the big city anti-gun Democrats.

All too often we as Democrats shoot ourselves in the foot. If we worked to take the firearms away from criminals rather than honest people, we could gain a lot more votes in close elections. And to top that off, crime would actually decrease.

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

9. Are you suggesting firearms be given away or somehow subsidized for poor people?

Yes, guns are expensive. Most are quality products that cost alot to produce and have high demand.
I'd wager to say the average new handgun is ~$500 and the average used pistol is ~$400.
If you want a legal P.O.S. pistol you'll likeley still pay the high price of $200 and much more for any sort of decent firearm.

The 2nd Ammendment is part of a Bill of Rights that limits Federal Power legislating against gun ownership.
It does not gaurantee an indiviual he will have a firearm in his possession. That's silly.
I'll bet this law could be seen in violation of the 2A as a de facto ban on ownership... similar to required safe storage limits, & ammo bans.
You can't ban something in effect (gun ownership) by virtue of banning something else (expensive permits).


OTOH, distributing guns in greatly impovershed communities might solve alot of problems and ease up burden on the feds. lol.

[Chulanowa]

14. Why not?

We have free (well, in theory) airwaves. We have squatter's rights (sort of). We don't have to dole out cash to avoid self-incrimination (though I hear it helps :rofl: ) Why shouldn't there be a gun subsidy?

If the arms corporations can sell last year's missiles to Saudi Arabia for cents on the dollar (with government help!), I see no reason why old handgun stocks couldn't be similarly liquidated (also with government help!)

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

17. Guns have intrisic worth...

To think that the poor wouldn't simply turn around and sell them for profit to anyone holding out cash is asenine.
I'm a hardcore gun-nut and even I can't fathom "giving away" guns - even with regulation and latest anti-baby-killing technology.
Perhaps I'm just being elitist, but maybe it's a good thing the social class that commits most violent crimes isn't given free weapons.

Arms don't just mean "Guns". Knives, Bows, cannons, swords, ballistas... all are guns and you're free to own any of them.
If you can't afford one, manufacture one.
Surely even the destitute can affors a pocket knife.

[Chulanowa]

29. Yes, that's quite elitist

"I'm rich, I get the best protection money can buy. You're poor, here's a stick"

[Mad_Cow_Disease]

52. Nevertheless, their constitutional right to bear arms IS NOT INFRINGED.

All this insurance thing is doing is raising the bar as to how rich you have to be to enjoy your constitutional rights.
...
What point is there in having a right without the ability to exercise it?
...
Why shouldn't there be a gun subsidy?
...
If the arms corporations can sell last year's missiles to Saudi Arabia for cents on the dollar (with government help!), I see no reason why old handgun stocks couldn't be similarly liquidated (also with government help!)

You claim guns being costly infringes on the rights of poor people.
The simple fact is the second amendment guarantees the choice of people to arm themselves, not the means.
Another hard fact is despite being extremely destitute, just about any poor person can afford some kind of knife.
Bearing arms means any weapons - not just a steel tube with gunpowder and bullets.
Knives, swords, guns, cannons, bows, etc... all are arms which are constitutionally protected.
Guns just happen to be very convenient and efficient. This is not elitist. This is fact.

Do you also suggest the government doles out iPhones so even the poor can exercise their first amendment rights with the best ability money can buy?

[AtheistCrusader]

37. Tell me, which social class is the Victim of most violent crimes?

Now that I've moved up a bit in the world, I can afford pretty nice firearms. But my need for those firearms, is, in my estimation, much lower than it was when I lived in a pretty bad neighborhood, because that neighborhood was all I could afford.

I don't know about actually actively subsidizing, but there has been a definite trend in pricing that leaves lower income people pretty much priced out of a firearm.

[Hoopla Phil]

40. What an interesting thing to speak of: Article 1, Section 8 of the Constitution

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia. . ."

I think that the answer is right there. Oh, and since the National Guard did not exist at the time this does NOT refer to them. So who DOES it refer to?

[spin]

55. The pertinent wording is...

To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.articlei.html

This is the first time I've heard this discussed.

Verrry eenteresting...

[Hoopla Phil]

60. Yes it is VERY interesting. And a part of the Constitution that seems to be totally ignored.

[jmg257]

68. This section was understood to refer to congress providing general regulations, not

the actual arms and accouterments.

They 1st fulfilled this duty in the Militia Act of 1792.

[jmg257]

67. Why not, indeed? IF we all love pointing out the intents of the 2nd, which we do,

it was certainly common place then to give arms to poor people who could prove they couldn't afford to supply their own. They usually remained the property of the state, but at least they had them to keep and bear when necessary.

This motion was shot down in congress when debating the 1st Militia Act under the new constitution, but it would not be that far a reach to allow it.

[AtheistCrusader]

22. This is one of my concerns about

terms like 'saturday night specials' or 'junk guns'. Demonizing inexpensive weapons, in the hands of even law abiding citizens. Licensing isn't an issue in my state, but Concealed Carry will run you about $70 every 5 years. Not a big deal to me, but probably was to this guy:
http://community.seattletimes.nwsource.com/archive/?date=20061011&slug=shooting11m
Homeless people like the victim in that story are often the target of random violence, because society just doesn't seem to give a shit about them. Our state constitution guarantees even a homless person the right to the tools for self defense.

Sure, I might like my wizz-bang AR-15 with x,y,z attachments etc etc, but people with few posessions still have as much to lose as I do, if they are the victim of a violent crime (their lives), and it concerns me if they get priced out of the tools one might use for self defense.

These fees and licenses can amount to pretty much the same thing as a poll tax, it's just infringing on a different right.

[Chulanowa]

32. According to at least one of your fellows...

The poor SHOULD be disenfranchised, because they're "more prone to crime". While others are going on about the whole "Poor people aren't poor" Reaganomics shit.

Quite an assortment here. Better keep Guns far away from Israel / Palestine or we'll be spawning freepling sites!

[AtheistCrusader]

35. Yeah, I can't buy into either of those.

I will not assume that someone living below the poverty line is a criminal, OR an odd consumer that puts entertainment ahead of well-being, or whatever that other guy was going on about. Unless you live with someone for a while, you can't really know what their lifestyle and challenges, or needs are.

Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, until they prove otherwise.

Neither the Bill of Rights, nor our State Constitution makes exceptions for the rights of poor people. Any legally eligible citizen that wants to, is welcome to own a firearm in my book.

[tburnsten]

24. Average around $200? You've got to be kidding me

That shows that you have absolutely no experience with shooting and firearms, and your argument is hilarious. The vast majority of US citizens can save up enough to buy themselves a quality pistol or revolver for self-defense, though if they are on the much lower than average side they may not be able to afford much more than a used former police gun, they are generally available for a great price and are almost always very well cared for, but still broken in for you. I have an old police revolver, it is one of my most accurate and favorite guns, and it is chambered in .357 Magnum, one of the best anti-personnel calibers around.

[Chulanowa]

30. Actually, no, I don't go gun shopping

I was basing that off a quick search on cheap guns.

So am I to believe you who tells me that guns are way under $200, or should I beleive Spin, who says they're quite a bit more than $200? Or should I average the two and, you know... come up with an average of $200? :)

[AtheistCrusader]

41. For new guns

Bryco Arms used to make .380 caliber pistols for around $150 new, lifetime warranty. Frankly they suck, but they get the job done I guess. That was in the 90's though, so the price would probably be higher now. Used stuff is all over the place price-wise. $200 dollars to obtain some form of functioning pistol or shotgun probably isn't far off the mark. Again, it'll be cheap, or used, or both, but hopefully it'll go bang if needed.


That particular manufacturer, Bryco, was sued out of existence because a babysitter found one of their guns in the house, called the owner, the owner (moron) told the babysitter to unload it, and so the babysitter promptly pointed the gun at a small child, and pulled the trigger. Naturally, it was the manufacturers fault, because you had to pull the trigger to decock the pistol, you see. Just like pistols produced by the millions today, but hey, let's demonize a 'saturday night special' and ignore oh.. a $700 Springfield XD with the same 'defect' 10 or 15 years later.

[spin]

43. If you're going to bet your life on a weapon...

it's better to buy one that is reliable. The last thing you are going to worry about when the shit hits the fan is how expensive the weapon was. The most important item is that it does go bang if you need it to. You have to make some really tough decisions in an emergency, you definitely don't need to concerned about your weapon functioning properly. If you have confidence in your ability and your weapon, it shows. The bad guy may just decide to leave. All is well that ends well and with firearms quite often you get what you paid for.

Many high quality used handguns are available. Most people who buy a firearm only run a box or two of ammo through it. I have several firearms that I've shot well over 10,000 times. They still look and function like new.

For self defense, I like a revolver. I'm fond of the KISS principle. While I do own several Colt .45 autos, I've never had any desire to own a semi-auto handgun with a decocker. I learned a long time ago how to safely drop the hammer on a revolver or a 1911 style weapon. A decocker flat out scares me.

[tburnsten]

47. Couldn't pay me to take a Bryco

[AtheistCrusader]

58. If I was living where I was in 1998

and it was all I could afford, I'd own one. Actually, I'd probably get a cheap-o revolver, but I wouldn't be ashamed of the brand name, no matter what.

[tburnsten]

59. I'd rather spend an extra $20-$30 and buy a Hi-Point

At least those, while being hideous bricks, are known to be very reliable and pretty accurate as well. I would never have any pride of ownership, but I would have the drive to get so good with it that I could shame anyone looking down on it because their pistol is a much nicer one.

[gorfle]

61. Hi-Point C9 for $170.

You can get a brand-new Hi-Point C9 in 9mm for $170. Used you can pick them up for $100.

[spin]

62. The reviews on the gun blogs for the Hi-Point C9...

seem to indicate that 50% feel they are a total piece of shit and a jam-a-matic, but the other 50% love the firearm.

This could be an indication of inconstant quality from one gun to the next.

[spin]

63. One new firearm that has got a lot of positive attention is..

the Ruger .380 LCP Ultra Compact Pistol for around $300.

My son in law wants one for his carry weapon, but he has to wait as they appear to be on back order. The clerk at the gun store said he had a waiting list of 10 to 15 people and this is in a small town.



reviews:
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-LCP.htm


http://www.gun-tests.com/issues/20_6/features/Concealed-Carry-ACP-Pistols5615-1.html
You have to be a subscriber to read the Gun-Tests.com article but the title says:

380 ACP Pistols: Ruger’s New LCP Wins Against PPK, Taurus
The Light Compact Pistol shone when compared to two other guns we didn’t like much: The uncomfortable Walther USA PPK and the unreliable Taurus PT138BP-12 hot rod.

[gorfle]

64. I was considering it

I was considering this weapon for concealed carry but after that story where the lady with the bow and arrow got shot twice with one and it didn't slow her down I figured the .380 was too light a load.

[spin]

65. I've heard several stories...

about the .380's lack of stopping power. But I have also read a few accounts of a .45 auto hitting a bad guy several times and not stopping him.

I like as a minimum, a 38 +P round for self defense.

[AtheistCrusader]

69. If your shot placement sucks

even a .50AE isn't going to do the job. Not certain that is what happened, but seems like a likely possibility.

[spin]

42. You can check out gun prices at this site...

Remember, I was talking about a used S&W revolver in excellent condition.

http://www.gunbroker.com/

A quick search found a .38 cal Model 10 S&W which looks in excellent shape and would make a fine self defense weapon. The current bid is $300 and is below the minimum the seller will accept. (Note: I have never bought a firearm from this site. But I have know shooters who felt this was a good site.)

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=122849287

Another good looking firearm that would be a great home defense weapon: (price is a bit higher) Note: I own one of these.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=123046825

For a feel for what a new S&W revolver would cost visit:

http://www.impactguns.com/store/swrevolvers.html

My favorite carry weapon can be viewed here

http://www.impactguns.com/store/022188638103.html

My other carry weapon:

http://www.impactguns.com/store/022188624304.html

Since I haven't been pricing firearms for several years I can't say that these prices are the best you can find, but I feel they are representative.

It may be possible to obtain a handgun in poor to fair condition for less. You could argue that if it works reliably, looks are unimportant.

I have bought a couple of ugly handguns that shot well at a great price from a friend. I believe I paid somewhere around $200 for a S&W 4" .38 special and $250 for a S&W 6" .44 mag.

The friend was a retired police officer who had been the armorer for his department. I had the opportunity to fire the weapons before purchase and I knew he had disassembled them and performed a professional trigger job. If anything was wrong, he would fix it for free. The finishes were usually in bad shape and on one weapon the grips were wrapped in skateboard tape. He liked working on firearms, so he would buy one cheap and fix it. After he was satisfied and bored with shooting the weapon, he would sell it and buy another firearm in need of repair.

So while I got a couple of great deals from this individual, I would be hesitant to buy a gun that looked poorly maintained from someone I didn't know well, especially if I had no chance to test it.

[tburnsten]

46. I never said you guessed high bud

One of the last pistols I bought was a new one that ran me $319, but it was a specific model that was a collaboration between Colt and CZ and Colt backed out of it, leaving CZ with a bunch of these very high quality pistols (the ones marked as Colts sell for close to or over a thousand dollars) and no real time or desire to market them. So they sold them off to distributors, and for a few years they were available for a paltry amount of money. I just happened to buy one immediately before the supply dried up.


It was an example of how people can find a solid weapon for under $500 with some effort, and good timing, but in no way was I saying that $200 is a reasonable amount of money to go shopping for a gun with.

[spin]

51. You just have to be in the right place at the right time.

You just have to be in the right place at the right time.

Once at the range, a doctor decided to sell his S&W 351 PD .22 mag. which he had only fired a box of ammo through. The gun, I believe, normally sells new for just under $600 and he was asking $250 (S&W suggested retail price is $830. Apparently, he didn't like the recoil of this extremely light 10.6 ounce firearm.



I really didn't have any reason to buy the little weapon, but the price was more than fair.

Several months later, my daughter decided to renew her concealed carry permit which she had let expire. She was searching for a new carry weapon and liked small S&W revolvers. I let her try my S&W Model 642 .38+P Airweight. The recoil from this little beast intimidated her. So I showed her the 351 PD. She loved the way it looked and when she tried it, she was able to fire rapid fire 7 rounds into a group you could cover with you hand. The distance was 21 feet.

I tried to talk her into a larger caliber weapon, but she wanted the 351 PD. I have talked to police officers who assure me the the .22 mag will stop an attacker, and some carry a 351 PD has a BUG (Back Up Gun for the unfamiliar).

[tburnsten]

53. Only a box?

My $250 S&W revolver was an old police gun, a Model 28-2 Highway Patrolman. The thing is laserlike in my hands, and I don't believe .357 Magnum is a poor choice in a defensive gun. It's a bit heavy though, and I don't have any speedloaders for it (would like some safariland Comp I or IIs), so I don't really carry it ever.

[spin]

57. While I've never owned a model 28, it's a fine weapon...

and with the weight of the big N frame, the recoil of the .357 round is very reasonable.

Being an older "dash two" one finds not only a barrel pinned into place in the frame, but the counterbored chambers which were the hallmark many pre-1980s Smith & Wessons. The "N" frame's heritage goes clear back to the .45 ACP revolver of 1917. The Highway Patrolman draws not only on that fine point of origin, but is itself a less expensively produced version of what many consider THE pinnacle of Smith & Wesson excellence; the .357 Registered Magnum, which later became the exsquisite Model 27.
http://smokeonthewater.typepad.com/smokeonthewater/2007/04/the_highway_pat.html



I would love to own a S&W Registered Magnum, but as they are collector firearms, the cost is a bit out of range.


Smith & Wesson - Registered Magnum - with original certificate, mailing tube, grip adapter & box. - .357 Magnum; 8.75" barrel. - Condition is excellent plus. - 98% plus original bright blue; slight wear at muzzle & on high edges. Excellent case colors, markings, mech & bore. Excellent grips numbered to gun. Box has some water stains on the lid, with old masking or paper tape reinforcement around the edges of - Good mailing tube addressed to the same at 518 Maryland Ave, Feb. 25 postmark & 6 cent stamp intact. Factory letter shows shipped as a "drop shipment" to J. Rosenburg of Lexington Jan. 20, 1937, through S&W distributor Edw. K Tryon Co. of Philadelphia, - s/n 50090 - C&R ffl - item #HAN-1860 - $13,850
http://www.armchairgunshow.com/otsHA1_Smith_Wesson_HE.htm

[backtoblue]

66. smells....

This smells like a lobbyists' bill for the insurance companies. Most of us can't even afford to have LIFE insurance, let alone gun insurance! I agree that all this bill would do is make it harder for the average to poor persons to have the privilege of the 2nd amendment.

[marksmithfield]

2. More insanity from the gun grabbers

When will they give up trying to legislate away our rights?

[damntexdem]

3. "Only the rich and criminals"? Why be so redundant?

Sounds like a good law, however.

[spin]

8. Interesting point...

But there are still a few honest rich people left. They may on the road to becoming an endangered species.

If I were rich and dishonest or a criminal, I would consider this a wonderful law. In either case, I would be able to oppress many other people with much less fear.

[SteveM]

5. gun taxes, insurance, "melting points," fees -- all Jim Crow-era stuff (nt)

[jeepnstein]

7. Ding! We have a winner!

Poor people aren't supposed to be able to defend themselves. It's easier that way.

[spin]

11. Exactly, gun control was the Klans favorite law after the civil war...

After the Civil War, the defeated Southern states aimed to preserve slavery in fact if not in law. The states enacted Black Codes which barred the black freedmen from exercising basic civil rights, including the right to bear arms. Mississippi's provision was typical: No freedman "shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition."

Under the Mississippi law, a person informing the government about illegal arms possession by a freedman was entitled to receive the forfeited firearm. Whites were forbidden to give or lend freedman firearms or knives.

************snip**********

The Special Report of the Anti-Slavery Conference of 1867 complained that freedmen were "forbidden to own or bear firearms and thus.rendered defenseless against assaults" by whites. Or as a letter printed in the Jan. 13, 1866 edition of Harper's Weekly observed: "The militia of this county have seized every gun found in the hands of so-called freedmen in this section of the county. They claim that the Statute Laws of Mississippi do not recognize the Negro as having any right to carry arms." The Vicksburg white riot of 1874 typified the problem. According to a Congressional investigation, the whites conducted, "Unauthorized searches by self-constituted authority into private homes, searches for arms converted, as is unusual, into robbery and thieving...." The Congressional Report detailed one arms roundup:

One poor old man, half crazed, but harmless, sitting quietly in a neighbor's house, is brutally shot to death in the presence of terrified women and shrieking children. He gained his wretched living by hunting and fishing, and had a shot-gun. No one pretended that Tom Bidderman had anything to do with the fight, but he was black, and had a gun in his house, and so they murdered him for amusement as they were going from the city to restore order in the country.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/32884.html

[jody]

13. IMO judges that issue a restraining order involving domestic violence should give the woman

(usually) a revolver, CCW, and order her to take a course offered free by the local police/sheriffs department.

States should pass laws absolving the woman of all criminal and civil liability if she uses it for self-defense.

That should give battered women, victims of domestic violence, a fighting chance.

I assume all those who argue a woman has the right to an abortion because "it's her body" would support the idea I advanced above because "it's her body" that is being saved.

[spin]

19. A really great idea...

usually when a restraining order is issued in a domestic violence case, the judge can order the offending party to turn in any firearms he owns.

Often the restraining order is ignored with disastrous results for the woman.

We need to push for this legislation and give up on the truly stupid ideas of the anti-gun group.

[iverglas]

25. presumably ...

IMO judges that issue a restraining order involving domestic violence should give the woman
(usually) a revolver, CCW, and order her to take a course offered free by the local police/sheriffs department.

I assume all those who argue a woman has the right to an abortion because "it's her body" would support the idea I advanced above because "it's her body" that is being saved.


... you're proposing that all women be issued with 10 coupons for free abortions when they reach puberty.

And coupons for free diaper service and childcare, and rent and groceries, should she choose not to use those abortion coupons when she gets pregnant.

My presuming makes sense, given the premise you have presented.

Your assumption is just what assumptions so often are. In this case, baseless and stupid.

[AtheistCrusader]

38. What happens when the abuser in the relationship is a woman?

It does happen, occasionally.

[spin]

44. Simple, give the man a firearm...

some training and a concealed weapons permit.

Sounds fair to me.

[jody]

48. Same policy for men. I used women as an example because they are the overwhelming majority of abused

spouses.

[iverglas]

54. and

because you care soooooooooooo much about women's liberty and security.

[rrneck]

23. How much insurance industry money

did Kenneth Dunkin get this year? Just another example of rich corporations monetizing fear and desperation.

From Wikipedia

Contributor Total % of Total Sector
MADO MANAGEMENT $30,001 18.26% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
ILLINOIS HOTEL MOTEL ASSOC/IHM PAC $5,000 3.04% General Business
EXELON $3,500 2.13% Energy & Natural Resources
OBRIENS $3,193 1.94% Uncoded
CHICAGO FIRST LADY CRUISES $3,000 1.83% Uncoded
ADVANCED CONCEPTS INC $3,000 1.83% Uncoded
RAND, TIMOTHY J $3,000 1.83% General Business
HARRY CARAYS CATERING $2,600 1.58% General Business
INFUSION MANAGEMENT GROUP $2,500 1.52% Uncoded
LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE $2,500 1.52% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
VICTOR HOTEL $2,500 1.52% General Business
PENN NATIONAL GAMING $2,000 1.22% General Business
CABLE TELEVISION & COMMUNICATIONS ASSOC OF ILLINOIS $2,000 1.22% Communications & Electronics
ILLINOIS TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOC $2,000 1.22% Lawyers & Lobbyists
COMCAST $2,000 1.22% Communications & Electronics
ALLSTATE INSURANCE $2,000 1.22% Finance, Insurance & Real Estate
CHICAGO TEACHERS UNION $1,500 0.91% Labor
ILLINOIS PRODUCTION ALLIANCE $1,500 0.91% Communications & Electronics
AT&T $1,500 0.91% Communications & Electronics
SBC ILLINOIS $1,500 0.91% Communications & Electronics

[gorfle]

27. I suspect such insurance would be cheap.

Given that firearm crime is exceedingly rare compared to the number of firearm owners, I would expect such insurance would be cheap and highly lucrative for insurance companies.

For example, people who fly radio controlled airplanes can get a $2,500,000 liability policy for only $58/year. People who launch rockets can get $1,000,000 insurance policies for only $62/year.

I already have riders on my homeowner's policy to cover the value of my firearms, and I already have an umbrella policy for a couple of million dollars in case I get sued for a variety of things. It's not terribly expensive, and it's prudent if you have a family.

[Statistical]

49. How about....

$1,000,000 general liability insurance to legally own a pool.
$1,000,000 general liability insurance to occupy a 2 story domicile.
$1,000,000 general liability on auto insurance policies (some states allow a mere $50,000).

Drowning and Falls kill far more children than firearms.
Automobiles kill more people than firearms.

Why not require strict insurance to manage those risks first?

[jeepnstein]

50. I'll tell you why.

The dirtbags who are causing the mayhem and destruction in the streets won't bother buying insurance. This is just another proposal to stomp on lawful citizens and turn them into "Republicans".

[spin]

56. Now that would be a stimulus package for the insurance companies. (n/t)