Re: Swiss to Debate Restrictive Gun Laws in 2018

IN what state are you referring to?

Name them all

Right here ----->

I think that the misconceptions come from looking at Swiss national law; their federal (they do use that term, right?) government is very small and weak by US standards; they have as few national laws as they can have. The gun laws are all in the cantons, I believe.

You are correct; the Swiss have an average (for western Europe) crime rate. Not great; not bad, either.

I have not had the pleasure of living there; however, I did the tourist thingy.

Jones

Name them yourself.

How many official languages are there in Switzerland, Klaus? You can find an answer on a Trivial Pursuit card. It's wrong, but you'll find an answer there.

I did the tourist thingy too, many years ago.

In spite of 4 official languages, they appeared regional and I found Geneva to be predominantly French and Zurich, German.

I visited a gun shop their but stuff was fancy and pricey.

Just what I thought.

English, of course. It's a civilized society.

Jones

The answer to my question is a debatable point, based on a change they made in the '90s.

OK.

I hope to gain the pleasure of visiting soon.

Jones

I haven't been there in a *long* time. As I recall, I could get by in English if I wasn't too picky about what I actually ordered.

I didn't try to buy a machine gun.

Jones

Right. I was student in English-language comparative-politics classes, taught mostly by Brits, and I only learned survival French. I got by OK but I wouldn't do it again without being reasonably capable, if not proficient, in French.

FWIW, Switzerland has four "national" languages, but until 1997 (IIRC), only three "official" languages. Romansch was not official, and wasn't accepted for legal documents.

Since '97, Romansch is allowed, if a particular Canton approves it, for internal legal documents. And the federal government will now reply to inquiries made in Romansch. Apparently, two or three Cantons have approved it.

Some official Swiss sites now say three official languages, and others say four.

They're not for sale.

Do you mean "canton"? The Swiss don't have states.

David

Klaus, being an experienced troll, probably would have responded "But what about the Swiss Council of States" And is a "half-canton" a state (there are two of them)?

"Canton" is the common term, used as a description of the geographical and semi-autonomous government units in the Swiss federation, but they also use the term "states" used in the names of various government and non-government assemblies.

Having spent 10 months as a student of Western comparative politics, at a university in Switzerland, I detected Klaus tying to be a snide and nasty troll with his question.

Or maybe he's just ignorant. Either way, he just wanted to stir s*it.

Oh, if somebody said "state", I'd guess he or she meant "canton"... I

The issue with usenet is that it's full of experts. It doesn't matter

The Swiss have a decent model from which we could learn. At the national level, we require background checks and responsibility... close the "loopholes". Let the individual states decide anything beyond that. The US is a reasonably large country and, WRT gun laws, one size does *not* fit all. What is appropriate in Wyoming might not work in New Jersey and visa versa. If a gun owner crosses a state line, he is responsible for knowing and following the gun laws in that state.

Jones

Generally OK, but consider this. In NJ, we have to get a handgun purchase permit to buy a handgun. It includes fingerprinting and an FBI background check of the fingerprints, and an extensive mental-health check. You need references -- two, IIRC. There is more to it, and it amounts to something close to the Title 2 application. It costs $22.

We have no private sales, so we have 100% background checks for any gun sales. I've been through the process three times (my older guns are grandfathered in and didn't need the permits). It's annoying, but not onerous.

And this is the upshot: Despite having the densest population in the US, with most people living in metro areas, our firearms murder rate is below average, ranking only 30th in the country.

But that's only part of the story. Relevant to what you're suggesting, consider this: Of the crimes committed with guns in NJ, ATF crime-gun traces show that 80% of the guns used in crimes in this state come from *other* states. This is not surprising, because straw purchases are almost impossible in NJ and it's mandatory to report gun thefts; with no private sales, a legal purchaser is an accomplice to murder if they transfer a gun without going through an FFL holder (typically $25; I pay $15), and if the transferee commits a murder.

Our gun problem is other states, with PA, VA, SC, and FL being the big sources. So making it a state's rights issue, which it partly is already, results in a lot of gun crime here. Probably most of it.

The gun nutz are on the horns of a dilemma on this issue, because the McDonald decision overrides much of states' rights on gun ownership and disallows many types of state and local gun bans, as in the case of Chicago. Of course, they want it both ways: state's rights when the state laws are lax, and federal supremacy when they're tight -- including through-transport to other states.

Yeah, we must close the loophole that allows someone to walk across a state line. That's Chicago's issue; they're about an hour or so by rail from Kenosha, WI. If background checks were mandated on all gun transfers, that flow would be reduced sharply.

Jones

That "loophole" won't be closed unless we have uniform laws addressing it throughout the country, along with Swiss-style requirements for securing guns and a big change in attitude.

That won't happen, so we'll continue to be the country that has the highest rates of gun crime and gun homicide in the developed world.

I accepted that as a fact a long time ago, but I'm interested to see what the kids do about it.

I hear what you're saying; however, people are getting pretty well fed up.

At the national level, what we need is pretty simple... in theory! We need universal background checks (UBC) mandated by federal law. Now, making that happen won't be simple because it will pull the plug on the secondary market and this is a *big* cash cow for the gun industry... and the NRA will shriek like a stuck pig. Implementing UBC will entail national gun registration, of course; however, there is no second amendment issue with that. The database technology is already in place.

Once we get that, a person would not be able simply to cross a state line and buy from the secondary market because the buyer would then have to produce identification that showed his or her state residence.

With UBC in place, states would be free to define their own gun laws... which is as it should be.

But, to do that, we would have to have a political sea change. The gun industry is not known for playing nicely in the sandbox... particularly when it impacts their bottom line. UBC are a no starter with them; honesty and integrity get left rocking in our wake. Therein lies the challenge; how does one maintain personal integrity in an environment where none exists?

Jones

That 'secondary market' is another of your ghosts. Is that when you buy a hot Glock in a Baltimore alley? That's not going to change. Bangers aren't going to do a background check.

What is the volume of this secondary market? Do you have any idea or are you woofin'?

I can go over to Cabela's and buy a long gun after I fill out a 4473 and they call it in to what is supposed to be a Federal database of people who cannot purchase firearms.

I cannot purchase a handgun in Idaho. Years ago, even before the Brady bill, when I lived in NH I could drive over to the Kittery trading post in Maine and buy a rifle. If I bought a handgun I did not take possession in ME. KTP had a storefront across the river in Portsmouth where a KTP employee would meet me with the firearm and the sale would be consummated.

There is no "loophole."