..Guns Guns & More Guns

Political stuff, stuff people love to hate.
User avatar
Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 97938
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 177965Unread post Blue Frost »

Actually they have no right constitutionally, but that don't stop them, and they find judges to do it.
As for bossiness, and such they can since ti is their property. As for carry, that's a gray area I think so the state car dictate a lot.
Renee might be more eloquent in explaining, I'm not an expert.


"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
User avatar
Renee
Elite Member
Elite Member
Posts: 6444
Joined: May 7th, 2013, 10:05 am

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 177982Unread post Renee »

Mel Gibson wrote: July 1st, 2019, 2:51 am
Blue Frost wrote: July 1st, 2019, 2:31 am No, that would infringe on the right to have guns for protection since it does not specify where, and how.
Also for the militia part , you can't muster one if just at someones house unless on social media platforms. :laugh:
States do have the authority to ban guns in public though, right? I mean, not everywhere permits open carry, or concealed carry, and they have the right to implement gun-free zones too, correct?
Theoretically any infringement on gun ownership in the US is "unconstitutional". The 2nd Amendment does not specify where or when it is legal to have a gun on your person. Thus creating the ambiguity that anti-gun organizations and their political lap dogs like to exploit. But at the same time, pro-2nd Amendment proponents can fight gun laws because of the same ambiguous nature of the amendment.

The truth is, over the 20th century, gun control decisions by the SCOTUS have been a mixed bag. In The District of Columbia v Heller the following statement can be found.
"Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. For example, concealed weapons prohibitions ... possessions of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing condition and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."

The above state shows that although the court decided that the restrictive handgun gun laws in DC were indeed "unconstitutional", they were also all too willing to throw a strict interpretation of the 2nd Amendment under the bus in favor of public policy. In the past they have also used traditional comon law phrases like "unusual and dangerous" to describe types of weapons not commonly owned by civilians which simply adds to the ambiguity of amendment's interpretation. That ambiguity is what allows anti-gun fanatics and state legislators to claim that so-called "assault weapons" or any other gun deemed as for military use, should not be in the hands of civilians.

Unfortunately gun control is portrayed by politicians and anti-gun special interests as a emotionally charged issue rather than a logical or legal one. It is a fact that most people (especially stupid people) respond to emotionally charged arguments rather than legal or rational arguments. This makes fighting these state or municipality sponsored so called "reasonable gun control measures" so difficult. Power crazed leftwing politicians and the anti-gun goons who pull the anti gun strings, know this all too well, so they scream..."public safety!"...or..."We owe it to our children!" or other such histrionic bullshit...and all the non gun owning sheep go "baa, baa, baa". Worst of all even some in the firearms owning community fall for the bullshit as well.

Currently there is another gun control debate going before the SCOTUS...The first one in a decade. With the new shift in ideology on the supreme court, this could have some far reaching ramifications either way. This is still under review and there is some pretty desparate and sleazy legal wrangling going on by the state of NY to try and nullify any pro gun decision by the SCOTUS.

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2019012 ... ontrol-law

https://www.nraila.org/articles/2019053 ... of-nyc-law

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/05/27/us/p ... ntrol.html
“A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box.”....Frederick Douglas
User avatar
Mel Gibson
Super Member
Super Member
Posts: 3948
Joined: November 27th, 2018, 10:40 pm

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 177983Unread post Mel Gibson »

So theoretically, and as per the Heller ruling, a worst case scenario such as this could exist: The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right on your own property, but once you venture off of your property, the rules can become very liquid, up to and including no guns in public.
User avatar
Renee
Elite Member
Elite Member
Posts: 6444
Joined: May 7th, 2013, 10:05 am

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 177987Unread post Renee »

Mel Gibson wrote: July 1st, 2019, 3:16 pm So theoretically, and as per the Heller ruling, a worst case scenario such as this could exist: The right to keep and bear arms is an inalienable right on your own property, but once you venture off of your property, the rules can become very liquid, up to and including no guns in public.
Yes, it could "theoretically" happen.

We already have laws restricting guns in public places all across this country on both a state and federal level. Yes they vary from state to state AND they generally are obeyed by the "law abiding".

So far most politicians have been unwilling to go so far as to completely restrict gun ownership to your private property. They know that any such restriction would face enormous legal challenges and most likely would not survive intact.
“A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box.”....Frederick Douglas
User avatar
Mel Gibson
Super Member
Super Member
Posts: 3948
Joined: November 27th, 2018, 10:40 pm

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178034Unread post Mel Gibson »

Studying up on some history, it is interesting to note why this nation had taken a slightly different view on firearms, moreso handguns in particular.

It all stems back to the 'Wild West' era. In the US, the 'Wild West' was wild, and it was accepted that pretty much every man was to have firearms. Generally a revolver on belt, and rifle slung on back or in horse scabbard.

It was still fairly wild here too in that era, but there was one difference: We had much better policing at that time in history, so even back then it was generally accepted that a handgun wasn't entirely necessary like it was in US Wild West, so that sort of forged that difference. A rifle, yes. Handgun, no.
User avatar
Mel Gibson
Super Member
Super Member
Posts: 3948
Joined: November 27th, 2018, 10:40 pm

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178064Unread post Mel Gibson »

Interestingly enough, we do issue permits for open handgun carry, but these are very limited to certain scarcely populated regions, where it can be shown that the individual truly does need a smaller carry alternative to the rifle.

These people are typically miners, trappers, and the likes, where they perhaps truly need an alternative bush protection firearm that doesn't impede their need to carry other equipment.

Anybody can apply for this permit (as I have), but very, very few are issued. 99.9% of applicants will have their application fees taken, and will never hear anything again about it. At all.
User avatar
Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 97938
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178065Unread post Blue Frost »

A little history, New York during the time of the Wild west was more dangerous, and more killings, also they already had gun laws there.
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
User avatar
Renee
Elite Member
Elite Member
Posts: 6444
Joined: May 7th, 2013, 10:05 am

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178069Unread post Renee »

Blue Frost wrote: July 4th, 2019, 3:51 am A little history, New York during the time of the Wild west was more dangerous, and more killings, also they already had gun laws there.
Gun laws have rarely been about public safety or the prevention of crime. They are sociopolitical constructs; illusions used by politicians to fool the population into thinking that someone in city hall cares about them. They are the kind of bullshit laws that politicians use to get reelected and perpetuate their jobs at the expense of liberty.

It's about exploiting public fear in the guise of the so called "greater good" for personal or professional gain. Only suckers fall for it and the type of idiot that falls into that category of "do-gooder" are all the same...They deal in almost entirely in histeronics, they are willingly ignorant of their rights, intolerably sanctimonious, dangerously authoritarian and arrogant as fuck.
“A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box.”....Frederick Douglas
User avatar
Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 97938
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178075Unread post Blue Frost »

The state of California, Chicago, and most the large cities prove it, liberal thinking at it's best.
Our murder rate is up here, and people wonder whats going on to cause it :wacko:
Well liberals, that's why, Louisville is the liberal stronghold in Kentucky, and it's as corrupt as it can get, crime is bad, drugs are bad, homelessness bad, filth is bad, all from the long run of liberals running it.
It's the same in most if not all cities ran by them.
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
User avatar
Renee
Elite Member
Elite Member
Posts: 6444
Joined: May 7th, 2013, 10:05 am

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178103Unread post Renee »

As I have been saying for two decades now..."Liberals are the problem".

Everything they touch turns to shit. I started to see it back in college when Clinton was in office and with this new breed of socialist/democrat it is only getting worse. Their ideology is literally the polar opposite of what this nation was founded upon and the little plebiscite fuckers who swallow their progressive snake oil are an even bigger problem as their numbers are growing with each post secondary graduating class.
“A man’s rights rest in three boxes. The ballot-box, the jury-box, and the cartridge-box.”....Frederick Douglas
User avatar
Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 97938
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178109Unread post Blue Frost »

The Clinton's is the ones who made the agreement to let them in for their support, they had no hold on the party till they did that.
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
User avatar
Mel Gibson
Super Member
Super Member
Posts: 3948
Joined: November 27th, 2018, 10:40 pm

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178119Unread post Mel Gibson »

One thing I was going to ask about your gun laws. Here, if you are found to have broken the laws, such as being caught with a loaded pistol where you shouldn't have possessed that loaded pistol, is a very serious offense, and you can kiss your guns goodbye, probably even face some jail time, and may or may not ever be able to legally own guns ever again.

How does this work in the US? I know Felons are prohibited from owning, but what happens to the average citizen if they want to 'push their luck'? Is it a fine? Gun confiscation?
User avatar
Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 97938
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178121Unread post Blue Frost »

Lets say you carry a gun on federal property, you are arrested, and then let out most likely till a hearing.
The judge decides weather to prosecute, of look over it if you have a nice story, or good lawyer.
You can have your gun right took away, pay $10.000, and jail time if the judge is having a bad day.
I believe that's how it goes.
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
User avatar
Mel Gibson
Super Member
Super Member
Posts: 3948
Joined: November 27th, 2018, 10:40 pm

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178122Unread post Mel Gibson »

So pushing the limits is a fairly harsh offense too then... I've often wondered, since I do see many US Citizens attempting to 'push their luck' if you will, by attempting to carry where they perhaps should not, and I was just curious as to how severe the punishment usually is in doing that!
User avatar
Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 97938
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178127Unread post Blue Frost »

If they think you did it intentionally you will get hit hard, and you should be.
I know someone who forgot they had the gun on them, and they had to get a lawyer, but did get off with a warning.
Another person I know of was fined I think a few thousand, lost his two guns, and hit with the lawyer fees.
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
User avatar
Mel Gibson
Super Member
Super Member
Posts: 3948
Joined: November 27th, 2018, 10:40 pm

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178133Unread post Mel Gibson »

Same thing happens to the occasional American that shows up at the border with a handgun in car. While it may be technically possible for an American to enter Canada with a handgun, let's just assume that the necessary steps have not been taken...

When asked by customs if any weapons in car, they now have a choice to make. The easy way would be to admit they have handgun in glove compartment, which would most likely only lead to them being turned around and told to secure handgun in the US before attempting to re-enter.

Some omit this fact, either on purpose, or maybe they truly did forget they had handgun in car (which is doubtful)... They get searched. Undeclared handgun found. They now have learned an expensive lesson.

They'll seize the car too. I believe the owner can eventually apply to have vehicle returned, but it'll cost them thousands! :o
User avatar
Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 97938
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178146Unread post Blue Frost »

I had a friend at work that went to Alaska often, and Canada hunting, he had to have his guns locked, and declared every trip there, and back.
He ended up going to a bow after dealing with it a few years. Actually he just went to bow hunting all the time, and was quite amazing with it.
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
User avatar
Mel Gibson
Super Member
Super Member
Posts: 3948
Joined: November 27th, 2018, 10:40 pm

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178151Unread post Mel Gibson »

Bow would be no problem, since they aren't really restricted in any way like firearms are here. They talked about doing so briefly, but nothing ever materialized.

I think he would just have to fill out a declaration form and have the guns 'approved' for movement into or through Canada before attempting to do so. Not a particularly difficult process as far as I know... A US Citizen could probably avoid that hassle by getting a Canadian Firearms License, which is possible and perhaps desirable for someone that enters regularly with guns.

Just no handguns with barrels shorter than 4.14"! Those are verboten for entry, and only Grandfathered people here can own them. May have to get those mailed up to Alaska!
User avatar
Blue Frost
SUPER VIP
SUPER VIP
Posts: 97938
Joined: May 14th, 2012, 1:01 am
Location: Yodenheim

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178152Unread post Blue Frost »

Supposedly he had the border patrol put a lock on the guns, and before he crossed into Alaska they took it off again.
When hunting in Canada he went through a lot of red tape to hunt there, but loved doing it so he dwelt with that.
He was the type that could live off the land, and did enjoy doing so.
He asked em a few times to go, but I never had the time then, would have liked to though since it was way out in the wilderness. He was flown into places, and landed on the lakes.
"Being alone isn't what hurts. It's when the people around you make you feel alone" ~ Naruto Uzumaki, an Anime Character
User avatar
Mel Gibson
Super Member
Super Member
Posts: 3948
Joined: November 27th, 2018, 10:40 pm

..Guns Guns & More Guns

Post: # 178164Unread post Mel Gibson »

I could see there being much red tape with that, because you're not only dealing with different firearms laws, you're dealing with hunting rules & regs too. Even residents here just can't go out and start shooting animals on a whim... It's regulated.

I guess that's why some with $$$ will simply utilize the services of a guide, instead of trying to jump through all the hoops required to hunt in a foreign country solo...
Post Reply