Carry vs consfication

[bk43]

I hope he doesn't mind but it seems what oldman is trying to say is that the RKBA is and should be limited. He is correct. In a civilized society, governed by law, all rights are subject to reasonable restrictions or limitations. This is especially true when two rights conflict. For some reason a fair number of 2nd Amendment people seem to think their RKBA is superior to some rights of others(like say property rights) and it's not.

Bob

 

[DonD]

Re extreme views. I worked for 17 yrs in a national nuclear weapons laboratory. In a discussion with a shooter on another forum, the individual felt he had a right to carry EVERYWHERE. When I asked "inside a weapons storage facility?" he said the "right shall not be infringed!"

Few rights in a modern society are unlimited. I don't think a person has a right to keep a cache of biological or chemical weapons in his/her home. That is hardly a serious restriction but apparently some disagree with me. Don

 

[FirebirdV8]

When talking about places where carrying is not allowed I don't have a problem with the more exotic places like a secured power plant, a nuclear research facility, etc. However, I don't see why places like churches are limited. People have entered churches with the intent to kill people being reasonably sure that the people will be unarmed, usually they are correct. A law abiding citizen with a gun in church will not 99.9% of the time cause a problem. Should we stop someone from carrying in these places because of the .1%?

As to schools, I have heard stories from my grandfather about them walking to school with their hunting rifle, setting it next to their jackets and lunch boxes, and then going hunting on the way home. There were no school shootouts back then. Now if you mention the word gun in a school environment, the swat team gets called out. While people usually don't go hunting on their way home from school, I don't see why are we banning an honest law abiding citizen from carrying a gun on school property, especially when someone is just going to pick up their child or happen to live or work near a school?

Basically what I am saying is that, with the exception of a few secured places, we don't need to ban weapons from places they are currently banned. As a law abiding citizen I don't want to have to shoot anyone, but would prefer to have the option to defend myself; the same right all citizens with full rights should have. When a criminal walks into one of these unsecured weapons free zones, they will not obey the law, and will have free reign to do as they please since all the law abiding citizens left their guns at home.

I don't mean any offense to anyone who may disagree that's just how I see it.

 

[oldman45]

Ok, now we are getting somewhere in this.

I agree people should not be banned from carrying in a church or on school property. Many places have become havens for the criminal element due to guns being forbidden.

My original reason for this thread though was when someone mentions restricting the right to carry, you will have someone equate that to gun confiscation. Yes, there are places that I feel guns should not be allowed by individuals like court houses, police stations and jails.

Carrying in church does not hurt anything and the only ones being effected by such laws are the honest citizen.

A side note: A Louisiana representative has introduced a new bill in the Legislature that will allow carry in churches. I hope he can get it passed.

 

[oldRoger]

Any restrictions on our rights attempted by the Government should withstand judicial strict scrutiny.
It should not be the business of the Government to for example; forbid carry in a church. A church is the very epitome of a voluntary organization. Whoever establishes the rules of decorum for your church, should have the right and duty of establishing the rules for being armed, not the state.
Similarly your workplace is a voluntary organization; that is you are there voluntarily, the days of slavery are over, but the employer establishes the rules, you abide or leave.
The case for forbidding firearms in private property such as parking lots open to the public is not as clear. We had a long debate in FL about the matter last year. The private owner who admits the public loses some control of those spaces. To give two examples; he may not discriminate by race; and he must discriminate against indoor smoking.

My Grandfather was born in 1865, it would never have occurred to him that someone could or would forbid him to carry a pistol in his pocket or a shotgun in the buggy. Good sense and the wish to avoid alarming the gentle sex dictated that you not display a firearm unless needed.

Restrictions on carry are fairly recent, mostly between the wars (WW I & II), I think part of the progressive attempts to change the human species for the better, like prohibition.

 

[oldman45]

Any restrictions on our rights attempted by the Government should withstand judicial strict scrutiny.
It should not be the business of the Government to for example; forbid carry in a church. A church is the very epitome of a voluntary organization. Whoever establishes the rules of decorum for your church, should have the right and duty of establishing the rules for being armed, not the state.
Similarly your workplace is a voluntary organization; that is you are there voluntarily, the days of slavery are over, but the employer establishes the rules, you abide or leave.
The case for forbidding firearms in private property such as parking lots open to the public is not as clear. We had a long debate in FL about the matter last year. The private owner who admits the public loses some control of those spaces. To give two examples; he may not discriminate by race; and he must discriminate against indoor smoking.

My Grandfather was born in 1865, it would never have occurred to him that someone could or would forbid him to carry a pistol in his pocket or a shotgun in the buggy. Good sense and the wish to avoid alarming the gentle sex dictated that you not display a firearm unless needed.

Restrictions on carry are fairly recent,.

Various municipalities hae differing laws. Personally I do not consider it to take away any right to say I cannot carry some place. I may not like it but as with Canada, they do not allow my gun there so I do not go there.

Louisiana has some CCW laws that really suck. One such law says a person cannot carry concealed into a residence without informing the home owner that you are armed.

You mentioned your grandfather. I bet he would have never thought someone would be shooting up schools, churches, courthouses, restaurants and others that now forbid guns. I agree that forbiding carry allows the criminal more rights than you but then the honest person will not be arrested for carrying where forbidden either. Again, if I cannot carry my gun inside a place, I am not going inside that place.

Maybe I am wrong but in some books I have read, there were places including churches and saloons in the old west that made guns be checked at the door. Maybe that is old west folklore.

Locally a police officer cannot carry a gun inside a bar to make a check unless he is called to the bar and responds at the request of the bar owner.

But denying one to carry inside a place is not the same as taking away our guns in confiscation.

 

[Super Trucker]

oldman45,
Ask the survivors their opinion after a church shooting, a parade, a bar, etc. I bet they will disagree with you.

If a church doesn't mind if you carry, then the gubmint shouldn't either.

Restrictions on where a person can carry pretty much defeats the purpose of carying a gun for defenseive purpose doesn't it?

 

[oldman45]

oldman45,
Ask the survivors their opinion after a church shooting, a parade, a bar, etc. I bet they will disagree with you.

If a church doesn't mind if you carry, then the gubmint shouldn't either.

Restrictions on where a person can carry pretty much defeats the purpose of carying a gun for defenseive purpose doesn't it?

Breaking this down, there has been a lot of shootings in court houses as well but nobody is complaining about not being armed there.

While I will agree with you on the church. My thought on this is if the church does not mind, then who is going to complain about you carrying. I have carried to church. Yes, I was breaking a law but the pastor said he did not have a problem if some of the members carried. The only one that would know I am carrying is me so who is to complain. I have not seen a church yet that had metal detectors at the door.

Yet the fact is 99.9999% of those carrying will never see a need to use. I am going to say this but do not take it to mean I do not support carry. I firmly think all law abiding, mentally sound adults should carry. That said, the avg person will be more affected by auto accidents, theft or house fire. Patrol officers will tell you the people they stop complain about being stopped when crime is so bad. Yet crime is not as common as car wrecks due to driver violations.

I have never been in a church, court or airport shooting. They happen on occasion. I bet you have not either. But I bet you have had other incidents happen that had an effect on your life.

Do I think you should stop carrying? NO. But there is likley a couple million churches that had services yesterday. Some had two services. I did not hear of a single shooting. Is it best to be prepared for what may never happen? YES. Would I like to see the laws changed for the better? YES. But I would also like to see those committing crime to serve the sentence they deserve. Maybe some day I will be happy with both.

 

[senecaap]

I hope he doesn't mind but it seems what oldman is trying to say is that the RKBA is and should be limited. He is correct. In a civilized society, governed by law, all rights are subject to reasonable restrictions or limitations. This is especially true when two rights conflict. For some reason a fair number of 2nd Amendment people seem to think their RKBA is superior to some rights of others(like say property rights) and it's not.

Bob

OK let us set a few reasonable restrictions on the 4th amendment, after all if you aren't doing anything wrong or have no illegal materials you shouldn't worry about the police coming by without a warrant "just to look around." I mean, you follow the law don't you, and surely you support the police? Why not make things easier on the poor police and let them look around, all warrantless and without probable cause, because we are in a civilized society with a severe backlog in the court system. If they wait to get a warrant and show probable cause, the system will just be that much more backed up. Surely you wouldn't oppose this very reasonable restriction/limitation would you? And of course the 2nd Amendment and anyone who ever even thought about protecting themselves should first genuflect at the alter of property rights, after all the government who would impose these...reasonable...restrictions on the 2nd amendment has such a stellar track record at respecting property rights.

 

[oldman45]

OK let us set a few reasonable restrictions on the 4th amendment, after all if you aren't doing anything wrong or have no illegal materials you shouldn't worry about the police coming by without a warrant "just to look around." I mean, you follow the law don't you, and surely you support the police? Why not make things easier on the poor police and let them look around, all warrantless and without probable cause, because we are in a civilized society with a severe backlog in the court system. If they wait to get a warrant and show probable cause, the system will just be that much more backed up. Surely you wouldn't oppose this very reasonable restriction/limitation would you? And of course the 2nd Amendment and anyone who ever even thought about protecting themselves should first genuflect at the alter of property rights, after all the government who would impose these...reasonable...restrictions on the 2nd amendment has such a stellar track record at respecting property rights.

This is not comparing apples to apples. It is highly unlikely you ever had a warrant issued against you. It is just as unlikely you have ever had a problem with a weapon. If a place or law does not allow carry in a place, then do not go to that place.

Lowes did not allow guns on their property. People shopped at Home Depot or elsewhere. Lowes now allows guns on their property due to public voice. If we do not like the law, get the law changed. Louisiana is doing that with churches. The law may be replealed this year.

 

[senecaap]

This is not comparing apples to apples. It is highly unlikely you ever had a warrant issued against you. It is just as unlikely you have ever had a problem with a weapon. If a place or law does not allow carry in a place, then do not go to that place.

Lowes did not allow guns on their property. People shopped at Home Depot or elsewhere. Lowes now allows guns on their property due to public voice. If we do not like the law, get the law changed. Louisiana is doing that with churches. The law may be replealed this year.

I am in agreement with you on voting with your dollars/feet. My problem was with the idea that we ought to go along with "reasonable restrictions" on rights. I believe "reasonable restrictions" not just on the 2nd Amendment, but on a whole slew of rights have led us down a dark road.
You see my family are Scottish, Irish and Cherokee. This may not mean much to most people, but our views on government are forged on the anvil of the Massacre at Glencoe, the Clearences, the anti-Irish laws both in the UK and here, the Trail of Tears and the breaking of every US Treaty (read that as breaking the law) by the US government. All these things were perpetrated by the respective governments either in compliance with the law or in contravention to the law,and without punishment or recourse. The Bill of Rights is not just a listing of things we are allowed to do, it is a protection against the government, a spelling out of what it cannot do. All I hear is "reasonable restriction" or "reasonable accomodation." Try paying your taxes on the 16th of April and see how "reasonable" the IRS is. Any erosion of our Rights (I'm not just concerned with the 2nd, truthfully there are attacks on all these days, except maybe the 3rd) I believe should be stopped, as I have never seen the Federal Government have an inclination to stop growing, or to cede back power it has seized.
And whether or not I have had a warrant issued against me or not is of NO import, I and everyone else in this country have the same rights as that goes. By that line of logic, I shouldn't care if certain anti-Jewish laws were enacted because I have never been Jewish.

 

[PDL]

OK let us set a few reasonable restrictions on the 4th amendment, after all if you aren't doing anything wrong or have no illegal materials you shouldn't worry about the police coming by without a warrant "just to look around." I mean, you follow the law don't you, and surely you support the police? Why not make things easier on the poor police and let them look around, all warrantless and without probable cause, because we are in a civilized society with a severe backlog in the court system. If they wait to get a warrant and show probable cause, the system will just be that much more backed up. Surely you wouldn't oppose this very reasonable restriction/limitation would you? And of course the 2nd Amendment and anyone who ever even thought about protecting themselves should first genuflect at the alter of property rights, after all the government who would impose these...reasonable...restrictions on the 2nd amendment has such a stellar track record at respecting property rights.

You'd do better with another amendment. The 4th went out the window when the court said it was OK for DUI checks - for safety of course. Just cause they fine you and put you in jail if you're an offender, it's still not a 'criminal' warrantless and/or baseless search. Lawyers and politicians can make the law read and work the way they want, depending on the appathy or lack of power of the populace.
And I don't need flames, If you're driving drunk you should be stopped. Just not cause you're the 4th car.

 

[oldman45]

I am in agreement with you on voting with your dollars/feet. My problem was with the idea that we ought to go along with "reasonable restrictions" on rights. I believe "reasonable restrictions" not just on the 2nd Amendment, but on a whole slew of rights have led us down a dark road.
You see my family are Scottish, Irish and Cherokee. This may not mean much to most people, but our views on government are forged on the anvil of the Massacre at Glencoe, the Clearences, the anti-Irish laws both in the UK and here, the Trail of Tears and the breaking of every US Treaty (read that as breaking the law) by the US government. All these things were perpetrated by the respective governments either in compliance with the law or in contravention to the law,and without punishment or recourse. The Bill of Rights is not just a listing of things we are allowed to do, it is a protection against the government, a spelling out of what it cannot do. All I hear is "reasonable restriction" or "reasonable accomodation." Try paying your taxes on the 16th of April and see how "reasonable" the IRS is. Any erosion of our Rights (I'm not just concerned with the 2nd, truthfully there are attacks on all these days, except maybe the 3rd) I believe should be stopped, as I have never seen the Federal Government have an inclination to stop growing, or to cede back power it has seized.
And whether or not I have had a warrant issued against me or not is of NO import, I and everyone else in this country have the same rights as that goes. By that line of logic, I shouldn't care if certain anti-Jewish laws were enacted because I have never been Jewish.

I never said wrongs have not been committed by the government. They are doing it today on a major scale. Show me where the Czars that your President appointed is legal. Show me where the government controlling healthcare, banking, insurance and the auto industry is legal. Yes, wrongs are being committed.

The flip side is the majority of people are applying laws wrongfully to suit their needs.

There is not Freedom of Speech protection for the citizen. Try telling your boss what you think of him and see if he fires you. Freedom of Speech was to protect individuals and the press for speaking out against the government. In England today, they cannot speak ill of the Queen openly without repercussions.

Separation of Church & State was not meant to protect the State from the Church but just the opposite. England had a State Church and that was not wanted here.

There are many laws that are being misinterpreted. I believe in the Second and stand by it. But there are limits in anything. People are restricted by the Second but many do not understand that. I have the Right to tell people they cannot bring guns on my property. Actually I would invite people to do so but it is my property and I can set any limits I want.

A good example of that happened here a couple yrs ago at a parade. An altercation broke out in the crowd. A legal CCW person fired at his assailant. He missed and struck two others, one fatally. Yes, there was a law forbidding carry at a parade and that instance is a reason why the law is in place. Protection of the public at large overrides individual protection.

We can all agree the police cannot protect each of us, nor do they serve us. Our personal protection and that of our family is up to the individual but it is overshadowed when protection of the masses is concerned. Limitations are placed with some reasoning behind the laws. These laws may be changed but a little at a time but there has to be pressure applied at the legislature and the public benefit has to be proven.

 

[senecaap]

To oldman45
I agree. My point is not that Your Rights or My Rights trump private property. My problem is with who sets those limits. As property rights go, I am as Libertarian as you can be. I am sovereign on my property as you are on yours. I have many times been asked places and was told not to carry, and I made my choice on whether or not to go (mostly not). We both made choices and there were consequences for them. There have been times, at family events, people have asked where they can put their beer, wine, etc and I have told them they can put it in the car. Sometimes they went ahead and put the car in drive an vacated. I made a rule they made a choice and we all lived with it. I am very comfortable with a person making their own rules on their own land.

My problem is when the government attacks these rights. As per your example: "In England today, they cannot speak ill of the Queen openly without repercussions" the Queen is the Head of Government but you may not question her/it. Thus we have the 1st Amendment for citizens, individuals and the press.
I am not convinced of the goodwill and charitable nature of the government, thus I oppose the restrictions of these Rights by them. Yes, there is no possible enfranchisement of the Bill of Rights in the realm of citizen to citizen, however there is no reason to support ongoing "reasonable restrictions" by the government. They don't want everyday citizens carrying arms in schools or government buildings; ok, those are their property, I'll go with it.

However when they limit where you can carry, and they have no rights that is where I have a problem. Churches, restaurants, etc; if a Church want's to allow its congregants to carry they should have the final say, not the government. In TN the owner of a Liquor Store can't have a firearm in HIS OWN STORE. These are the things that give me heartburn.

There is one area in your response that bears pondering; at the parade, where the CCW missed the assailants and hit the innocent bystanders. This is sad...but what if it had been a cop instead of a CCW firing at people who assailed him? The people would be just as injured/dead, and the assailants may still have gotten away. The basic events would still be the same. I understand the difference between the two types, but I have often wondered why some have the right to protect themselves in ALL instances and others can only protect themselves in SOME instances.

As much as we have posted, I'm sure we agree on the issues, its just the details and fine points where the devil hides.

 

[oldman45]

To oldman45

There is one area in your response that bears pondering; at the parade, where the CCW missed the assailants and hit the innocent bystanders. This is sad...but what if it had been a cop instead of a CCW firing at people who assailed him? The people would be just as injured/dead, and the assailants may still have gotten away. The basic events would still be the same. I understand the difference between the two types, but I have often wondered why some have the right to protect themselves in ALL instances and others can only protect themselves in SOME instances.

As much as we have posted, I'm sure we agree on the issues, its just the details and fine points where the devil hides.

We do have common ground for sure.

It needs to be understood that police often shoot the wrong people more often than do citizens but they are also not immune to legal action as well as they are sometimes more restrained than civilians through training.

As we speak, a strange vehicle was parked in the street in front of my house. My daughter left to go home and saw a man walking back and forth up and down the street. I called the local police and they sent two cars out. Turns out the car belongs to a guest in a home two doors down but the walker has not identified. The officers told me there have been several home burglaries in the neighborhood lately and I was justified in calling them. It was better for me to allow them to handle the situation than me and also less paperwork than would have been if I made a confrontation. What really started this was when my dau and I walked out to her car, all my security lights were on, including in a carport on my house. None of this is to say I did not put on my gun and cuff case to go out there, even when talking with the local police.

 

[oldRoger]

Of course as has been said the devil is in the details.

When it comes to restricting rights (denying is a better word) should the government decide? What process should they use to decide? Should we have Barney, Nancy, Henry, Maxine, & Co do it?........They are more than willing.

I am sure that Churches did decide not to permit weapons in the services, or at least to discourage the same back in Granddad’s day (I wish that I could ask him). I doubt very much that Quakers permitted weapons in the meeting house. However there is a big difference between the individual church group making that decision and it being made for them by the government.

There were lots of dangerous things happening back then, hostile indians, outlaws, etc. violence was fairly common. Yet being armed was routine because few were under the illusion that disarming themselves would eliminate violence.

One thing has changed. Some people now think that evil can be combated by removing the means of self defense from the innocent.
Certainly good people will screw-up and misuse their weapons. But in Florida where dwell lots of legally armed citizens, screw-ups are rare. I am certain that some of those citizens should be better trained, but I would not dream of insisting that it be a prerequisite.
The most dangerous thing I see by far is people running red lights.

 

[oldman45]

Of course as has been said the devil is in the details.

When it comes to restricting rights (denying is a better word) should the government decide? What process should they use to decide? Should we have Barney, Nancy, Henry, Maxine, & Co do it?........They are more than willing.

I am sure that Churches did decide not to permit weapons in the services, or at least to discourage the same back in Granddad’s day (I wish that I could ask him). I doubt very much that Quakers permitted weapons in the meeting house. However there is a big difference between the individual church group making that decision and it being made for them by the government.

There were lots of dangerous things happening back then, hostile indians, outlaws, etc. violence was fairly common. Yet being armed was routine because few were under the illusion that disarming themselves would eliminate violence.

One thing has changed. Some people now think that evil can be combated by removing the means of self defense from the innocent.
Certainly good people will screw-up and misuse their weapons. But in Florida where dwell lots of legally armed citizens, screw-ups are rare. I am certain that some of those citizens should be better trained, but I would not dream of insisting that it be a prerequisite.
The most dangerous thing I see by far is people running red lights.

The Pastors of the churches are the ones that asked to be excluded in the law. Are you aware that the United Methodist Church is asking the Congress to enact gun confiscation? Send me a fax number and I will fax you a four page letter to Congress from the Methodist chuch asking for confiscation. Are you aware the Presbyterian church has signed on to stand with the anti gun groups and publically ask for it's members to give up it's guns? Just because it is a church does not mean it's leaders are not liberal.

For the most part, the liberals want you to give up their guns but they want to keep theirs.

 

[senecaap]

The Pastors of the churches are the ones that asked to be excluded in the law. Are you aware that the United Methodist Church is asking the Congress to enact gun confiscation? Send me a fax number and I will fax you a four page letter to Congress from the Methodist chuch asking for confiscation. Are you aware the Presbyterian church has signed on to stand with the anti gun groups and publically ask for it's members to give up it's guns? Just because it is a church does not mean it's leaders are not liberal.

For the most part, the liberals want you to give up their guns but they want to keep theirs.

A new system of class and privilege (really an old one lifted from France and England). The return of the First and Second Estates, lovely.

 

[oldRoger]

The United Methodists, at least the national governing body is at the forefront of the “eliminate evil by disarming the innocent” movement or at least fellow travelers. The United Methodists also worry about global warming, social justice, etc, etc, etc,. It should be noted that most of these liberal national organizations are not representative. Few of the members have a voice in the selection or removal of national “spokesman” or “leaders”, in some cases they are self perpetuating. I think in fact in the case of the UM that their “flock” seems to be in disagreement with the national leadership.

I certainly believe that the Pastor, Minster, Priest, etc, has very right to have his/her opinion about what should be done in his house of worship which is not public property. Dependent upon the governing system of the church involved, they may suggest or demand that you agree to certain limits on you rights when attending that particular church. So be it!

My point is that their writ runs to their church only; I respect their view only to their door. I certainly do not agree with most of their opinions

As far as limitations on keeping and bearing arms, I think the government has a role in how and when we employ arms but very little in keeping and bearing.

 

[oldman45]

The United Methodists, at least the national governing body is at the forefront of the “eliminate evil by disarming the innocent” movement or at least fellow travelers. The United Methodists also worry about global warming, social justice, etc, etc, etc,. It should be noted that most of these liberal national organizations are not representative. Few of the members have a voice in the selection or removal of national “spokesman” or “leaders”, in some cases they are self perpetuating. I think in fact in the case of the UM that their “flock” seems to be in disagreement with the national leadership.

I certainly believe that the Pastor, Minster, Priest, etc, has very right to have his/her opinion about what should be done in his house of worship which is not public property. Dependent upon the governing system of the church involved, they may suggest or demand that you agree to certain limits on you rights when attending that particular church. So be it!

My point is that their writ runs to their church only; I respect their view only to their door. I certainly do not agree with most of their opinions

As far as limitations on keeping and bearing arms, I think the government has a role in how and when we employ arms but very little in keeping and bearing.

Roger,

We are almost on the same wave here.

If I may ask you, would you belong to a group, faternal, civic or religious that did not share your beliefs or that you have no say in? This is in effect what people do when belonging to such as the UMC.

Many pastors, bishops and the like have been excommunicated for going against the teachings of the denomination. I doubt you will find a gun owning Methodist pastor that will say bring your gun to church.

The Baptist has not taken a stand on gun control and I doubt you will find many of their pastors that would have a problem with you having your gun in church since them doing so will not put them in conflict with the church.

Move to Morton Grove, IL and see if the government allows you to keep arms, much less bear arms. I will not live in places that will not allow me to own and carry. I will not work in places that will not allow me to own and carry. I will not join any group that does not endorse owning and carrying.