Florida lawmakers pass take-your-guns-to-work law

[Kadie]

Florida lawmakers pass take-your-guns-to-work law
By Michael Peltier
3 minutes ago


TALLAHASSEE, Florida (Reuters) - Most Florida residents would be allowed to take guns to work under a measure passed by Florida lawmakers on Wednesday.

The bill, allowing workers to keep guns in their cars for self-protection, was approved by the Florida Senate by a vote of 26-13. It now goes to Republican Gov. Charlie Crist to sign into law.

Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labour unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

The measure applies to employees, customers and those invited to the business establishment as long as they have a permit to carry the weapon.

Backers say the measure upholds the vision of the authors of the U.S. Constitution, who made the right to bear arms part of the Bill of Rights.

"The second thing they wrote about in that constitution was the right to bear arms," said Sen. Durell Peaden, a Republican from Crestview, Florida. "It was what was dear in their hearts."

more...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080409/od_uk_nm/oukoe_uk_usa_florida_guns_1;_ylt=AkQMjbii4Sy2fu0I0hMf1fHmWMcF

[N4457S]

1. Look...

...Florida is a rough place. It always was even back in the Revolutionary War days before statehood.

Florida is not San Francisco. Few places are.

[coriolis]

3. Got Bonanza?

:D

[N4457S]

23. I Lived...

...in Dallas for a number of years, and the absolute worst possible thing you can ever do there is to say something that makes a southerner feel as though you're looking down upon him.

This, in my opinion, is one of the reasons Democrats don't have a good track record of winning national elections in southern states.

[coriolis]

40. I agree but I am completely confused by your response!

Your username looked familiar...airplane-wise. :shrug:

[kevinbgoode]

185. Wow...what a bonus for the plethora of automobile thefts

how much easier can we give a car thief access to a firearm for the getaway?

[coriolis]

2. Good...but "backed by NRA and some labor unions"...that will explode some heads

around here. :-)

[Larkspur]

4. Can we start a clock on how long before a worker uses this law to

bring a gun into work and shoot his fellow workers and bosses? Or when road rage turns a road into a scene from the old Wild West days?

Glad I'm not a policeman in Florida.

[coriolis]

6. Uh, Florida (like 40 other states) has allowed concealed carrying of guns for years.

The only thing this changes is that the business can't forbid the employee to do what is legal most everywhere else.

[N4457S]

26. Yeah...

...a cop told me Indiana has had concealed carry since the Great Depression because of all the bank robberies during that era.

[zanne]

113. CCW laws state that if it is in your car,

You may not have bullets in it and it has to be in the glove compartment. It also involves a CCW permit.

[coriolis]

181. You are absolutely mistaken. Or something else.

...

[krispos42]

232. She's half-mistaken

For transport, you don't need a special permit, but the gun has to be unloaded and secured in your trunk.

For loaded concealed carry (like in the glovebox) you need a permit.

Some states allow loaded open carry, like Virginia and South Dakota. I don't know if Florida does, though.

[zanne]

245. Those are the NH laws. nt

[kevinbgoode]

186. Then what would be the point of carrying a firearm?

is this just some kind of penis reassurance?

I'd like to know how many car thiefs have stumbled upon a firearm in the glove box. . .

[coriolis]

187. Never, unless they stole the car from an employee parking lot.

:eyes: :argh:

[zanne]

247. Or broke into the car to get at the gun.

In my crystal ball, I can see many, many car break-ins in Florida, many more guns on the street and far fewer tourists.

[gatts]

206. Florida CCW Law

You may not have bullets in it and it has to be in the glove compartment. It also involves a CCW permit.

In Florida, the law against carry of concealed weapons in a car does not apply to CCW permit owners at all, as long as the firearms is on their person. The law also allows anyone, concealed carry permit or not, to have a firearm in their car as long as the firearm is securely encased (under legal jurisprudence, this includes being held in a snapped holster in addition to closed cases or boxes) and not on the individual's person.

This obviously varies by state, but know the law in a relevant format before claiming a part of it, please.

[spin]

220. Absolutely right...

I'm a Florida resident and yes, this is the law.

I knew a man who used to carry a loaded .45 auto in a cigar box on his passenger seat. He was a retired police officer from St.Petersburg.

He was by far the best shooter I ever knew. He had won many NRA bullseye and police competitions. He also had helped train FBI agents. I learned a lot about shooting form him. Unfortunately, I'll never approach his ability.

He was gifted with superior eyesight and unbelievable concentration.

[zanne]

246. Florida has very loose gun laws. nt

[Redneck Socialist]

255. Not exactly zanne

You're not allowed to carry a loaded weapon in your car in NH unless you have a Pistol License. It doesn't have to be in the glove box.

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XII/159/159-4.htm

[csziggy]

9. If it means state workers can take guns to their jobs,

Political appointees had better watch out. Especially since there is zero chance workers will get any kind of pay increase in the foreseeable future.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

12. Hmm and somehow you think

If I got it into my head to go to work and shoot the people I work with a law letting me bring a gun to the parking lot is the last piece of the puzzle?

[dmallind]

21. Apparently yes

Even when I was a gun control fan this logic never made sense to me. Like any "no gun zone" it assumes that a person would be willing to break laws against murder (life or even execution), assault with a deadly weapon (major felony time), and any number of other violent crimes, but would be stopped from doing so because they are unwilling to risk a fine or petty misdemeanor for bringing a gun where one isn't allowed.

[axollot]

122. I think it can reduce the cooling off time.....

meaning, someone looses it and plans to kill the boss. Instead of having to go and get the gun from god knows where - it's a short walk away. The cooling off period is reduced. By the time they get home they could have change their mind..

Cheers
Sandy

[Irreverend IX]

22. If someone wanted to commit murder, why would they care about breaking company policy?

Someone that crazy wouldn't give two shits about any rule their employer made against guns in cars. And "Wild West shootings" have been foretold whenever concealed carry laws have been liberalized, but these grim predictions have consistently failed to materialize.

[spoony]

33. Well they don't want to get written up or something!

Their "casual Friday" priveleges might be revoked :D

[krispos42]

30. You should open a window or something

Your mental facilities are deteriorating. You are either completely ignorant of the topic and unwilling or unable to educate yourself, or you have such a pathological fear of the concept of firearms that you should probably go see a professional.


There are numerous things wrong with your post. Unfortunately I have to go to work, so I don't have time to deal with them now.

But I am grateful that they have a sign on the front door that says they don't allow guns on the property, or else I just might to BESERK!!!!!!!!

[Larkspur]

35. I'm a proud non-gun owner

So what will happen in FL if a gun toting citizen does not use their fire arm to stop a crime? Can they be sued for not getting involved to stop a murder or robbery?

What happens to us non-gun owners, can we be sued for not owning a gun? And if we don't want to work next to someone who is stashing their gun in their desk, can employers be forced to accomodate us? Can we treat gun toting employees like smokers?

[coriolis]

41. Be careful what you wish for, because it sure looks like you're smoking

something.

[Larkspur]

67. I have never smoked in my life

nor do I like alcohol, except to cook with. I have yet to find a reason to own a gun. Can't think of any valid reason.

I think the zealous gun nuts suffer from penis envy. Freud coined the term but he applied it to the wrong group -- women. Most gun nuts are angry white males and guns are a penis extender for them. That irrational obsession with guns is why they think gun control advocates want to take their guns away when in reality gun control advocates want to "regulate" guns and do it tougher than the laws allowed. The 2nd Amendment refers to a "well regulated militia" and that means the government -- we the people -- can regulate gun ownership.

[spin]

222. While I can't speak for other male white gun enthusiasts ....

I can assure you that my penis is of average length. Also I don't suffer from anger management issues.

The guns that I carry on a regular basis have barrel lengths that are shorter than my penis. (Much easier to carry and conceal.) Feel free to reply with an insulting comment.

I do like to shoot an 8 3/8 inch S&W .357 mag at long rang targets because with my aging eyes the barrel length makes me slightly more accurate. The penis is a short range weapon and I've never heard of one being effective at 25 or 50 yards. Therefore, I doubt that the barrel length of the Smith and Wesson that I like for target shooting is pertinent to the discussion.

Please practice your amateur psychology on me. I always enjoy a good laugh.

[krispos42]

58. Open wider

Breathe deep. Get that oxygen into your bloodstream.



Better? Good.




Proud non-gun owner, huh? Well, good for you. You have a choice, and you chose. In fact, every single day you choose to not own a gun. Isn't it nice having choices?

Think about all the billions of people in the world that, like you, don't have a gun. But unlike you, they don't have a choice. Sad, isn't it? The governments of those countries pat their citizens on the head and say "No, no, you can't have these. Don't worry, though, the police will protect you. And we always promise to honor the names you write down on pieces of paper on election day. We swear."

And how proud are you, anyway? Got a little sign on your house? "THIS HOME IS PROUDLY GUN-FREE". Maybe a bumper sticker on your car?




Perhaps to understand the law better, we need to rename it. How about the "It's My Fucking Car and What I Keep In It Is None of My Employer's Fucking Business Act of 2008"?

[Larkspur]

68. Give me a valid reason to own a gun

Why would I need a gun? I can't think of any valid reason for me to own a gun.

[krispos42]

72. You, personally?

That's up to you. I know why *I* own guns, and in my mind they are valid reasons. Many other people agree with me.

But I'm not you.

I can give you my reasons if you want, but I doubt you would agree with me.

[SteveM]

98. Defense, hunting, target shooting. There, that wasn't bad, was it?

[spin]

116. My daughter used a gun to stop a rapist...

who was breaking into our house by prying open a sliding glass door. She was 17 years old.

She had a 60 pound Labrador retriever in the house and a burglar alarm was sounding.

He said "I'm going to rape you".

She pointed a S&W .45 acp model 25-2 revolver at him (It's the same size as a .44 magnum).

He left. End of problem.

I'm glad I taught her how to shoot and she had her favorite gun under her bed.

Now I have two wonderful grandchildren to enjoy.

Is that a valid enough reason to own a gun?

[iverglas]

117. rape! rape! rape!

There can't be a gunluvvin thread without it. Little puny terrorized sexually assaulted woman and/or woman with gun and bad guy with hole blown in head. Both versions are welcome. Bedtime reading for some.

He said "I'm going to rape you".

Okay, women who have been raped. (That will be most of us.)

Did the man who did it walk up to you and say "I'm going to rape you"? Have you ever heard of any man who announced "I'm going to rape you" to a woman?

Somebody needs to preserve these tales for posterity.

[spin]

128. I could post an angry reply but...

I'm just giving you the facts.

Okay, women who have been raped. (That will be most of us.)

Well I'm glad to say my daughter wasn't. I guess I can thank Smith & Wesson.

Did the man who did it walk up to you and say "I'm going to rape you"? Have you ever heard of any man who announced "I'm going to rape you" to a woman?

Obviously this guy wasn't very smart. He was breaking into a house with an alarm sounding and a large dog inside. Note: often in real life incidents like this often end without some "bad guy with hole blown in head". Thank God it she didn't have to shoot him. In real life killing someone causes psychological damage to the shooter. Killing a person even in self defense is not like killing someone in a computer game.

Yes, guns are often used to commit crime and violence. Guns are also often used to stop crime and violence. In life most things have both positive and negative effects.

You asked for a valid reason to own a gun. Like it or not, I gave you one.

Of course I don't want to try to convince you to own a firearm. That's a decision you alone have to make. You can always call 911. Good luck.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

226. Can't let you get away with these incorrect statements.

You wrote, "Okay, women who have been raped. (That will be most of us.)"


Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up the assertion you made that 51% of women have been raped?

Why do you insist on imposing your views on guns and sexual assault on other women? Some women may want to protect themselves with a firearm, I personally have no problem with that. You don't, good for you, your choice and I don't have a problem with that either. I'm sorry that you find this argument so emotional but it is a valid one.

David

[iverglas]

229. yeah, I do

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up the assertion you made that 51% of women have been raped?

I have the recounted experience of every woman I have known, a large majority of whom have experienced forced sexual intercourse, whether as a child by a family member / acquaintance, as a young person by a date, as an adult by her husband or partner, at any age by a stranger, every scenario you can imagine.

But hey, I'll bet if you asked the male persons involved in each incident, you'd come up with a slightly lower figure for the "have you raped a woman?" poll than for the "has a man raped you?" poll. That could be the source of your skepticism.


Why do you insist on imposing your views on guns and sexual assault on other women?

Why are you dragging irrelevant false allegations into this discussion?

The real question is:

Why can not a single man who rants about "gun rights" here or anywhere else not do it without dragging in the experiences of a woman who has not been consulted and has not volunteered to have her experiences put into the service of his agenda?

Far more people are robbed every day than are sexually assaulted by strangers. And far, far, far more people are killed in the course of robberies -- mostly by firearm -- than are killed in the course of sexual assaults. So why is it that we always get the third-party rape tales when someone needs a victim to hoist on his flagpole?


I'm sorry that you find this argument so emotional but it is a valid one.

I'm sorry that I find myself talking to someone who has so little respect for the people he chooses to talk to that he chooses to speak shit like this to me.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

251. The question was why does anyone need a gun.

A poster chose to write of his daughter's experience, you have no way to know her opinion about her story being posted. Since she used a firearm to defend herself there is a strong chance she has a different take on it than you do. People post stories all the time about people defending themselves during a wide variety of crimes. I have seen at least one woman on here post a story about defending herself with a firearm.

David

[krypton_son]

295. Because they're fun.

Personally I own over 10 guns, I love to target shoot, and yeah, they're good for self defense. Most car-jackers, burgalers, etc. carry one, if they are going to have one, I'm not being caught without one.

[Larkspur]

167. And there are pleny of gun stories where the gun owner

lost his gun to a criminal who used it against the gun owner or others.

And of course there are stories of the children of gun owners finding the gun and shooting their siblings with it while they played "cops and robbers" or "Cowboys and Indians".

Your daughter was lucky. If a gang had come after her, she would have been overpowered or died shooting. As I've said in other posts, guns are a temporary solution to a moment in time. They are not solutions to long lasting problems.

If you want to look at a society with no regulation on guns, just look at Iraq. We sent home the Iraqi Army with the AK-47's and now they're using them against our troops and each other. There is no way I'd want to live in a society modeled after Iraq.

[spin]

210. You bring up some very valid points...

And there are plenty of gun stories where the gun owner lost his gun to a criminal who used it against the gun owner or others.

Fortunately, my daughter had also trained in judo and jujitsu for seven years. This training gave her enabled her to react calmly and confidently in the situation. Had she been trembling in fear, it's quite likely the bad guy would have entered and grabbed her gun from her. As it was, after she called and the police arrived, she WAS trembling and couldn't release the gun from her hand. The police officer told her to point it at the floor and gently pried her fingers open. Another retired police officer explained to me that reactions like that are not unusual after a life threatening situation.

And of course there are stories of the children of gun owners finding the gun and shooting their siblings with it while they played "cops and robbers" or "Cowboys and Indians".

Very true. I remember finding my mothers S&W Lady Smith .22 cal revolver and some ammo in a drawer when I was very young. Fortunately my father had removed the firing pin so the revolver would not fire. I keep ALL my weapons in a gun safe.

Your daughter was lucky. If a gang had come after her, she would have been overpowered or died shooting. As I've said in other posts, guns are a temporary solution to a moment in time. They are not solutions to long lasting problems.

Also true. Had a gang broke into the house and after having one or two of the gang members shot, continued to attack her, she would have been shit out of luck. Chances are they would have fled after the first shot. The more permanent solution to the problem would be to move. I chose not to. Luckily we had no further problems.

If you want to look at a society with no regulation on guns, just look at Iraq. We sent home the Iraqi Army with the AK-47's and now they're using them against our troops and each other. There is no way I'd want to live in a society modeled after Iraq.

As far as firearms you already do if you live in the United States...


United States population...273,000,000

Firearms (handguns, rifles, and shotguns) owned by civilians...235,000,000


http://gunsafe.org/position%20statements/Guns%20and%20crime.htm

We just don't have a foreign country occupying our nation and our religions don't hate each other quite as passionately.

[DaDooRonRon]

257. Oh dear, look what I just found

you, here: "I keep ALL my weapons in a gun safe."

you, at post 116: "I'm glad I taught her how to shoot and she had her favorite gun under her bed."

You should always double check the shit you made up before BEFORE you post the shit you make up now.

Otherwise it looks bad.

[spin]

261. My daughter was 17 years old at the time....

She now is 36.

She now has two children who are 13 and 12 years old.

If you were really sharp you would realize that allowing a 17 year old access to a loaded weapon is currently illegal in Florida. It wasn't back then. The police who arrived on the scene after the incident had no problems with her having the weapon.

My daughter, her husband and the grandchildren and myself all live together in an enormous house that was built before 1926. Having two young grandchildren and all their friends running around makes me lock my guns up. If I lived alone, I would have a least one loaded weapon readily available...unless, of course, the grandchildren were visiting.

If I wanted to make a story up, I would make it more exciting.

[iverglas]

278. uh huh ... and ...

If you were really sharp you would realize that allowing a 17 year old access to a loaded weapon is currently illegal in Florida.

... there would of course have been a 100% solid basis for assuming that you complied with that law at all times?

Somebody who allows a 17-year-old to keep a loaded firearm under her bed ... sorry, but there's just no telling what such a person would do.

The police who arrived on the scene after the incident had no problems with her having the weapon.

This would presumably be because it wasn't illegal. They had "no problem" because there wouldn't have been a blamed thing they could do about it if they did.

I keep wondering, if you were so concerned about your daughter's safety that you gave her a firearm to keep loaded under her bed (sorry, I know that's a complete nonsense, but I work with the material I'm given), you didn't teach her now to lock doors and advise her of the wisdom of doing so. I find that those sticks that come with sliding glass doors these days, or that sensible people inserted in them themselves before they became standard issue, work rather well against priers.

Of course, since your daughter apparently found him in the act of prying open a sliding glass door, and it's a great big house, I'm not sure why she would have been unable simply to exit the house via a different aperture.

Never mind any bollocks about duties to retreat. If you want to avoid being harmed, you retreat whenever possible.


edited to fix typo ... and while I'm here ...


Did you and your daughter lock that loaded firearm under her bed away somewhere safer when you weren't home?

If not (and why do I suspect not?), I guess it's just lucky that somebody didn't pry open that door when you weren't hom, say "I'm going to steal your gun", and take it along when prying open the next door to rape the next 17-year-old who didn't happen to have a firearm in her hand ...

[spin]

290. The house I lived in 19 years ago was much smaller....

Believe it not people occasionally move.

I was working graveyard shift at the time and was at work. I assumed that an alarm system and a large dog would deter intruders. Bad assumption. The dog was big and black but basically useless in the situation. She always had a hard time dealing with loud noises, thunder terrified her. The noise of the alarm eliminated her as a factor in the situation. I used to joke that she was really intelligent. If things got out of hand, we had the guns. She would just let us take care of the problem.

Locked sliding glass doors are easy to jimmy. That's what set the alarm off. According to the current TV commercials the bad guy should have ran away. He didn't. And you can believe I was down at the hardware store in the morning getting a security bar for the door.

Some young adults are far more mature than others. My daughter fell into this category. She had been shooting firearms for at least 10 years. I sawed the stock of a .22 rifle short enough so it would fit her when she was seven and took her out to the range with my wife. A few years later she wanted a handgun of her own so I had her memorize the names of all the external parts of a revolver and taught her gun safety. When she passed my gun class, I purchased a .22 cal S&W Kit gun for her. The only revolver I could find that would fit her small hands.

Over the years, she became quite a good shot, and still is. As she grew up she seemed to enjoy talking to the range master and the range employees in the club house as much as she did shooting. They must have felt she was mature enough to handle a weapon, as there were times they would call me back to the club house and ask me to help a new shooter. While I was doing this, she was shooting alone without direct adult supervision although there were other shooters on the line.

When she reached her mid teens her hands grew large enough to handle the large frame S&W 25-2 that she now calls her favorite gun. She enjoyed the attention she got from the other shooters when she aimed and fired the big Smith. She was a tiny girl. Today she's 5 foot 2 inches tall and weighs 103 pounds. Unusual, but I guess she got good genes from her mothers side of the family.

There's a big difference between teen aged boys and girls. Boys want to show their friends their parent's guns. Girls want to show off their doll collection. To be on the safe side my guns were unloaded and the ammunition separate. Before I left for work on graveyard shift, I would load my wife's revolver in case she needed it during the night. When I got home in the morning, my wife would get up to go to work and I would take my turn in the bed. When I woke up, I would unload the weapon. This activity turned into a habit.

You may ask why my wife didn't handle the situation. Well after 20 years of marriage, she decided that living with a dedicated graveyard worker was too much. We separated. My daughter decided to stay with me. This might say something about my personality or it merely say that my daughter was smart enough to realize which side of the bread was buttered. Or maybe it shows that my daughter had me wrapped around her finger.

I guess I loved my job more than my wife. I was the shift supervisor on the graveyard shift. No direct supervision was over top of me during the night so I got to run the shift the way I liked. We had a lot of fun and got a lot of work out. By the measurement standards the company used, the graveyard shift outproduced either of the other two shifts. Supervision had the same opinion of me as I had for them. We coexisted. They stayed out of my hair and my workers stayed out of theirs.

By the way, my wife who has remarried and I are good friends. When she comes over to visit my daughter and grandchildren we enjoy each others company. Her husband is a nice guy My daughter tells me we both have a very similar personality. He also likes guns and has a concealed weapons permit

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

227. So what is your temporary solution to protect the victims of violent crime?

I'd love to hear how people are supposed to protect themselves when the police usually take at least 10 - 15 minutes to arrive at violent crime calls in my city. What should they do while your long term solutions are taking effect?

David

[iverglas]

230. interesting you should ask

about temporary solutions to problems.

I've never been able to figure out why getting the guns out of the neighbourhoods wouldn't be a fine temporary solution to the whole poverty-causes-crime thingy that we're always being told we need to deal with.

Nobody's actually dealing with that one, so in the meantime, what should all the people suffering all the physical, social and economic ill effects of firearms violence and crime do while they're waiting for those long-term solutions?

How 'bout we choke off the sources of the firearms that make the crimes possible?

If those drug dealers don't have guns to intimidate the residents, enforce their market share, collect debts, etc. etc., they're gonna have a hard time holding up their end of the war on drugs, and maybe then things might just get a little safer in there. And people might start investing in their communities and their futures.

Thanks for asking.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

252. Take all the guns away from drug dealers, please do.

I agree we should disarm all of the criminals. Thanks for your input. I still would like to here from the posters to whom the question was directed.


David

[Ghost in the Machine]

93. Another one who can't comprehend what they're reading, huh?

Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labour unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

Read it again and actually pay attention to detail this time...

What happens to us non-gun owners, can we be sued for not owning a gun? And if we don't want to work next to someone who is stashing their gun in their desk, can employers be forced to accomodate us? Can we treat gun toting employees like smokers?

Coupled with your gun grabber attitude, that last sentence says all I need to know about you... you're blinded by your own personal dislikes or hatreds and fuck everyone elses rights, as long as you're getting YOUR way....

[zanne]

114. I have a feeling Florida's tourism economy will go down the drain.

It's getting too dangerous to vacation down there.

[gatts]

207. Dangerous?

It's getting too dangerous to vacation down there.

Really? Cause last I checked, the number of rapes, murders, and burglary have dropped compared to the 1986 pre-shall-issue-CCW law, despite a growing population. Other violent crimes seem to retain similar rates of occurrences as at that time.

Or is this 'dangerous' special idiot-speak for, not the risk of something bad happening to you, but the risk of stepping near a law-abiding citizen with a gun you'll never see or notice?

[kevinbgoode]

223. Everyone is a law-abiding citizen. . .until they decide to break the law.

And given the aggressive nature of many conservatives indicated in their speech patterns, these are not people disciplined enough to be trusted with the means to easily take a life. They glamorize the very idea.

And as a gay citizen who has watched case after case of "law-abiding" straight men claim that they murdered a gay person because he was being "hit on" (or perceived it, or thought the man looked at him the wrong way) I don't care to feed the goddamned paranoia of nutcases. There will be innocent people murdered by "law-abiding" citizens who easily obtain firearms and then use them because they feel "threatened" just because someone looked at them the wrong way or was walking down the street, or worse. . .their goddamned minister was raging about "da gays destroying America."

And what a bonus to provide car theifs, particularly those who steal cars for drug trafficking...a gun secured in the vehicle just ready for use or sale on the black market. Unless car thefts have dropped dramatically in Florida (since they seem to be on the rise everywhere else) shouldn't the owner of that gun be held responsible for it being taken with his car?

Then there will be the people hauling their car into the service station or the garage for work - or an oil change - and the mechanic decides to just lift the piece. Or the driver who is normally mild-mannered but can no longer stand the road conditions, so in a fit of rage he uses the closest weapon.

No thanks. I'll vacation somewhere else. I don't care to walk down the street and be wary of making eye contact with people (for fear they might decide it is 'threatening' and pull the piece). . .or ask for directions from the wrong person who might be pissed off because he broke up with his wife or just lost his job. . .and my bothering him with a question constituted a "threat."

Of course, there will be plenty of poor shots who, while aiming at one person they are mad at, ends up killing someone else. I hope the GOP has budgeted a few more billion for prisons - one of their favorite projects.

[zanne]

242. I'm saving that post!

I wish I'd said that! Very eloquent,kevinbgoode.

[coriolis]

271. Well, the bright side is you still have 5 states to vacation in.

Nobody ever gets shot or even gay-bashed in those. (I'm a gay man, probably old enough to be your father, have owned guns for 58 years, often carry one -with the proper permit- and have zero paranoia.)
:hi:
By the way, you are probably in more danger from some cops than an armed citizen.

[zanne]

319. Zero paranoia--then why carry a gun? nt

[iverglas]

306. far too sensible

I'm curious whether you're familiar with the extent to which the "gun rights" brigade exploits the experiences of GLBT people.

This page contains some fine examples (exploiting the experiences of GLBT people does take a back seat to exploiting the experiences of obviously heterosexual women, in those examples as generally; you all just don't make such good pictorial subjects for the attention of yer average white straight male gun guy as we do):

http://sociologicalimages.blogspot.com/2008/01/guns-dont-kill-people-gays-feminists.html

I suspect you'd be with me in finding the exploitation of the victimization of yourself and your fellows in the service of this agenda repugnant.

[spin]

217. What you fail to realize is...

Having a gun in your car securely encased has been legal in Florida for years.

The recent brew-ha-ha is more about property rights than guns. Property owners feel they have a right to determine what is in the vehicles parked in their lots. Gun owners feel the vehicles are their own personal property and like their homes no one should deign them the right to carry legal items in their cars.

I've visited many Florida tourist attractions like Disney World over the years and I've always had a loaded firearm in my vehicle. I'm far from unusual. Many, many Floridians carry weapons in their vehicles. The gun laws in this state are far from draconian.

If there was a serious problem, I'm sure it would have surfaced in the news years ago.

Of course, if you're paranoid about guns I would advise staying away from Florida. Many Floridians have concealed carry permits and carry. When you're in a gas station, a store or a mall you have no idea who's packing (after all the weapons are CONCEALED).

At least 29 other states allow concealed carry. If you live in a state with draconian gun laws and you have a fear of guns, I would advise you to stay in your own state and go to local attractions. With the prices of gasoline on the rise,this might be excellent advise.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

188. You can sue them and the police but you'll lose.

The Supreme Court held that the police can't be held liable for failing to stop a crime, why should you be able to sue a concealed carry permit holder?

David

[Captain Sensible]

65. Just like "No Stealing" signs stop shoplifting................NT

[SteveM]

79. Excuse me, but no one has to "start a clock." It already happens (nt)

[slackmaster]

82. Major logical disconnect here

The previous law was quite ineffective at preventing that kind of thing from happening. Why would this change make things any worse?

[axollot]

121. I live in FloraHell...errr Florida.

And that was the first thing that went through my head. Lets make it easy for *hot heads* to shoot people without just cause. And we have to be honest, these people that live here will give you the shirt off their back to help you if ya need it, but their *not* the smartest or the most worldly even. (and that's fine, it's just I've traveled and lived in Oz before moving to NE Fl at that).

The other law for shoot to kill, *I* thought was ENOUGH. God, the market here is so bad, every other home is for sale around here. The trailers too. Repo and disposessing people *with guns* wouldn't be to nice to do around here. And now we have this law??

Cheers
Sandy

[spin]

218. Why don't you move...

Go to a smart state. Yes we are stupid here, but we probably won't miss you.

[axollot]

236. Obviously, you didn't read my post quite clearly...

And trust me *I* would move if we could. But, we cannot in this economy. And NO not everyone from FL is a backward hick - I just happen to live near a lot of them.
We probably wouldn't miss you either if YOU moved. Fucking lame thing to say, mate.

Cheers
Sandy

[spin]

250. I think I will stay in Florida, I like the gun laws here (nt)

[Xenotime]

277. No SHIT! Every time somebody doesn't get a raise........BANG!

[RebelOne]

5. A similar law was just passed here in Georgia.

Guns can be taken to work as long as they are locked in the cars. And guns will be allowed in restaurants as long the owner is not drinking alcohol.

[coriolis]

7. Is there an ongoing problem with drunken restaurant owners down there?

:D

[aikoaiko]

10. As a GA resident with a GA Firearm License, I'm glad for this legislation. I hope the gov signs it.

:applause:

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

15. Does it literally read an owner cant forbid guns?

that seems wrong! Sure allow people to have it in their car when they park but if a Private business owner does not want guns in his establishment (I know I would'nt) why in the world would you advocate forcing them?

[aikoaiko]

18. An employer can forbid guns in his/her establishment, not fire someone for keeping a gun in the car.

..on the company lot.

IIRC.

eta: The other part of the law makes it legal to carry a gun into a restaurant, but a restaurant can still forbid people from carrying. Previously, I couldn't go to Applebees and have a coke and hamburger.

[High Plains]

112. Well, thank God for that. Who wants to go to Applebee's unarmed?

[AlinPA]

24. Why do have to keep them locked in their cars?

[aikoaiko]

29. I for one like to keep a gun in my car in case I need one while on the road

Driving to and from work is where I drive the most. Plus I drive from stores or other errands to work and vice versa.

[AlinPA]

32. There are people who want to go on a hunting trip right after work and

pack up their stuff ahead of time, then can leave immediately. As far as taking guns into their place of work, I wonder why the state restricted it to a locked car?

[aikoaiko]

34. I think that's how these laws started -- someone got fired for having a hunting rifle in the car ...

...and it set up waves of disgust and legislative change.

[iverglas]

110. noooooo

someone got fired for having a hunting rifle in the car

I kinda imagine that someone got fired for having a hunting rifle in the car contrary to the employer's express rule prohibiting firearms in cars on company property -- i.e., got fired for violating the employer's rules, just like anyone else who violated an important rule would have been.

I guess no court would find that an employer is not entitled to make and enforce that rule (shurely the employee sued?), so the Florida legislature had to write yet another piece of crap and call it a law.

Seems to be their favourite pastime down there.

[aikoaiko]

150. The law is a good compromise. I know that makes you unhappy.

[iverglas]

155. oh look, that was non-responsive too

.
.
.
.
.

[aikoaiko]

162. See how unhappy you are.

I agree with you that his hunting gun violated a employer rule which was permissible by law until the people of FL saw how it unreasonable it was. Now, by the law, employers can't do that.

[iverglas]

108. I like to sunbathe nude right after work

I sure don't want any boss telling me I must wear clothes in the office.

[aikoaiko]

148. I think the better analogy would be being fired for having suntan lotion in the car.

because the employer has an arbitrary rule against it.

;)

[iverglas]

166. nah, you make your own analogy, I'll make mine

I want to be able to spring into action at absolutely no inconvenience to myself and fuck the rest of the world -- just like everybody who needs to have a hunting weapon in his/her car at all times.

(And if anybody here thinks that any of the firearms being stowed in cars on employer's parking lots in Florida are really there so that the driver can stop somewhere for a little hunting on the way home ... well, there may just be some land for sale in Florida where s/he could do a little.)

How's this: I'll concede that I have to wear clothes while in the building, but I'm going to shed them immediately upon going out the door, before I start that two-block walk to my car at the end of the lot.

[aikoaiko]

172. I think you shoudl be able to shed your clothes in your car without fear of being fired.

On the walk to your car? Its still pretty chilly up in Canada. Besides I wouldn't want your coworkers to become too titillated.

ba-dum ba-dum-dum - cymbal crash.

I'm out of here -- time for dinner.

[iverglas]

175. but no

What you think doesn't matter here. What I want does. Are you not following?

Whether you think what I want to do is reasonable does not matter. Any more than whether anybody thinks that what people who want to keep guns in their unattended cars want to do is reasonable. They want it, and that's all that matters.


fixed the syntax ...

[aikoaiko]

176. you got me before I left -- its not about what one party wants -- its about reasonableness

about what two parties want.

[iverglas]

178. ah

And I get to decide what's reasonable to do on your property!

Okey dokey.

[aikoaiko]

213. Actually, the people's elected representatives do when they make laws.

Not you.

;)

[iverglas]

216. I see

The people's elected representatives get to decide what is reasonable to do on your property.

Y'know, I think you might actually believe that. And as usual, I can't decide which would be worse: that you actually believed it, or that you didn't but you said it anyway.

[aikoaiko]

219. Well, I see your point, but the thing we're talking about is how employers treat their employees...

based on what they keep in their cars.

[iverglas]

221. nice try

The thing we're talking about is how employers treat their employees based on whether the employees abide by the rules that the employers make for the use of the employers' property.

And you're the one saying that it is the government, not the employer, who gets to make the rules about how employees may use employers' property.

I'm the one saying that the government needs to keep its face out of how anyone uses his/her/its property, unless the government can establish some overarching public purpose that is served by the government making the rules.

You want the government making the rules for what can be done with private property! What's next -- no smoking in your living room??

Gotta love that nanny state!

[aikoaiko]

249. Since you have no regard for worker rights in this matter, I'll walk away.

[RamboLiberal]

38. I basically got called an idiot in LBN for making the same

argument as you. At least 2 of us agree!

[DainBramaged]

43. In 57 years I have never found the need to have a gun with me to go anywhere

And I don't understand the paranoia that makes someone need to carry one.

[coriolis]

45. Have you ever filed a life insurance claim?

...

[SteveM]

81. If you hunt, you will.

Please note that I and others who advocate these measures are not paranoid. I get 8-9 hours of sleep a night.

[DainBramaged]

94. If you NEED to carry a gun, you are.

This has nothing to do with hunting and EVERYTHING to do with people who NEED to carry a gun because it makes them feel like real men.

[SteveM]

102. Don't understand your comments...

I hunt, but I also, from time to time, carry for other purposes. You are particularly concerned with those who "...NEED to carry a gun because it makes them feel like real men." Can you explain your terms? Who are these people? How many are there? Do women (millions of whom own guns) "...feel like real men?" If not, what is their collective motivation? Just what is a "real" man (as opposed to the lesser or faux type)?

BTW, last time I checked I was a real man (I'm butt-naked as I write this).

[DainBramaged]

118. Of course you don't understand, you're butt nekkid

How's that gun feel???


:rofl:

[SteveM]

264. Aptly named.

Would you prefer the double barrel one, 28 inches long?

[DainBramaged]

285. Typical gun lover make a veiled threat using a gun

You just got the big x gunnie.

[SteveM]

288. Threaten with a gun? But I'm "nekkid." You must have confused one with my____ (nt)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

189. That's a logical response, NOT!

I'll be sure and tell all of my cop buddies that they are carrying their gun's so they can feel like real men, they'll get a kick out of that.

David

[DainBramaged]

305. Cops NEED to carry a gun, you re just being stupid now.

And if YOU need to carry a gun because you MIGHT get in trouble, chance are You will.


Why is it Civilized societies like England, Japan, Germany, France, even Spain and the Icelandic Nations, DON'T find it necessary to allow their citizens the "right to carry guns" (hunting excluded), and their crime rates AND accidental gun deaths are WAY lower.

Is it because when an asshole needs a gun, assholes carry guns?

I'm done in this thread. I hate guns and I think those of you who NEED to defend the right to carry guns have serious personality problems.


Cya gunnies.:puke:

[aikoaiko]

174. Your inability to empathize is really strange. I've needed a weapon outside the house

I know other people have too. Surely you've heard of stories of bad things happening to people because they were overpowered by thugs.

[DainBramaged]

286. Maybe you need to move??

[aikoaiko]

294. Move? No, I just need to be able to defend myself should trouble come my way.

[MadHound]

8. I just love how gunners trample all over other peoples' rights

Including the rights of property owners to determine what is allowed on their own property, all in the name of protecting the Second Amendment. Sorry, but the Second Amendment is not the only Amendment or right delineated by the Constitution and judicial precedent. It is one of many, and it doesn't take precedence over all the others.

What's next, forcing people to allow those who carry into their homes?

[aikoaiko]

11. I don't think employers should dictate what you keep in your car if they invite you to use their lot

What next, bumper stickers? books?

[MadHound]

36. So we should be able to bring anything we want onto somebody else's property

Irregardless of their wishes? What about bombs, drugs, etc.? I don't think so. There are always contingencies to any invitation. Just because you are invited onto somebody else's property doesn't give you license to do as you wish.

[slackmaster]

83. Anything you can own legally should be OK locked up in your car

What about bombs, drugs, etc.? I don't think so.

I don't think so either.

:hi:

[WildEyedLiberal]

95. Um, bombs and drugs are illegal

Guns are not.

This law is about leaving your guns in your own locked car. Your car is, the last time I checked, your property.

[MadHound]

126. Actually there are many explosives, and drugs that are legal

That aren't allowed on private parking lots. Along with various chemicals and other legal, but restricted substances.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

190. That's funny, do you have an example?

For instance, a sign that says No Hydrochloric Acid in vehicles on this premises. Maybe a workplace manual that says you are not allowed to bring your prescription drugs to work even if they are locked in your car. Any real example will do.

David

[MadHound]

237. Go check out the workplace manual for any sensative business,

Ranging from schools to nuclear plants, you will find a statement regarding prohibited items. I used to work at a reactor, and they had a whole list ranging from dynamite to guns to yes indeed, acids. They also had a catch-all statement about whatever other items that they determined to be a danger.

Any other questions?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

253. Let me get this straight a nuclear power plant is the same as a public parking lot.

They won't let me take a camera to Area 51 either, somehow I don't think we are talking about the same thing.

David

[MadHound]

254. Both are privately owned companies

The precedent applies. Further such precedence is found at public schools, private schools, privately owned colleges, privately owned industrial plants, etc. etc. right on down the line. You can't simply say, legally, that such businesses are differentiated based on what they produce. A precedent set for one business generally applies to all businesses, unless it is very case specific, which in this case it isn't.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

258. A nuclear power plant would be case specific.

Obviously public schools are case specific, there are laws that deal with them exclusively. The gun free zones, you know the one's where crazed gunmen go to shoot unarmed people.

David

[MadHound]

265. The legal precedent still applies, no matter the establishment.

There are case specifics, a nuclear power plant and a grocery store can Constitutionally exercise their private property rights. It isn't a case by case basis, it is a matter of Constitutional rights. The only reason that schools and nuclear power plants are different is that either state or federal laws mandate that such establishments be gun and weapon free.

As far as your snide little quip about gun free zones, I would suggest that you go take a look at mass shootings that have taken place at workplaces that do allow guns onto their property. I think that you'll find that those numbers far exceed the numbers of gun deaths occurring on gun free property.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

280. That would expectedly be the case since gun free zones are a relatively new invention.

So let Florida pass this law, sue someone over it, then we'll let the courts decide. Might want to wait and see the result of the Heller case first though. I suspect that people, intent on killing lots of other people for no reason, don't usually follow workplace guidelines, private property rights or laws of any sort. That seems to be a trend among criminals.

David

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

13. Im sorry a public business parking lot is not really 'private property'

The problem is this by telling me I cant bring a gun to your parking lot you are basically forbidding me from putting it in my car when I leave my home to drive to your establishment. The parking lot seems like a reasonable place to draw the line.

This is far more respective of private property rights than smoking bans, would you not agree?

[MadHound]

37. A parking lot isn't really private property? Gee, then tell me this, if that's the case

How come businesses get away with putting anti-trespassing signs around said lots, and enforcing those signs? If they're "not really private property" why does the owner have to pay property taxes on said lots?

And no, by telling you that you can't bring a gun onto my property, I'm not forbidding you from putting said gun in your car. You are always welcome to park in a public parking lot, on the street, or on a private lot that will allow you to leave your gun in the car.

And irregardless of smoking ban legislation, this law is still wrong. Besides, two wrongs simply don't make a right.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

48. You cant forbid me from keeping any legal item in my car

in your parking lot..

[michreject]

50. Especially since they're most likely receiving a tax break

Which means that they want public funds to control their perceived private property.

[MadHound]

52. Sorry, but the tax code plays no part in this argument

And receiving a legal tax break is certainly not the same as receiving public funds:eyes: Please, go read the tax code.

[michreject]

74. Moot point

the law passed.:party: :toast:

[MadHound]

125. Perhaps not,

I foresee a court case coming up. Again, I reiterate, the Second Amendment doesn't trump the rest of the Constitution, including private property rights.

[michreject]

215. Just like you see a court case in the future

I see the suit thrown out. We win. Get over it.

[MadHound]

238. Cool, when that court case comes up,

Would you care to put your money where your mouth is?

[michreject]

263. Childish reply

Say I take you up on the bet. Five years from now, you'll be saying, "Just wait. They'll overturn it.":puke:

[MadHound]

266. Just because you or others you know aren't honorable gamblers doesn't apply to me

I think that you're simply blowing smoke and insults because you know deep down that legally, Constitutionally, I'm right. Again, it comes down to a matter of put up or shut up. But hey, if you don't have the courage of your convictions:shrug:

[michreject]

269. I don't gamble

One of the vices that I avoided that enabled me to retire at 54. (I'm 55 now)

[MadHound]

51. Well, actually I can

I can tell you to keep a certain class of legal items out of my parking lot. Items like explosives, full gasoline cans, guns and other potentially hazardous materials. This goes on all the time at many places of business.

And, for that matter, I can tell you to keep your car out of my parking lot also. I own the property, I permit the access to it.

I imagine that this case will be taken to court and that law will be struck down. Second Amendment rights simply don't trump private property rights.

[coriolis]

53. That's a very interesting claim. Where are property rights enumerated in the Constitution?

??

[MadHound]

59. In tons of case law and precedent throughout our history

And in the general tone of the Constitution itself, which is set up, in part, to protect private property. Go check out Find Law for numerous articles on the subject.

[iverglas]

208. some of you people really need to read that constitution of yours

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Look at all familiar? (The 14th may come into play here too, of course.)

"Property" is actually the set of rights that a person has in a thing. The right to sell it, the right to use it ... and the right to tell everybody else in the world whether and how they may use it. Or not use it.

As in: you may park in my parking lot, but only if there are no firearms in your vehicle.

Damned simple.

Now, may I camp on your lawn for a few days? Don't bother saying no. It just ain't up to you. I and my family of seven will be sleeping there, so please don't be playing any loud music.


Your constitution does tell governments that they may not deprive individuals of property without due process.

Is there something "due process"ish about a law that tells employers in the state what rules they may make for the employees whom they allow to use their parking lots?

Your constitution does not actually say that anyone has the right to do anything, including possess firearms, on someone else's property.

Seems pretty cut and dried, if y'ask me. Unless the Florida legislature can come up with some very good reason for violating the property rights of employers in the state.


I see a quick fix, though.

Employers turn their parking lots into public parking lots. They charge employees, as members of the general public, for parking there. And they post a large sign saying that no firearms may be brought onto the lot, and that use of the lot constitutes consent to a search of the vehicle parked on the lot and anyone failing to give access to a vehicle for such a search will be required to leave the lot or have his/her vehicle towed, and that any vehicle determined to have a firearm in it, whether by a search or otherwise, will be towed.

Ya don't like it, ya park somewhere else. Ah, freedom of choice.

Ta da.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

260. How are they being deprived of their property?

David

[iverglas]

279. Look: I try and I try

I explain things as simply and clearly as they can be explained, and you or somebody comes back with "eh? what? howzat?"

What more can I say?

"Property" is actually the set of rights that a person has in a thing. The right to sell it, the right to use it ... and the right to tell everybody else in the world whether and how they may use it. Or not use it.

As in: you may park in my parking lot, but only if there are no firearms in your vehicle.

Damned simple.

If the gummint came along and made a law (for no good reason) that you could not use your home to sleep in, it would be depriving you of your property. Even if it let you keep the house. It would be depriving you of the right to use your house.

Your "property" is all of the rights you have in what you own. The right to use it, the right to sell it, the right to collect rent for it.

Maybe Wiki makes it simple.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Property

Property designates those things commonly recognized as the entities in respect of which a person or group has exclusive rights. Important types of property include real property (land), personal property (other physical possessions), and intellectual property (rights over artistic creations, inventions, etc.). A right of ownership is associated with property that establishes the good as being "one's own thing" in relation to other individuals or groups, assuring the owner the right to dispense with the property in a manner he or she sees fit, whether to use or not use, exclude others from using, or to transfer ownership.

I thought I put it more simply, but what the heck.

Telling people that they must allow someone else to use their property for a purpose that they do not agree to it being used for is depriving them of property.

Whether a law that does that, for no good reason that I've managed to discern, is depriving people of property without due process would be up to a court to decide, I guess.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

281. Thanks

I guess the difference is peoples view of civil rights. I appreciate your clear and concise answer.

David

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

55. A car is private property

And if you are a public business you cant stop someone from parking (even with a full can of gas) in your parking lot. As to the 'explosives' that a matter of public zoning *not* owners privilege.

Its true you can deny me access to your lot but if you are say a coffee shop and Im coming for coffee you cant stop me from driving my car (private property) onto your public lot to get it so long as I am obeying the law..

[MadHound]

60. Yes, I can

I can charge a fee, I can deny you access, I can control what you bring onto my lot. I can search your vehicle before you come on the lot. Happens all the time. Don't believe me? Try being a visitor or customer at a nuclear power plant, or other such like facility. Peoples' access is strictly controlled, vehicles are searched, and certain items, including guns and potential explosives are not allowed on the property.

There is tons of case law and precedent to back me up on this one, go check out Find Law if you don't believe me.

[iverglas]

106. what the hell is "a public business"??

Have you people collectivized and nationalized Wal-Mart down there and I just missed it??

*Private* businesses, which is what you are talking about, are subject to limitations on their actions in certain cases, such as anti-discrimination legislation, minimum wage legislation, occupational health and safety legislation, and such like.

Those limitations are regarded as justified, e.g. in the authoritative decisions of your courts, because of the overarching public interest in equal opportunity, people being able to eat, people not being crushed by falling machinery, etc.

As has been said, this crap will go to court and a court will decide whether there is some overarching public interest in allowing assholes to take their guns to work that somehow makes the right of individuals and corporations to control what goes on on their own property just not matter.

Oh yeah, was it you who asked?

Amendment V

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

Look at all familiar?

"Property" is actually the set of rights that a person has in a thing. The right to sell it, the right to use it ... and the right to tell everybody else in the world whether and how they may use it. Or not.

As in: you may park in my parking lot, but only if there are no firearms in your vehicle.

Damned simple.

Now, may I park in your driveway for a few days? Don't bother saying no. It just ain't up to you.

[uppityperson]

91. Did you miss this part?

Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labour unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property.

[michreject]

49. It's the most important one

Without it, the others would soon fall.

[MadHound]

62. Yadda yadda,

Despite the typical NRA spewing point, the Second Amendment is not the most important one. In fact none of the Bill of Rights is more important than any other. If you don't believe me, I suggest that you go read the Federalist Papers and the writings of Madison on this subject.

As far as the Second Amendment protecting all the rest, sorry, but that quaint little notion is sadly out of date, if it was ever relevant. Let's say that the federal government under Bush declares indefinite martial law later this year. What are you going to do, go marching out to defend you rights with the rest of your patriotic gunner friends? Hell, I'll be generous, I'll get y'all full blown, fully auto AK-47s to do the job. And yet when you run up against a tank, a B2 Stealth, or even a company of modern equipped infantry, what's going to happen? Oh, yeah, you and your buds are going to die, quickly and brutally. So please, stop with the patriotic defender of the Constitution shit. I own guns and am under no illusion that I could stop a modern military, you shouldn't be either, it's just another romantic gunner myth that is full of it.

[michreject]

73. Yadda yadda

is right.

[MadHound]

127. Oh now that's a clever rejoinder,

Not! Just shows that you prefer style over substance. So tell me speedy, how are you going to stop a tank and thus "defend your liberties?" Oh, and have you read the Federalist Papers?

[Irreverend IX]

177. If you're fighting tanks, you're doing it wrong.

Domestic insurgency in the US would probably center around hit-and-run sniping and infrastructure sabotage. If the National Guard, Blackwater troops or whoever were being picked off by snipers who hid among the civilian population, what would the government do? Use those B-2s to flatten entire residential districts to get rid of them? That would create total chaos, ruin the economy and defeat the purpose of having taken over the country in the first place. Tanks and bombers aren't much use if they don't have an obvious enemy to target.

[MadHound]

240. OK, forget the tanks then

Lets see you go up against modern infantry, equipped with body armor, hi tech such as night vision, etc, and see how you fare.

However if you honestly don't think that the government would call in the big guns in the case of domestic insurgency, you're whacked. Look at similar situations throughout history and you will see that those in power don't care about the infrastructure at the time of the insurgency, it can always be rebuilt. They just care about retaining control by any means necessary.

[Irreverend IX]

273. Sure, civilian insurgents could beat modern infantry...

You don't think they'd fight the occupiers on even terms, do you? They could use scoped rifles to shoot them from 200-400 yards away, then run like hell and hide among other civilians. Soon, members of the occupying force would be afraid to leave the protection of their armored vehicles. The result: lots of chaos, morale among troops at near-suicidal levels, and probably mass defections of troops to the rebel side. If the authorities responded to the sniping by bombing and flattening entire areas, public order would disintegrate and members of the military would be even more likely to defect.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

284. Good strategy when you are getting beat, move the bar.

Nice tactic I see it here often.

David

[apocalypsehow]

297. "When you are getting beat" - LOL. "Look Ma! I won me a debate on the internets!!!!11!"

With all that "winning" you seem to do while posting here, when do you ever have time to be a "Fire Medic"? I mean, my Uncle was a (real) "Fire Medic" before he retired, and he never seemed to have so much time on his hands during the course of his career to play around on a computer every single day. Just curious... (:eyes:)

:rofl:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

299. I'm sure your uncle was a fine man.

They probably didn't have computers in every fire station when he worked. Not like it takes a lot of time to post. Another good tactic resort to personal attacks when all else has failed. You've got the whole playbook.

David

[apocalypsehow]

302. I don't believe you.

n/t.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

304. And that's supposed to matter to me.

An anonymous person on the internet doesn't believe me. I was being sincere, I'm sure your uncle was a fine man, maybe you know something about him that I don't and that has caused your disbelief.

David

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

193. They seem to be doing it in Iraq.

I'm sure we are killing many more of them than they are of us, as it should be, but, they have proved fairly successful at stopping tanks.

David

[MadHound]

241. At the cost of a million lives

A Pyrrhic victory at best:shrug:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

283. Millions of lives have not been lost attacking tanks.

You are well aware of that I'm sure.

David

[Taverner]

100. Can't a business put up a "no guns allowed" restriction?

If the business owner (like most bars in Texas) wants to restrict guns from his or her property, they have that right as it is private property

[MadHound]

243. That's what this law is all about,

It is taking away the property rights of the businessmen to determine what comes onto their place of business. Now under this Florida law, no, business owners can't restrict guns from their property.

[Redneck Socialist]

256. No it's not. Did you even read the article? n/t

[MadHound]

267. Yes, I did, and apparently with much better comprehension than you did.

From the OP: "Backed by the National Rifle Association and some labour unions, the so-called "take-your-guns-to-work" measure would prohibit business owners from banning guns kept locked in motor vehicles on their private property."

Hence, this law is restricting the property rights of business owners. Get the picture?

[Redneck Socialist]

309. It restricts the ability of employers to tell employees what they can have in their cars

not the same thing. Employers can still ban weapons in the work place. They just can't mess around with employee's cars.

[MadHound]

322. And thus is constrains business owners' private property rights unconstitutionally

Just because the parking lot is outside doesn't make it any less public property, nor any less under the control of the business owner. Thus this law is Unconstitutional, since it interferes with both Fifth, and possibly Fourteenth amendment rights.

It is the same thing, for there is no differentiation based on whether the property is exterior or interior.

[SoCalDem]

14. Gee, what a great idea

:rofl:

[flvegan]

16. Woo hoo! I'm bolting an M2 Browning to my hood!!

No more fear of the boss wonderin' if I have a gun in my car. I've got a gun ON my car! Eat hot .50 cal death you left turn without using a blinker bastard!!!!

[N4457S]

25. Actually...

...I'm for legalization of light sabres. I've had use for one on several occasions.

(places both hands over mouth and breathes heavy)

[Malikshah]

17. First the Castle Law....then the "He's coming right at me law".... and now

the "Bring your guns to work" law.

I remember the brouhaha here when some of us spoke out against the slippery slope down here in Florida.

The 2nd amendment folks gave me an earful.

Here's a clue gun lovers.

Florida is the armpit of the nation. We've got all sorts of crap going on down here. The last thing we need is folks bringing guns to work. Yes, I know they will be in their cars, safely locked away...

Yup-- that'll make all the difference in the world.

What a fu*(ed up law and what a fuc^&d up state.

[aikoaiko]

19. armpit of the nation...hahaha. thats why so many people migrate there.

get a grip.

And remember, there are a lot of democrats there who will have worked hard every year to deliver FL and this year most likely will in the general election. Shit on FL is shitting on Democrats.

[Malikshah]

28. I got a grip-- just not on a gun. And I don't want any more folks in this

state getting a grip on one.

Period.

"Shit on FL is shitting on Democrats"??

By your statement, it appears you're not in FL.

Come on down and witness how helpful the FDP is. Then you'll change your tune.

As for the history lesson of whether or not FL has been delivered...

Please...go look at recent history.

[Captain Sensible]

66. If....

you were attacked on a dark street in Miami I bet you would not be thinking "I'm sooo glad I don't own a firearm right now" And no "I would be careful where i walked at night" answers you can be accosted anywhere.

[Edweird]

47. I live surprisingly close to you.

I've lived in Florida for around 18 years, (10 in Palm Beach County) and I happen to like it here. This law isn't "the end of civilization". I am a little concerned about the conflict of the law and the property owner.

[proud2BlibKansan]

20. Hmm what if this was the law in Alabama and

a republican working on the governor's staff took his gun to work while Siegelman was governor . . .

[tsuki]

27. Can they be taken to schools? nt

[nadinbrzezinski]

31. I hope they are also funding the extra

money the local trauma units will need

And letting medics train on GSW protocols....

[RamboLiberal]

39. Like anyone who would murder someone

obeys the law about not bringing their gun!

[nadinbrzezinski]

57. Not that... but having MORE GUNS

increases the amount of EMS calls... been there done that.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

197. I've responded to dozens of gun shot wounds and not one of them was from a legally possessed firearm

So more illegal guns increases the amount of EMS calls. Legal items that create lots of EMS calls would be automobiles and ladders.

David

[onethatcares]

42. yeeehawwww, we got us selves a winner in that

senter Peaden, wunder how he feels about the ultra sound thing.:sarcasm:

for all that is right and just, why can't these people understand how wilber is gonna act when he knows he got access to that piece of hot metal in the car in the parking lot. Can you imagine how human resources is gonna have to hire more security personnel when they lay people off and excort them to their cars. jesusonajetski, floriduh never ceases to amaze me.

[Toasterlad]

44. The Founding Fathers Envisioned People Keeping Guns in Their Cars?

Man, those guys were REALLY prescient!

[DainBramaged]

46. Shoot out at the NRA corral

Shootie shootie bang bang it's bring your kids and guns to work day. I wonder if that means the ministers and Priests can bring guns to their work now??
Strap 'em on Padre, we're going to town.

[SteveM]

84. And they envisioned you using the internet (as opposed to an ink press)?

[lonestarnot]

54. This should be interesting to watch from the other side of the Disjointed States

[beevul]

56. Doom and gloom, and the usual predictions...

Every time something like this comes up the predictions of doom and gloom and blood in the streets, and the return of the wild west are made.

And its usually those same people that were the ones that made those very same predictions about concealed carry over the last decade.



I just have one questiong for those of you making those dire predictions:


You have been wrong every single time in the past with the doom and gloom predictions. Wrong on CCW, wrong on AWB sunset, and on and on and on...


Why should anyone believe you "crying wolf" this time?

[MadHound]

64. Oooo, pretty colors, flashy graphics, yet it still doesn't cover the fact that yes,

CCW holders do carry crimes. Furthermore, it is so ridiculously easy to get a CCW permit that criminals do it with great frequency.
<http://www.vpc.org/fact_sht/ccbrady.htm>
<http://www.vpc.org/studies/ltk4intr.htm>
These numbers don't bode well for your position.

As far as assault weapons, well it looks like crimes involving them have gone up since the ban was lifted. Hmmm.

" The spray of bullets that killed a police officer and hurt three others this week came from something increasingly common on this city's streets: a high-powered assault weapon, fast becoming the gun of choice for gang members and violent criminals."
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/09/15/AR2007091500515_pf.html>

So despite your pretty picture and flashing light, your claims are bogus. But that's not surprising, since people whose claims aren't valid regularly resort to bullshit to make their point.

[beevul]

70. Brady/VPC? Try a credible unbiased source.

"CCW holders do carry crimes. Furthermore, it is so ridiculously easy to get a CCW permit that criminals do it with great frequency."

Yes, criminals spend the time to get a concealed carry permit to legally carry a weapon they aren't legally allowed to have. Yeah, we believe you... :sarcasm: ANd that big old straw fella you created there...I did not claim CCW holders committed no crime, but they do commit less crime than say the police which the gun banners and gun haters and thier kind swear should be the only ones to have guns.

"these numbers don't bode well for your position."

Um, what numbers? I saw 2 states listed by name. Thats hardly representative of more than...2 states. You wouldn't be misrepresenting something your source said there, would you? And besides, you linked to brady/vpc. Thats as tainted a source as the nra. Proven liars misrepresenters distorters of truth is what they are.


"As far as assault weapons, well it looks like crimes involving them have gone up since the ban was lifted. Hmmm."

Used in less than 3% of all homicides per the FBI. That is, ALL rifles are used in less homicides than shotguns for example, and assault weapons which are a subset of rifles...well ALL rifles are used in less than 3% of all homicides.

"So despite your pretty picture and flashing light, your claims are bogus. But that's not surprising, since people whose claims aren't valid regularly resort to bullshit to make their point."

Let me get this strait, You dodge the question I asked, claimed my claims are bogus and made claims of your own which your links do not support, and you rattle on about people whose claims aren't valid regularly resorting to bullshit to make their point. I submit that your whole post is an example of exactly the sort of bullshit you describe. And its there for the entire world to see.


Like I said, You (the gun banners and gun haters) have been wrong every single time in the past with the doom and gloom predictions. Wrong on CCW, wrong on AWB sunset, and on and on and on...


Why should anyone believe you (the gun banners and gun haters) "crying wolf" this time?

[MadHound]

129. You lost that one almost from the beginning there sport

With this little assertion: "I did not claim CCW holders committed no crime, but they do commit less crime than say the police"

Got any links or info to back your ass up on that little outrageous claim? No, I didn't think so. Sorry, but until you cite something all you're doing is spewing hot air.

[beevul]

202. Outrageous claim?

The fact that brady/vpc can only come up with arrest data rather than conviction data, tells me, and anyone else that can think for themselves all they might need to know.


If CCW people were less law abiding than police are, brady and VPC would be all over it and we'd see "CCW criminal" data from them. They wouldn't struggle to make shit up or misrepresent arrests as meaning something they don't, if they had something far jucier.

And you'd be parroting it.



They aren't and you aren't, because they don't.


Thanks for playing.

You never did answer the question I originally asked either:

After being wrong on CCW and on the sunset of the AWB - the sky didn't fall afterall, why should we believe you "chicken littles" this time?

[MadHound]

244. Again, I'm asking for links, cites to back up that claim

You haven't provide any, so as far as I'm concerned, you're talking out your ass.

As far as your original question is concerned, I've provided cites about how indeed crimes are being committed by those who have CCW. It isn't a contention that the sky is falling, it is about the contention that somehow CCW holders are spotless and pure. They aren't, and the crime stats back that up.

[beevul]

287. I'm using YOUR links.

"You haven't provide any, so as far as I'm concerned, you're talking out your ass."

Are you going to tell me that your links are good enough for you but not for me? Didn't think so. The best YOUR side can come up with to paint CCW holders as bad bad bad, is to use some quite old ARREST statistics. Why do you suppose that is? Because CCW holders are by and large criminals but just not getting caught? Think a little bit for yourself about it.



"As far as your original question is concerned, I've provided cites about how indeed crimes are being committed by those who have CCW. It isn't a contention that the sky is falling, it is about the contention that somehow CCW holders are spotless and pure. They aren't, and the crime stats back that up."

No, you didn't. Your cites, unless I've missed something, deal strictly with ARRESTS, not convictions. You are aware no doubt, that arrests and convictions are 2 quite different things. Many people are arrested, and found after the arrest to have committed no crime. ONce again, ask yourself why your sources use arrests rather than convictions.


And while you say that it is about "the contention that somehow CCW holders are spotless and pure", I have not said any such thing, so I would suggest you take it up with someone that did.

[krispos42]

77. You mean a demographic shift?

Gee, imagine that. As more types of a gun are sold, it becomes involved in more crimes. Holy moly! I guess next, we'll see a lot more criminals using 2008 model-year cars this year than last year!

Wow, I guess with all these deadly assault weapons all over the place mass shooting will be just going NUTS! And the homicide rate will SOAR! And school shootings!!!! WHAT ABOUT THE CHILDREN???








Not that the so-called "ban" actually did anything, by the way. It didn't outlaw pre-ban guns from being owned, bought, or sold, and since the "banned" weapons were defined exclusivly by combinations of cosmetic features, it was pretty damn easy to modify the exterior to make them comply.

Check this out:

AR-15 rifle, banned in California as an "assault weapon", based on exterior cosmetics:




California-legal AR-15, with offending exterior cosmetics (protruding pistol grip) removed:

[MadHound]

131. Two things, your top two graphs are meaningless,

Since they aren't labeled properly, nor do they appear to have anything to do with guns.

Secondly, where did you get these pretty little graphs? Did you pull them out of your ass, or is there an actual source and link for them?

[krispos42]

235. Actually, it's the same graph

I had to pull out and expand the bottom so you could actually see the lines.

It's a graph of the percentage of homicide victims in a given year that were part of a homicide incident containing 1, 2, 3, 4, or 5+ bodies.

In other words, all 13 victims of the Columbine shooting would be in the "5+" catagory. 95% of all victims are in single-murder homicide incidents, 3% or so are in double-murder, etc.

Stats are from the Bureau of Justice Statistics.

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/multiple.htm
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/homicide/tables/multivictab.htm


The reasons given for banning what the VPC terms "deadly assault weapons" are the extreme threat they pose to society, and that criminals love them, etc.

Yet homicides are down, incidents of multiple murders remain very low, and law enforcement officers killed annually are a third of what they were 30 years ago.

It's manufactured hysteria.

[slackmaster]

85. A few anecdotes and an "assault weapon" distraction don't count as facts

Try this on for size:

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/administration/crime_records/chl/convrates.htm

[MadHound]

132. Strange, I give you the stats for more than one state,

Yet you give me the stats for only one. Hmmm. Care to try again?

[slackmaster]

149. You cited the VPC's worn-out statistics for ARRESTS

I gave you statistics for CONVICTIONS.

Arrests don't count.

[beevul]

214. Chirp chirp chirp...

[SteveM]

88. VPC? A GOP-run group? Pee-yew. BTW, WAPO is anti-gun agit-prop...

"...historians Kennett and Anderson...noted that the Washington Post, in what may be a record, once published pro-control editorials on the gun issue for 77 consecutive days." (THE GREAT AMERICAN GUN DEBATE, Kates and Kleck, Pacific Research Institute for Public Policy, 1997.)

And they still intentionally confused semi-auto carbines with "high-powered assault weapons." "Fast becoming the gun of choice for gang member and violent criminals"? The choice of weapon for gun-homicides remains the .38/.357 mag family of revolvers. Rifles of ALL TYPES account for less than 3% of homicides.

WAPO is corrupted on this issue.

[MadHound]

133. LOL, sorry, but how can the VPC actually be a GOP group

When the GOP is pro gun? Talk about a disconnect. Oh, and if you happened to take a look at the article, you would see that it's not from the WaPo, it's from the AP, and if you google the title, you'll find that several outlets ran the same piece:shrug:

[iverglas]

182. ah, you newbie!

Why, Sarah Brady was once a card-carrying Republican, doncha know. Of course, it was back in the days when Republicans were kinda to the left of today's Democratic Party ... and in the last several years she has donated large amounts of money to a number of Democratic candidates, including Ted Kennedy, and one local republican, Michael Castle, whose voting record looks like a lot of Democrats', I expect:

http://www.ontheissues.org/House/Michael_Castle.htm

As far as the source of things ... the VPC could be quoting the Old Testament, and it would be a non-credible source. You need to get your news and views from places with names like weluvourgunz.com. Then you'll have cred.

[krispos42]

276. Back in the days...

The Republicans were not left of today's Democratic party. Reagan was the culmination of a couple of decades worth of right-wing rethinking. And Clinton and Bush, and most of today's Democrats have been pushed to the right as well.

For example, staples of the Roosevelt's New Deal, such as discouraging vast personal wealth, are taboo. No mainstream Dem is advocating repealing the Reagaon tax cuts and returning our brackets (adjusted for inflation, of course) to 1979 levels, where the top one was 75%.

Breaking up big corporations? Stopping corporate mergers and consolidations? Raising taxes on corporations? Raising tariffs to protect domestic industries? Fighting globalization? Stopping so-called "free trade"?

All this traditional progressive ideas have been replaced with conservative ideals to the point that it now appears to be radical to the point of communistic!

Eisenhower today would be a socially-conservative, economically-liberal Democrat.

<edit: typo>

[iverglas]

282. You've probably heard my tale

of visiting Congress one day. (That was complicated -- apparently there isn't a public gallery, and one has to get a seat through one's representative. Well, unfortunately, Canadians don't have representatives in Congress. I forget whether I pretended to be from Idaho or got someone in DC to get me egress through someone they knew.)

I hit the day when the House was debating whether to spend $25,000 on some comemmoration of something FDR-related.

They debated it all afternoon, I swear. $25,000. Those right-wingers hated FDR back in the day, and they still do.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms.

The first is freedom of speech and expression--everywhere in the world.

The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way--everywhere in the world.

The third is freedom from want--which, translated into universal terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants-everywhere in the world.

The fourth is freedom from fear--which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor--anywhere in the world.

[krispos42]

323. The devil's alawys in the details, isn't it?

I love his stuff. The 1st and 4th usually make me tear up a little.

[SteveM]

275. Plenty of GOP anti-gunners who are your allies...

William Bennett (staunch supporter of AWB); Charles Krauthammer (virulent marijuana and gun prohibitionist at the WAPO); Alberto Gonzalez (who wanted authority to place people on the "no fly" list on the "no buy" list for the NICS test without due process); G.W. Bush (who supported the AWB); Carolyn McCarthy (though she's run as a Democrat, she has never given up her GOP affiliation) and others. McCain is no shining light on the Second Amendment, either.

It matters little if the story originated with WAPO, they continue to run anti-gun stories they know carry false information, and as far as "gun issues" go, the AP and WAPO are largely hand-in-hand.

I will back up from the VPC group as Republican; Josh Sugarman was a founder of the GOP-based Brady Campaign, and I confused the two groups.

[MadHound]

321. Wow, so this is a bipartisan issue that I'm dealing with here.

There are, as I'm sure you realize, plenty of rabid conservatives who are on your side also.:shrug: Does it really make any difference on this issue whose side GOP members are on? Bringing it up as some sort of way to discredit each other is foolish, since the issue cuts across ideological and political boundaries.

And please, if you can prove that the article is somehow false, by all means do so. Provide the links, cites and evidence.

And frankly, your characterization that WaPo and AP are "largely hand in hand" is ludicrous. They are two separate news organizations who aren't influenced by each other:shrug:

[Sancho]

61. You beat me to this post...here's the St. Pete Times link:

http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/state/article450220.ece

It's simply hard to believe the GOP idiots in Florida...

Chain-gang Charlie will sign this as fast as he can.

[Perry Logan]

63. It's a white-guy thing. Some white guys feel an imperative need for guns. But few other people do.

[Larkspur]

69. It's male penis envy

Freud coined the term but applied it to the wrong group -- women. It's usually men, especially men from the dominanat caste in society, that unconsciously associate guns (or any weapons) with a penis extender. In our society white males are the dominant caste, but as we know from demographics, white domination is on the wane. Because white domination is on the wane, white males feel threatened and irrational obsession with weapons, in our society guns are the chief weapon of choice, rises in disproportion to its usefulness to solve the demographics change.

I can understand a rancher or farmer having a gun as well as policemen and our military, but us regular folks don't really need one. A CT professor a few years ago wrote an LTTE to the Hartford Courant when guns and gun control was being discussed here. He said that what inspired Samuel Colt to develop the six shooter was a picture in the local paper of a task master overseeing 12 African slaves. The task master had a musket that could at most get 1 or 2 shots off. If the slaves rebelled, the task master was at a disadvantage. But a task master carrying 2 six shooters could kill all 12 rebelling slaves or most of them if he had to. Thus the six shooter was developed to aide the enslavement of one group -- Africans -- by another -- whites.

This professor also went on to say that after studying the history of the Wild West, he concluded contrary to the NRA zealots that owning a gun did not make one safer because there would always be someone faster at the draw than you or had more guns or could hire more gunmen than you. A good example is the story of the miners strikes. Miners had guns, but the mining corporations could hire gunmen -- the Pinkertons -- to attack the striking miners and when that didn't work the corporations appealed to the US Government to send in the National Guard. Many miners were killed because they were overwhelmed by the corporations allies. Guns were not the solution to the problem. Peace in the Wild West came as honest lawmen and judges came West to enforce laws and protect citizens from lawless criminals. When bad laws had to be fought, fighting them with strikes and good PR did more help than guns.

Guns are a temporary solution to a moment in time -- stopping a crime from happening. I can understand why store owners and residents in crime ridden neighborhoods feel the need to own a gun, but if the environment does not change, the gun will only keep you safe for a moment. Gangs and organized crime are more powerful than the individual and can not be defeated with a gun in the hands of ordinary citizens. Yeah, you might kill or wound a few members of those gangs, but gangs usually strike back and can overwhelm the individual easily. Citizens in those areas need to work with law enforcement and their legislators to clean up their neighborhoods. It's not easy but its the only way that works to bring lasting peace.

[SteveM]

96. Why is it that gun-controllers always bring up the penis first?...

Isn't it true that those who first -- and consistently -- broach the subject are the ones most obsessed by that subject? I'm not envious of your penis or anyone else's; I've got my own.

"A gun can be just a gun, but it can also be a phallic symbol, depending on who sees it or uses it... Someone who fears guns, for example, could have healthy reasons for wanting to avoid guns, or their fears could be a deeper phobic reaction to conflicts about sexuality and repressed anger." (IN DEFENSE OF HUNTING, James A. Swan, Harper Collins, 1995.) Swan is a psychologist.

Let's be honest. The reason you and others bring up this penis envy thing is to morally denegrate gun owners under a pall of intellectual-sounding psychological analysis, no?

As to gangs. They are not all-powerful. I hear the same variations on your theme when folks dismiss the potential effect of militias against our all-powerful military, should that eventuality come around. How soon we forget Iraq. How soon we forget Vietnam. If you want to see how "Citizens in those areas need to work with law enforcement" refer to www.progunprogressive.com and read how one citizen has finally, FINALLY, obtained a CCW to protect himself from "gangs" in his neighborhood after receiving numerous threats by them.

BTW, "white domination" was accomplished in large measure by the purist form of de jure racism: antebellum gun control, Jim Crow gun control, and modern-era gun control in black/immigrant neighborhoods. See: www.georgiacarry.org (scroll to Heller brief). See: OUR VANISHING WILDLIFE, Hornaday, New York Zoological Society, 1913. (Here, Hornaday advocates "(1) prohibiting the owning, carrying or use of firearms by aliens, and (2) prohibiting the use of firearms in hunting by any naturalized alien from southern Europe until after a 10-years' residence in America." Hornaday had a thing about Italians "The Italians are spreading, spreading, spreading. If you are without them to-day, to-morrow they will be around you. Meet them at the threshold with drastic laws, throughly enforced; for no half way measures will answer." He also reviewed attempts to "tax" Negroes for using guns to prevent excess hunting, but backed away when "poor whites" were caught up in the scheme as well.

Further, violent crime has always been most prevalent in the big Eastern cities, even during the mythical "wild, wild West." No sense perpetuating another myth.

Since you say Freud was mistaken about the application of "penis envy," just why do many millions of women take up firearms?

[coriolis]

107. Female gun haters do a lot of transference...because they hate penises too.

Frequently due to fear of or inability to get near one.

[zanne]

115. Oooooooooooooh. We have penis envy!

:rofl: Nice going, Freud.

[coriolis]

139. I didn't say that...another constitution hating gun grabber did, in post 69.

It's fun to watch them having cows.

[zanne]

145. Well, I find it fun to irritate gun nuts. nt

[coriolis]

161. Well, houseflies are irritating but don't actually matter.

They eat shit, too.

[Larkspur]

171. The plants you eat at breakfast, lunch. and dinner eat shit too

That means we're ALL full of it.

[zanne]

239. HAH!

See what I mean?

[SteveM]

289. LOL

[Larkspur]

160. I'm not a gun grabber. I'm in favor of a "well regulated militia"

not a bunch of yahoos masturbating with their pistols.

[coriolis]

184. Well, either way there ain't a hell of a lot you can do about it.

But far be it from me to stop you from trying. Knock yerself out.

[apocalypsehow]

191. Good heavens, someone sounds like they're about to faint.

"Female gun haters do a lot of transference...because they hate penises too. Frequently due to fear of or inability to get near one."

Yeah, that's the real problem here alright: not guns, but man-hating penis coveter's.

:eyes:

[coriolis]

209. How's that stock in Acme Apostrophe Corporation doing?

:eyes:

[Larkspur]

130. I'm a happily single and cheerfully childfree woman

I knew at the age of 10 that I never wanted to get married nor have kids. Had paternal aunts that lived a long and happy life without ever getting married or having kids of their own. And they never needed guns either.

It's long been theorized in Freudian and Jungian psychology that males are more fascinated with weapons than women and that weapons, whether they be swords or guns, represent a phallic symbol.

Jung would say about women who are obsessed about guns that they were tapping into their animus.

[iverglas]

135. "males are more fascinated with weapons than women"

Also with penises, actually, methinks. ;)


btw, more seriously, thank you for your first post. Voices of reason in this particular discussion, and actual historical facts and analysis, are so rare.

[SteveM]

270. Still doesn't answer the question: Why do anti-gunners bring it up first?

Since we pro-2A folks have heard this Freudian/Jungian stuff countless times before, with no effect on the discussion at hand, I can only conclude that the purpose of bringing up "penis envy" is to denigrate the "opposition" under a tissue-thin veil of intellectual-sounding expression. I rather think Dr. Swan has it right, that those who continue to use phallic symbol arguments call more attention to themselves and the "...phobic reactions to conflicts about sexuality and repressed anger" they may be suffering from.

By the way, are women who bear arms (by the millions) all "obsessed about guns," such that they must be tapping into "their animus?" What constitutes "obsession?" When can a woman (or anyone) bear an arm and not be obsessed?

[Larkspur]

292. If you believe that guns solve all social problems, then yes you suffer from penis envy.

[DrCory]

119. So...

We indivduals must surrender to the overwhelming strength of gangs and origanized crime? Fuck that. BTW, law enforcement has been struggling to "clean up neighborhoods" for...oh, I don't know...since neighborhoods were invented, and so far the problem of organized crime still exists. It's especially difficult when law enforcement is itself an organized crime outfit, as is the case in most parts of the world, including our own.

Oh, and that professor is full of horse-shit, the Sam Colt story being pure fantasy (not that it matters anyway, a multiple-shot pistol is just as effective for killing multiple gang members as rebelling slaves...thanks Colonel Colt). Guess Crazy Horse and Geronimo should have surrendered their arms and worked with law enforcement and legislators to clean up their neighborhood too, right?

[Larkspur]

134. Crazy Horse and Geronimo LOST to the US Army

You made the Profressor's point again!

Crazy Horse won the battle against Custer but he lost the war against the better armed and equipped US Army. Geronimo outfoxed the US Army for a long time but after the US Army used Indian scouts to track down Geronimo, the US Army was able to capture Geronimo.

Native Americans, unfortunately, didn't have much of a chance against a racist government and individuals and corporations bent on taking their lands. Their only hope would have been if the tribes could have united early on in the 17th or early 18th century against white settlers, then they may have been able to set terms their way instead of the white man's way.

[DrCory]

152. That isn't the point at all...

They RESISTED a gang of armed thugs (the U.S. Army), and as a result provided inspiration for generations to come. According to you, they should have immediatly surrendered their arms, to law enforcement

...wait,

...wouldn't that have been the U.S. Army?

The "professor" fails to take into account the value of armed resistance for it's own sake. They fought for the right to be left in peace. It doesn't matter whether they won or lost, the idea is worth the risk. Just as my right to be left in peace is worth fighting for regardless of whether I succeed or not.

I guess the point is, too often supposedly legitimate armed bodies entrusted with "law enforcement" are either enforcing law contrary to the rights or will of the populace, or behaving as a criminal element themselves.

I swear, I just don't understand why alleged progressives want to relinquesh such a valuable concept as the RKBA to intitutions which have historically proven themselves time and time again to be corrupt and oppressive.

[Larkspur]

159. Progressives should be about making sure those institutions

don't go corrupt or help clean up the corruption.

The problem with gun zealots is that they are way too individualistic and their myopia blinds them to the real problems.

I don't support taking peoples guns away. I support regulation of gun ownership. The 2nd Amendment puts gun ownership in the same text as a "well regulated militia". I'm for the "well regulated militia" not for a bunch of yahoos to indulge their penis envy.

[DrCory]

165. If you would take you mind off of "penis envy"...

...and consider a justification clause is not a precondtion, than maybe you'll understand the true intent of the RKBA. Speaking of "penis envy", what of women who own guns, are they also guilty of such?

Oh, and I don't believe you are not a prohibitionist anyway.

[Larkspur]

170. The only guns I'd prohibt in civilian life are semi-automatic, automatic and military assault

weapons. They have no use in civilian life.

If you want to use them, join the National Guard, which is a "well regulated militia" and the US Government can send you to Iraq where you can shoot until you drop. I'm surprised you are not in Iraq. That has to be a gun zealots dream place. There's plenty of guns there and reasons to use them.

[coriolis]

180. How about BB guns and revolvers (six-shooters)? They are semi-automatic weapons.

Maybe you don't actually know what some of these terms mean.

[DrCory]

192. Self-defense...

Is a legitimate "use", and a self-loading arm is MUCH more effective. If you're willing to bring a single-shot to a self-loading party, so to speak, be my guest.

[beevul]

205. Your a gun grabber.

"I'm not a gun grabber."

The guns youd prohibit constitute the bulk of prvately owned firearms in America.

Unless you mean youd prohibit them, yet let people have them.

"If you want to use them, join the National Guard, which is a "well regulated militia" and the US Government can send you to Iraq where you can shoot until you drop. I'm surprised you are not in Iraq. That has to be a gun zealots dream place. There's plenty of guns there and reasons to use them."

Yeah lol. Because the founders had a crystal ball and knew the national guard would be invented in a hundred years, when they wrote the second amendment. :sarcasm:

[DrCory]

248. In addition...

progressives should also be concerned with maitaining a balance of power between the state and the citizenry. Arms are, as is historically proven, an essential element of power. No arms, no REAL power. BTW, I will submit that the American citizenry is not permitted by our own state to fully exericise the RKBA.

[coriolis]

179. So...your position is that you think the racist government and its agents should be

the only people allowed to be armed?
Hmmm.

[friendly_iconoclast]

234. Some questions for you

I can understand a rancher or farmer having a gun as well as policemen and our military, but us regular folks don't really need one. A CT professor a few years ago wrote an LTTE to the Hartford Courant when guns and gun control was being discussed here. He said that what inspired Samuel Colt to develop the six shooter was a picture in the local paper of a task master overseeing 12 African slaves. The task master had a musket that could at most get 1 or 2 shots off. If the slaves rebelled, the task master was at a disadvantage. But a task master carrying 2 six shooters could kill all 12 rebelling slaves or most of them if he had to. Thus the six shooter was developed to aide the enslavement of one group -- Africans -- by another -- whites.

Are you familiar with the terms "ipse dixit", "urban legend", or "organic fallacy"?

This paragraph is an example of all three.

Guns are a temporary solution to a moment in time -- stopping a crime from happening. I can understand why store owners and residents in crime ridden neighborhoods feel the need to own a gun, but if the environment does not change, the gun will only keep you safe for a moment. Gangs and organized crime are more powerful than the individual and can not be defeated with a gun in the hands of ordinary citizens. Yeah, you might kill or wound a few members of those gangs, but gangs usually strike back and can overwhelm the individual easily. Citizens in those areas need to work with law enforcement and their legislators to clean up their neighborhoods. It's not easy but its the only way that works to bring lasting peace.

If we stipulate the Ku Klux Klan and sympathizers = gangsters, would you still
argue that these African Americans and Native Americans referred to
below should have worked with "law enforcement and their legislators to clean up their neighborhoods"?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deacons_for_Defense

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F._Williams

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Hayes_Pond

[Larkspur]

291. Guns didn't improve the lives of African Americans or win the Civil Rights for them

It was the Civil Rights movement that had been growing since the end of the Civil War. And that movement peaked when television was able to bring images of police and national guardsmen abusing their authority and brutally attacking non-violent protesters into the homes of average white Americans across the country. Those disturbing images began changing the political climate because whites, who were not militantly racist, began listening to African Americans and ended up supporting Civil Rights for African Americans.

Jesus said, "Those who live by the sword will die by the sword". Same holds true for guns.

[benEzra]

76. A third of U.S. gun owners are women, and half are Dems and indies.

My sister, my mom, and my wife all own guns, as do many of my female coworkers.

It's not just a "white male" thing.

FWIW...

[slackmaster]

87. Nice racial slur there, Perry Logan

How "progressive", "liberal", and "democratic" of you.

:rofl:

[SteveM]

97. I think I heard the back door slam (nt)

[SteveM]

90. Millions of blacks left the plantation. With their guns...

www.georgiacarry.org (scroll to Heller brief) Here you will find how gun-control is racism in its purist form. But don't tell your friends: it might disrupt the home-boys on your plantation.

[Wcross]

105. We can't dance like other people.........

Ah, the ignorance of a gun grabber.

[Larkspur]

124. I'm not a gun grabber. I'm in favor of gun regulation.

Regulation is not taking people's guns away. It's holding gun owners responsible for purchasing, selling, using, and safeguarding their guns. The 2nd Amendment specifically said that people can have guns as part of a "well regulated militia". That means that government -- We the People -- can regulate gun ownership.

In a way, responsible gun owners and gun regulators share the same goal -- keep gun owners responsible. Irresponsible gun owners hurt responsible ones as well as unarmed citizens, and gun companies that dump large supplies of guns in states with little gun regulation but border states or cities with tougher gun regulation should also be held responsible when their intentional flooding of the markets helps criminals get easy access to guns.

[Wcross]

211. You can call yourself anything you wish.

Do you support a renewed "assault weapons ban"?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

225. That's an interesting take on the 2nd Amendment.

I don't know of anyone that's in favor of irresponsible gun ownership. Most of the pro-gun people here support the existing laws and the stringent enforcement of them. Prosecute the straw purchasers, start actually prosecuting the felons arrested with firearms and make them serve consecutive sentences, increase those sentences to mandatory 20 years. What we generally don't approve of is more laws when the current ones aren't enforced.

David

[Wcross]

308. Why don't they prosecute those that attempt to buy but fail the background check?

If you claim to not have a felony record on the yellow form but are later found to have lied shouldn't there be a penalty?

[beevul]

310. Yes virginia, you ARE a gun grabber.

"The only guns I'd prohibt in civilian life are semi-automatic..."


Those are your words. You types them.


Semi-automatic weapons constitute the bulk o0f civilian owned weapons in America.


Again, unless your is some odd definition of prohibit that means people can keep them.

[benEzra]

71. The scope of the law is limited to those licensed by the state to carry a weapon.

It does not apply to everyone.

[FlaGranny]

325. Stop trying to make sense.

:-)

[Mika]

75. Note to Florida employers: DON'T PISS OFF THE HELP!

:scared:

[derby378]

78. We've got this burger joint here in Dallas...

Owner had a tendency to be gruff and insulting to the customers, but IIRC, he always let his employees take their guns to work. The only time they had any run-in with the police was when someone tried to rob the joint, and the staff held the would-be robber at gunpoint until the cops arrived.

[zanne]

80. We can expect alot more car break-ins in Florida.

Idiots.

[slackmaster]

86. That would only happen if the fools who want to publish the names of CHL holders get their way

:nuke:

[Dogtown]

89. just sloppin' the hogs...

This won't change reality,

but the "flag voters" here (GA) & in FL will feel represented & empowered.

[uppityperson]

92. Guns have to be locked in a motor vehicle?

If they have to be locked out in your car, I don't see a problem with this.

I don't own a gun.

[apocalypsehow]

99. "Dear in their hearts" - blech.

:puke:

"The second thing they wrote about in that constitution was the right to bear arms," said Sen. Durell Peaden, a Republican from Crestview, Florida. "It was what was dear in their hearts."

Someone has fallen in love with their fetish-device, and is blinded by all the passion. For starters, the Second Amendment was actually the third in line, the first first amendment having never been ratified.

Second (no pun intended), if the topic was so "dear" to the Founders hearts, why didn't they just stick that clause in the body of the Constitution? Why make such a dear thing an amendment, instead of a primary clause?

Third, there's that troublesome bit at the start. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." What's this? Welllllll, I'll tell you what it is. It is the precondition under which the second part of the clause is to be exercised, i.e., well-regulated militiamen - citizen soldiers called to active duty, in other words - acting collectively in defense of their free state. One can squint real hard and imagine they see an "individual" right to keep and bear arms in that amendment, if one gives it the old college try. But that still doesn't make it so.

[slackmaster]

101. Only individuals can have rights

Groups of people can have powers, but not rights.

[iverglas]

103. c'mon, slack

Join us here in the 21th century. The 18th century is just so ... last last last century.

Collective rights. They're here.

In fact, they were there even then. What do you actually imagine "the security of a free state" is saying?

Something about the collective right of a people, organized as a state, to security and freedom, I'd say.

[bossy22]

136. collective rights are powers

powers of the group....i never understood the concept of a collective right

[iverglas]

140. well,

then I'll just have to quote my favourite scene from Cabaret again.


Brian (Michael York, teaching English) on the pronunciation of "phlegm": P H is always pronounced as F, and, uh, you don't sound the G.

Natalia Landauer (Marisa Berenson, learning English): Then why are they putting the G, please?

Brian: That's, that's a very good question, but rather difficult to explain.

Sally (Liza Minelli, being annoying): Try, Brian.

Brian: Well, uh, it's just there.

Natalia: So, Mr. Professor, you do not know?

Brian: No.

Natalia: Then I am sorry. I cannot help you.



I suppose maybe you thought that if you didn't get something, it didn't exist.

"Rights" is a concept. Individal, collective, property, intellectual, whatever. Rights exist to the extent that the concept is adopted by consensus.

Individuals have rights as against the collectives they belong to, known as human rights.

Collectives have rights as against other collectives.

That "we the people" thing seems to have thought it had a few collective rights. I guess you don't agree.

[bossy22]

137. well many courts have found it to be

and individual right- actually a sizable amount before miller- no one also realizes that the lower court decisions in miller through out the NFA cause it violated "Miller's individual right to bear arms"

and anyway we will find out soon enough from the SCOTUS- i know alot of people here like to stick there fingers and their ears and go "blah blah blah i cant hear anything" but the Heller Decision will most likely change the debate about the 2A for good.

[iverglas]

142. ever tried reading a post

*before* writing a reply?

I didn't say anything about what right might be enshrined in your second amendment, and whether it might be individual or collective.

However, I have said many times in the past -- and hit me, but it just seems to me that YOU ought to know this -- that the right to "the security of a free state" is a collective right, and the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right -- individuals have the right to keep and bear arms in order that the collective may exercise its right to security and freedom.

Freedom of speech is an individual right, too. Still doesn't mean I get to advertise snake oil to cure cancer.

[bossy22]

195. again

"I didn't say anything about what right might be enshrined in your second amendment, and whether it might be individual or collective."
not directly- but you hinted towards it
please tell me where "the security of a free state" is found in the US constitution

But to respond to this post, you make a good point- though i disagree with your school of thought there is alot of evidence that can be used to back it up

[iverglas]

200. yer shittin me, right?????

You say -- forgive me while my jaw drops --

please tell me where "the security of a free state" is found in the US constitution

Well okay. If you insist.

Amendment II

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.

Is there anything else I can do for you??


Apart from that -- isn't it fun when we don't just ascribe ideas to other people that they have never professed to hold?

I, for one, have never ever said that the "right to keep and bear arms" in the US constitution is a collective right. That right, like the right to vote, is a right assigned to individuals in order that the collective entity they belong to may secure and exercise its own rights: security, freedom and self-determination.

I have the right to vote, and it's an individual right. But I don't get to vote willy-nilly, when and where and for what I please.

[slackmaster]

144. Sure, I hear about collective rights all the time, for example

The right of people of native Hawaiian descent to live on the island of Niihau as members of a sovreign tribal state.

But every individual who falls into that class enjoys that right (unless they get banished through due process under Hawaiian tribal law). (I don't like the term "right" when applied in that manner; it sounds more like a privilege to me.)

Something about the collective right of a people, organized as a state, to security and freedom, I'd say.

Once again, every individual member of that group has a right to security and freedom (unless it has been curtailed through due process, as in the case of someone who is incarcerated). The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States enumerates the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects - EVERY individual person has those rights. Infringements thereof by our present government notwithstanding, nobody in their right mind would try to say that an individual does not have that right.

The use of the term "collective rights" in attempt to argue against a right of every free individual to keep and bear arms is a unique application of the term. I can't think of any other alleged collective right that is not enjoyed by every individual member of the collective group who has not been specifically sanctioned by law.

[iverglas]

153. well that was non-responsive, counsel

The use of the term "collective rights" in attempt to argue against a right of every free individual to keep and bear arms is a unique application of the term.

Not quite the same as your earlier statement that only individuals can have rights. That being what I was responding to.


Once again, every individual member of that group has a right to security and freedom (unless it has been curtailed through due process, as in the case of someone who is incarcerated).

But those are entirely, completely different matters. The security and freedom of a collective simply is not the same as the security and freedom of its individual members.

A completely oppressive state can be secure and free, by virtue of its ability to repel all invaders and occupiers or to negotiate effective agreements that preclude invasion and occupation. If it's not getting invaded, it's secure; if it's not getting occupied, it's free.

Each individual in it could still be getting beaten by police on a daily basis and locked up for smiling on Tuesdays. No security, no freedom.

Same with your Hawaii example. An individual living in Hawaii could be engaging in an individual act that is an exercise of the collective right of his/her group to live in Hawaii. Or s/he could be engaging in an individual act that is an exercise of his/her individual right to live where s/he chooses. Or both.

We're used to these things in Canada. Language rights, for example, are both: the right of a collective, i.e. one of the founding peoples of Canada, to preserve and practise its culture; and the right of an individual to be treated equally, for instance in receiving government services, regardless of which of the official languages of Canada s/he chooses to speak.

Not always easy to work one's way through, but that doesn't mean that collective rights are any less real than individual rights.

And of course, rights are never "curtailed". The exercise of a right may be restricted, but the right itself subsists, as whole and complete as it ever was. You people and your funny talk about rights just do my head in. On the one hand, they're inalienable; on the other hand, they can be taken away ...


The 4th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States enumerates the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects - EVERY individual person has those rights.

Yeah, that one is an individual right, sure enough. But the right to the security of a free state, that one's a collective right. Of course, it isn't spelled out in your constitution, because it's a right as against parties not governed by your constitution. It's recognized in things like the UN Charter:

To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

... The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

I can't think of any other alleged collective right that is not enjoyed by every individual member of the collective group who has not been specifically sanctioned by law.

That's because you still just don't have a grasp of what a collective right is.

[slackmaster]

157. I'm saying there is no such thing as a collective right that does not apply to individuals

:hi:

[iverglas]

168. and you're wrong

As I carefully explained.

But hey, chant it.

[slackmaster]

212. Your answer was pure horseshit and you know it

:hi:

[apocalypsehow]

104. Only water can be wet.

Drops of water falling from the sky can be called rain, but not bagels.

Your reply to my post makes zero sense.

:shrug:

[slackmaster]

146. The people means every person

The same term is applied in Amendments I, IV, and IX as well as Amendment II, and in all cases it means the same thing.

[apocalypsehow]

151. "in all cases it means the same thing." Oh, does it now?

So, my five year old can tote around a six-shooter? I don't see why not: she's a people alright. How about convicted felons? They're persons, to be sure. How about foreign nationals on American soil? They're people, even if your odious pals in the NRA and like such outfits are largely made up of folks who delight in demonizing them.

Or, perchance, were the Founders referring to a specific set of circumstances under which a certain group or class of "people" would find themselves in a "well-regulated militia" bearing arms for the "security" of a free state?

Rational thought - it's what's for dinner.

[slackmaster]

154. Your six-year-old has not reached the age of majority

Therefore does not yet enjoy a plethora of rights like voting and entering into binding contracts. Nice try.

How about convicted felons?

Their rights have been curtailed by due process of law.

How about foreign nationals on American soil?

Legal resident aliens can buy guns. Betcha didn't know that.

Or, perchance, were the Founders referring to a specific set of circumstances under which a certain group or class of "people" would find themselves in a "well-regulated militia" bearing arms for the "security" of a free state?

Yes, that set of circumstances being that you are a free adult who lives here lawfully.

Here's another thing I'll bet you didn't know - The militia is pretty much everyone.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/search/display.html?terms=militia&url=/uscode/html/uscode10/usc_sec_10_00000311----000-.html

[iverglas]

164. ah; so said six-year-old

does not have the right to life? You gotta be, what, 18 before that kicks in?


How about convicted felons?
Their rights have been curtailed by due process of law.

I swan, only in the USofA are rights "curtailed". And only in the USofA would anyone describe a completely non-individualized statutory provision as "due process of law".


How about foreign nationals on American soil?
Legal resident aliens can buy guns. Betcha didn't know that.

Yeah. But ILlegal residents can't be hunted. That's because your constitution guarantees them the equal protection of the law. As persons. A different way of saying people, eh? So how come their right to keep and bear arms can be infringed?


Yes, that set of circumstances being that you are a free adult who lives here lawfully.

Which dictionary is it now that gives you that definition of "people"? Free adults who live here lawfully. Never seen that one, myself.

Maybe if I'm visiting Detroit and I overstay my six months by a day, the police can search my motel room without a warrant and seize all my stuff, too ... and billet troops in my closet ... and deprive me of life and liberty without due process ...


Here's another thing I'll bet you didn't know - The militia is pretty much everyone.

Well, one might think you were being deliberately insulting, except that of course you're referring to someone knowing something that can't be known because it ain't so:

all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.

It's just a funny damned world in which "pretty much everyone" excludes the vast and overwhelming majority of the women in it.

[apocalypsehow]

169. Ah, so it's DOESN'T "in all cases" mean the same thing. Distinctions, distinctions.

Now we're getting somewhere (she's five, not six, BTW).

"Therefore does not yet enjoy a plethora of rights like voting and entering into binding contracts"

Irrelevant. We are not discussing "voting" and "entering into binding contracts." We are discussing your fictional "right to keep and bear arms" regardless of whether you are actively engaged in providing for the "security" of a free state. See how that works? The plain language of the amendment narrows the scope of who has a "right" to keep and bear what, and where they may "bear" it, and under what circumstances. That is the entire purpose of the opening sentence.

"Their rights have been curtailed by due process of law"

You mean to tell me that a convicted felon, once released from prison, no longer has the "individual" right to speak his mind about politics? No longer has protection against warrantless searches? No longer has the right to keep his mouth shut when the cops are asking tough questions? Wow. :eyes:

"Legal resident aliens can buy guns."

Love that parsing of the language you guys are such specialists at - it must come from exposure to all that lead.

"Betcha didn't know that"

Betcha I don't care, particularly since it is irrelevant to this discussion.

"Yes, that set of circumstances being that you are a free adult who lives here lawfully"

And the day I'm drafted into a well-regulated militia in defense of my free state is the day I'll get to truly "exercise" my God-given Second Amendment rights, by golly.

[beevul]

198. You keep saying it...

"We are discussing your fictional "right to keep and bear arms" regardless of whether you are actively engaged in providing for the "security" of a free state."


But you don't support it.

In order for your position to be born out by fact, the part that says "shall not be infringed" would have to apply to "a well regulated militia" but not to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms". And being such a thing, in spite of the fact that the bill of rights is an enumerated list of restrictions on governmental power, is comical at best. If you read it as the restriction on governmental power that the bill of rights says it is, your conclusion is demonstrably a false one.



"The plain language of the amendment narrows the scope of who has a "right" to keep and bear what, and where they may "bear" it, and under what circumstances. That is the entire purpose of the opening sentence."

The plain language of the second amendment narrows nothing. It simply says to paraphrase "because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

It does NOT say "only when a well regulated militia becomes necessary to the security of a free state". There is no conditional.

Thats what it says. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it, whether they be honest enough to admit it or not.

Heller will reflect as such, I'm quite certain.

[Name removed]

204. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[apocalypsehow]

298. The Second Amendment confers an individual right to "keep and bear arms" within the scope of being a

member of a "well-regulated" milita actively engaged in the defense of their "free state." That is what it says. You know it, I know it, and everyone else knows it, whether they be honest enough to admit it or not.

[beevul]

312. Actually...

The second amendment is an enumerated restriction on governmental power.

The preamble to the bill of rights even says so:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

www.billofrights.org

The operative restriction aimed at governmental power is "shall not be infringed".

What shall not be infringed is "the right of the people to keep and bear arms."

The reason being "a well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state".

Point, set, match.

You lose.

[apocalypsehow]

314. Actually...

Wrong.

The opening phrase of the Second Amendment is structured in the ablative case of classical Latin. Information about the matter can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latin_grammar
*Ahem*: "It indicates the time, condition, or attending circumstances of an action being described in the main sentence"

So, let's look at the text of the Second Amendment (final, adopted language): "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."

And sure enough, we have our final answer regarding what "right" the Second Amendment does secure: when in the actual service of a "militia" performing duties having to do with guaranteeing the "security" of our "free state," your right to "keep and bear arms" surely shall not "be infringed." Absent that particular alignment of time, conditions, and attending circumstances, however, your so-called "constitutional right" - and by this I mean actual Constitutional protection barring a state or Congress from fettering your "right" to possess firearms - is nothing more than a figment of your imagination.

You said: "Point, set, match. You lose."

LOL - I simply love the notion that one could "lose" anything on a discussion board. No reruns of Red Dawn on this time of night, huh?

:rofl:

[beevul]

315. Thats only true...

If it IS what you claim it is.


And its not.

Reading it as the restriction on governmental power that it is;

"A well regulated militia, being necesary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"


You would have to explain how "shall not be infringed" applies any more or less to "a well regulated militia" than it does to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".


You haven't.

You wont.

You can't.

"And sure enough, we have our final answer regarding what "right" the Second Amendment does secure: when in the actual service of a "militia" performing duties having to do with guaranteeing the "security" of our "free state," your right to "keep and bear arms" surely shall not "be infringed." Absent that particular alignment of time, conditions, and attending circumstances, however, your so-called "constitutional right" - and by this I mean actual Constitutional protection barring a state or Congress from fettering your "right" to possess firearms - is nothing more than a figment of your imagination."

Final answer? hahahaha hardly. The SCOTUS will give the final answer, not you. The second amendment says NOTHING about only when in actual service. Nothing about performing actual duties. Those are creations from whole cloth, of yours. You don't stop where the brady bunch does. You don't even stop where the VPC does. And Yours does not support the Democratic party platform: http://www.democrats.org/pdfs/2004platform.pdf

""We will protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms..."

You use a ton of verbiage and ascribe a meaning so narrow to your "interpretation" that not a single person would have the right to own a gun if it were the law of the land...it will be interesting to see what you have to say when the Heller ruling is handed down.

Not to mention, 43 of the states have amendments to thier own constitutions that explicitly state that people have a right to arms:

ALABAMA "That every citizen has a right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Ala. Const. Art. I, Sect. 26

ALASKA "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. The individual right to keep and bear arms shall not be denied or infringed by the State or a political subdivision of the State."
Alaska Const. Art. I, Sect. 19

ARIZONA "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself or the State shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
Ariz. Const. Art. 2, Sect. 26

ARKANSAS "The citizens of this state shall have the right to keep and bear arms for their common defense."
Ark. Const. Art. II, Sect. 5

COLORADO "The right of no person to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall be called in question; but nothing herein contained shall be construed to justify the practice of carrying concealed weapons."
Colo. Const. Art. II, Sect. 13

CONNECTICUT "Every citizens has the right to bear arms in defense of himself and the state."
Conn. Const. Art. I, Sect. 15

DELAWARE "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and State, and for hunting and recreational use."
Del. Const. Art. I, Sect. 20

FLORIDA "The right of the people to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves and of the lawful authority of the state shall not be infringed, except that the manner of bearing arms may be regulated by law."
Fla. Const. Art. I, Sect. 8

GEORGIA "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but the General Assembly shall have the power to prescribe the manner in which arms may be borne."
Ga. Const. Art. I, Sect. I, para. VIII

HAWAII "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."
Haw. Const. art I, Sect. 15

IDAHO "The people have the right to keep and bear arms, which right shall not be abridged; but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to govern the carrying of weapons concealed on the person, nor prevent passage of legislation providing minimum sentences for crimes committed while in possession of a firearm, nor prevent passage of legislation providing penalties for the possession of firearms by a convicted felon, nor prevent the passage of legislation punishing the use of a firearm. No law shall impose licensure, registration or special taxation on the ownership or possession of firearms or ammunition. Nor shall any law permit the confiscation of firearms, except those actually used in the commission of a felony."
Idaho Const. Art. I, Sect. 11

ILLINOIS "Subject only to the police power, the right of the individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Ill. Const. Art. I, Sect. 22

INDIANA "The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and the State."
Ind. Const. Art. I, Sect. 32

KANSAS "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be tolerated, and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."
Kansas Bill Of Rights, Sect. 4

KENTUCKY "All men are, by nature, free and equal, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights, among which may be reckoned: .... Seventh: The right to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state, subject to the power of the general assembly to enact laws to prevent persons from carrying concealed weapons."
Ky. Bill Of Rights, Sect. 1, para. 7

LOUISIANA "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be abridged, but this provision shall not prevent the passage of laws to prohibit the carrying of weapons concealed on the person."
La. Const. Art. I, Sect. 11

MAINE "Every citizen has a right to keep and bear arms and this right shall never be questioned."
Me. Const. Art. I, S16

MASSACHUSETTS "The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence. And as, in time of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be maintained without the consent of the legislature; and the military power shall always be held in exact subordination to the civil authority, and be governed by it."
Mass. Decl. Of Rights, pt. I, art. XVII

MICHIGAN "Every person has a right to keep and bear arms for the defense of himself and the state."
Mich. Const. Art. I, Sect. 6

MISSISSIPPI "The right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but the legislature may regulate or forbid carrying concealed weapons."
Miss. Const. Art. 3, Sect. 12

MISSOURI "That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned; but this shall not justify the wearing of concealed weapons."
Mo. Const. Art. I, Sect. 23

MONTANA "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons."
Mont. Const. Art. II, Sect. 12

NEBRASKA "All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain inherent and inalienable rights; among these are ... the right to keep and bear arms for security or defense of self, family, home, and others, and for lawful common defense, hunting, recreational use, and all other lawful purposes, and such rights shall not be denied or infringed by the state or any subdivision thereof."
Neb. Const. Art. I, Sect. 1

NEVADA "Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes."
Nev. Const. Art. 1, Sect. II, para. 1

NEW HAMPSHIRE "All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property, and the state."
N. H. Const. part 1, art. 2-a.

NEW MEXICO "No law shall abridge the right of the citizen to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes, but nothing herein shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons. No municipality or county shall regulate, in any way, an incident of the right to keep and bear arms."
N. M. Const. Art. II, Sect. 6

NORTH CAROLINA "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; and, as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained, and the military shall be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power. Nothing herein shall justify the carrying of concealed weapons, or prevent the General Assembly from enacting penal statutes against that practice."
N. C. Const. Art. I, Sect. 30

NORTH DAKOTA "All individuals are by nature equally free and independent and have certain inalienable rights, among which are ... to keep and bear arms for the defense of their person, family, property, and the state, and for lawful hunting, recreational, and other lawful purposes, which shall not be infringed."
N. D. Const. Art. I, Sect. 1

OHIO "The people have the right to bear arms for their defense and security; but standing armies, in time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, and shall not be kept up; and the military shall be in strict subordination to the civil power."
Ohio Const. Art. I, Sect. 4

OKLAHOMA "The right of a citizen to keep and bear arms in defense of his home, person, or property, or in aid of the civil power when thereunto legally summoned, shall never be prohibited; but nothing herein contained shall prevent the Legislature from regulating the carrying of weapons."
Okla. Const. Art. 2, Sect. 26

OREGON "The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defence of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power."
Or. Const. Art. I, Sect. 27

PENNSYLVANIA "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defence of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
Pa. Const. Art. I, Sect. 21

RHODE ISLAND "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
R. I. Const. Art. I, Sect. 22

SOUTH CAROLINA "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. As, in times of peace, armies are dangerous to liberty, they shall not be maintained without the consent of the General Assembly. The military power of the State shall always be held in subordination to the civil authority and be governed by it. No soldier shall in time of peace be quartered in any house without the consent of the owner nor in time of war but in the manner prescribed by law."
S. C. Const. Art. I, Sect. 20

SOUTH DAKOTA "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the state shall not be denied."
S. D. Const. Art. VI, Sect. 24

TENNESSEE "That the citizens of this State have a right to keep and to bear arms for their common defense; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms with a view to prevent crime."
Tenn. Const. Art. I, Sect. 26

TEXAS "Every citizen shall have the right to keep and bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State; but the Legislature shall have power, by law, to regulate the wearing of arms, with a view to prevent crime."
Tex. Const. Art. I, Sect. 23

UTAH "The individual right of the people to keep and bear arms for security and defense of self, family, others, property, or the State, as well as for the other lawful purposes shall not be infringed; but nothing herein shall prevent the legislature from defining the lawful use of arms."
Utah Const. Art. I, Sect. 6

VERMONT "That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State - and as standing armies in time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to the civil power."
Vt. Const. Ch. I, art. 16

VIRGINIA "That a well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state, therefore, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
Va. Const. art I, Sect. 13

WASHINGTON "The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain, or employ an armed body of men."
Wash. Const. Art. I, Sect. 24

WEST VIRGINIA "A person has the right to keep and bear arms for the defense of self, family, home and state, and for lawful hunting and recreational use."
W. Va. Const. Art. III, Sect. 22

WYOMING "The right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and of the state shall not be denied."
Wyo. Const. Art. I, Sect. 24


Yep, modelled by the same attitudes, with the same intent as the second amendment. But don't let that get in the way of a good misinterpretation.

[apocalypsehow]

316. The available facts disagree with you (sorry about that):

"The Second Amendment is formed with an opening phrase, followed by a declarative clause. The opening phrase is known to grammarians as an ablative absolute construction.<12> The significance of this grammar was certainly understood to the framers who were more schooled in Latin grammar than is common in modern times. This was a grammar structure that was common during that era"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

You said: "You would have to explain how "shall not be infringed" applies any more or less to "a well regulated militia" than it does to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"."

That is scarcely coherent, but the one lucid piece of it a person even somewhat literate could possibly follow is also, sadly, incorrect:

"Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275 (1897):
'The law is perfectly well settled that the first ten amendments to the Constitution, commonly known as the 'Bill of Rights,' were not intended to lay down any novel principles of government, but simply to embody certain guaranties and immunities which we had inherited from our English ancestors, and which had, from time immemorial, been subject to certain well recognized exceptions arising from the necessities of the case. In incorporating these principles into the fundamental law, there was no intention of disregarding the exceptions, which continued to be recognized as if they had been formally expressed. Thus, the freedom of speech and of the press (Art. I) does not permit the publication of libels, blasphemous or indecent articles, or other publications injurious to public morals or private reputation; the right of the people to keep and bear arms (Art. II) is not infringed by laws prohibiting the carrying of concealed weapons;... "

More fun stuff for you to review after you sleep it off:

"Current judicial precedents
At present, with certain exceptions and disputes, the courts generally find it acceptable under the Second Amendment for federal, state, and local jurisdictions to:
Regulate or not regulate militias
Enact, or not enact, child-safety lock legislation
Ban or permit handgun possession
Regulate or not regulate handgun possession
Prohibit or allow the carrying of concealed firearms and/or weapons
Regulate or not regulate the carrying of concealed firearms and/or weapons
Ban or permit assault weapons
Prohibit and regulate firearms on commercial aircraft.
Prohibit possession of firearms by persons who have been:
Involuntarily committed to a mental institution
Convicted of a felony
Convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence<89><90> or not, since in one jurisdiction the Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence law was ruled a violation of the Second and Fifth Amendments and was ruled unconstitutional for two years<91> though that decision was reversed on appeal<92> and the Supreme Court has not granted certiorari.
Convicted of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence and in the military, and being unable as a soldier in uniform to handle any weapons, although per Department of Defense policy, crew-served weapons such as tanks, missiles, and aircraft are exempt from the Gun Ban for Individuals Convicted of a Misdemeanor Crime of Domestic Violence law and may be handled or used by a soldier previously convicted of a crime of domestic violence<93> despite the same individual not being allowed to handle or use a pistol.<90>
Dishonorably discharged from the military
Require the licensing of firearms dealers
Ban or regulate bombs, artillery, and explosives
Require or not require the registration of firearms
Ban or permit the possession of firearms and ammunition on county-owned property
Ban or not ban the possession of weapons of any kind on Federal property (Although weapons are generally banned on most Federal property, National Parks in some parts of Alaska encourage hikers to carry firearms for protection against wild animals.<94>)
Prohibit firearm possession anywhere in licensed liquor establishments, or to prohibit firearm possessions only in the bar areas of some businesses, or to permit the carry of concealed weapons in any facility other than Federal facilities
Require or not require handgun owner identification cards
Require or not require the presentation of identification prior to buying ammunition
Ban or permit ballistic fingerprinting databases"
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution&action=edit

You said: "You would have to explain how 'shall not be infringed' applies any more or less to 'a well regulated militia' than it does to 'the right of the people to keep and bear arms'.

You haven't.

You wont. (Sic)

You can't."

I could.

I did.

I have.

And it was all too easy.

[apocalypsehow]

318. ...

"I want me my fetish device! It keeps me mmm-mmmmmhhh warm at night!!!11!" x(

[DrCory]

120. You're wrong...

Not a precondition, but a justification clause. Two different things professor.

[apocalypsehow]

123. Gee, that's nice.

False, but nice.

[bossy22]

138. i see the people

the word "the people" makes me believe it is an individual right- I actually agree with the way justice kennedy put it in his statement during the Heller case

[apocalypsehow]

143. Love that tune:

Ah, look at all the lonely people
Ah, look at all the lonely people

Eleanor Rigby picks up the rice in the church where a wedding has been
Lives in a dream
Waits at the window, wearing the face that she keeps in a jar by the door
Who is it for?

All the lonely people
Where do they all come from ?
All the lonely people
Where do they all belong ?

Father Mackenzie writing the words of a sermon that no one will hear
No one comes near.
Look at him working. Darning his socks in the night when there's nobody there
What does he care?

All the lonely people
Where do they all come from?
All the lonely people
Where do they all belong?

Ah, look at all the lonely people
Ah, look at all the lonely people

Eleanor Rigby died in the church and was buried along with her name
Nobody came
Father McKenzie wiping the dirt from his hands as he walks from the grave
No one was saved

All the lonely people
Where do they all come from?
All the lonely people
Where do they all belong?

-"Eleanor Rigby," The Beatles.

[beevul]

163. Explain please...

"Third, there's that troublesome bit at the start. "A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state..." What's this? Welllllll, I'll tell you what it is. It is the precondition under which the second part of the clause is to be exercised, i.e., well-regulated militiamen - citizen soldiers called to active duty, in other words - acting collectively in defense of their free state. One can squint real hard and imagine they see an "individual" right to keep and bear arms in that amendment, if one gives it the old college try. But that still doesn't make it so."

Explain how the part that says "shall not be infringed" applies to the "well regulated militia" part, but not to "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" part.



You'd be the first, should you pull it off.

[underpants]

109. Oh man Disney World is going to be some fun now!!!

:eyes:

[Jack_DeLeon]

141. You can already carry concealed in disney world...

I havent done so, but they do not have any signage prohibiting concealed carry, nor do they search people only bags.

[iverglas]

173. ^^ caution; post does not contain legal advice ^^

You can already carry concealed in disney world...

http://www.cfnews13.com/News/Local/2007/12/9/disney_guest_found_with_gun.html

A woman is facing charges after deputies said she tried to get inside a Walt Disney World theme park with a loaded handgun.

Disney security spotted the semi-automatic weapon on Mary Ann Richardson, 63, Sunday during a mandatory bag check at the Magic Kingdom.

... She told security and deputies that she travels with the gun, and forgot it was in her purse.

... Richardson is now charged with possession of a concealed weapon.

When it comes to weapons, all Central Florida theme parks, including Disney, have put strict, zero tolerance policies in place since the Sept. 11 attacks.

Oh well, eh? Lotta people are gonna have to stay home now.


She forgot it was in her purse. She had a loaded, semi-automatic handgun in her purse, and she forgot it was there. I don't think there's much one could say that would add to that.

[coriolis]

183. Apparently you missed the part about it was in her bag

not on her person and she did not have a carry permit.
(Dizzy World also has a no-fly zone around it. They obviously have a highly inflated sense of their own significance. Goofy no doubt came up with that one.)

[iverglas]

194. apparently you missed the entire thing

When it comes to weapons, all Central Florida
theme parks, including Disney, have put strict,
zero tolerance policies in place since the
Sept. 11 attacks.

(a) Are you seriously suggesting that a person with a permit to carry a concealed weapon may not carry it in a purse?

(b) Are you seriously suggesting that if the woman had had a permit she would have been permitted to carry a firearm at Disney, whether in her pocket, her purse, her underpants or her pink polka dot shoulder holser?


I wonder how many here know that in Pennsylvania, where this woman came from, she needed a permit to carry her firearm (concealed) in her purse -- but there is nothing to stop her from carrying a firearm in public on full display around her neck or however else she cared to festoon herself with it openly.

[coriolis]

199. Goodbye.

...

[iverglas]

201. I shan't be at all surprised

if that salutation proves to be prophetic!

[ziggysane]

111. That doesn't make any sense

Don't people work in schools? Way to go Flori-duh.

Rachel

[zanne]

147. Meanwhile, in the gun forum...

Some guy wants machine guns to be legal. He's waiting for the Supreme Court decision about the 2nd Amendment because he thinks that any kind of firepower will be legal and he's very excited about it. There are some sickies here on DU.

[DrCory]

156. They are legal. N/T

[slackmaster]

158. Machine guns are legal, just tightly regulated

:hi:

[spin]

268. In Florida machine guns are legal

MACHINE GUNS
The possession of a machine gun, defined as any firearm which shoots, or is designed to shoot, automatically, more than one shot without manually reloading, by a single function of the trigger, is prohibited unless lawfully owned and possessed under provisions of federal law.
http://www.nraila.org/statelawpdfs/FLSL.pdf

You have to have to fill out some forms and jump through a couple of legal hoops...

http://www.onlythebestfirearms.com/faq.html

Note: No I don't own a machine gun nor do I want to, but I have known several people who did.

[spoony]

307. Yeah there are. This one guy can't wait to post about murders

every day because he thinks it scores him political points, but really it just makes people squeamish because he's wallowing in the blood of victims of violent criminals.

[beevul]

311. My monitor paid the price for that comment LOL

And keyboard had its fill of mountain dew, rolling off of that monitor.

:toast:

[Owl]

196. What a load of crap.

[LanternWaste]

203. One more reason I'll never look for a job in FL....

One more reason I'll never look for a job in FL....

[kevinbgoode]

224. I think someone should have put forward an amendment

only allowing women and gay people to carry firearms. Aren't they usually the biggest victims of violent crime anyway?

I'll bet the gay bashing and the rapes of women would drop significantly in a week.

[iverglas]

231. not really

Most women who are sexually assaulted are victimized by family members, friends, dates, acquaintances, husbands ...

Not the bogeymen in the back alley.

And shooting somebody doesn't really seem like an advisable approach in those cases, let alone one that anyone is really likely to take.


Not that I don't take your point. ;)

[napi21]

228. I can't say I completely disagree with this new law. I heard a story

on Dobbs Show tonight about 60 or 80 employees of one business in a small town in Okla, we fired because the employer used serepticious methods to get permission to check the trunks of their employees cars. If they found a gun (usually a rifle) in the trunk, the employee was fired! This was a public parking lot and not on the employer's property. THAT'S INSANE! When you live in rural OK, almost everybody is a hunter. They just consider their rifle something they always have with them! The guy doing the report said this was a small town and that company was nearly the only employer in town. I'm not really a gun lover, but that company was WRONG!

If this new law mandates that the gun must be separated from the bullets, out of plain sight, and also requires a CCW permit, I don't see the problem. I live in Ga. and LOTS of people have a LOADED GUN under their driver's seat! I also preach to everybody that you really shouldn't show anger at some idiot wild driver...you never know how he will retaliate!

[iverglas]

233. and now for the real story

I heard a story on Dobbs Show tonight about 60 or 80 employees of one business in a small town in Okla, we fired because the employer used serepticious methods to get permission to check the trunks of their employees cars. If they found a gun (usually a rifle) in the trunk, the employee was fired! This was a public parking lot and not on the employer's property. THAT'S INSANE!

It surely might be. If it were true.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/12/11/wguns11.xml

Gun-toting, tough-talking, and anti-establishment to his muddy boot straps, Larry Mullens is an Oklahoman "good ole boy" personified.

He is also fast becoming a classic American folk hero as he takes centre stage in a revolt of gun owners that is reverberating in boardrooms across the United States. The son of one of the last of the old-style Wild West ranchers, he first fired a gun as a boy.

Now he carries his trusty Winchester in his pick-up on his way to work at a sawmill in case he comes across a coyote, a wild dog or even a wolf attacking his small herd of steers. Last year he lost five calves to wild dogs.

So it was perhaps not surprising that he was enraged when his previous employer fired him for breaking company security rules that banned guns from the company car park after they found a .38 pistol stashed behind the seat of his pick-up.

An interesting account of the entire situation. Guns in the parking lot: workers' rights, or just another link in the chain of the right-wing push to strip the public interest out of public policy?



http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2008-02-20-gunlaws_N.htm

At least six states — Alaska, Kansas, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mississippi and Oklahoma — have passed laws that bar some employers from forbidding workers to leave guns locked in their cars in company lots but don't give workers the right to carry firearms into the actual workplace.

Now, several more states are considering such laws. Supporters say licensed gun owners should have access to their weapons in case they need them for self-defense on the trek to and from home.

If employers can ban guns from workers' cars, "it would be a wrecking ball to the Second Amendment," which governs the right to bear arms, says Wayne LaPierre, executive vice president of the National Rifle Association (NRA).

... These laws are "a systematic attempt to force guns into every nook and cranny in society and prohibit anyone, whether it's private employers (or) college campuses … from barring guns from their premises," says Brian Siebel, senior attorney for the Brady Center to Prevent Gun Violence.

There were 516 workplace homicides — 417 of them caused by gunfire — in 2006, the most recent tally available, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics. "There's certainly no need to allow guns in these parking lots," Siebel says. "The increased risks are obvious."

Wayne Lapierre ... a piece of right-wing shit who doesn't even make sense.

[zanne]

320. People can now be fired for smoking...

OFF the job.

[SammyWinstonJack]

259. Dumb idea.

[Javaman]

262. You see, the real reason why this was passed was...

because of the collapsing economy and the epically shitty housing market in florida, they are hoping a few or a dozen or so people go ape shit crazy postal so they don't have to do lay offs. The nut bags will take care of that for them.

[FlaGranny]

272. My reading of the law

is thus. Florida is a state where you may carry a weapon in your vehicle. Certain employers, if they got wind of you doing this would simply fire you. I believe the law just makes it illegal for certain employers to fire employees if they are otherwise following the laws of the state. The law got started when Disney fired a couple for having a weapon in their vehicle in the Disney parking lot (they had pretty good reasons for having it). Schools and certain other employers will still be allowed to prohibit weapons in the parking lot. This doesn't really much change the existing law.

[spin]

296. One very significant change...

Once passed, employees must have a concealed weapons permit, and, then, they must keep the guns locked in their cars.

http://www.wflx.com/Global/story.asp?S=8141253

Several years ago the companies never worried about what was in your car. Guns in the parking lot were common where I worked. The crew I worked with would often journey out on break to a fellow employees car to admire a new weapon.

The new law requires the owner of the firearm to have a concealed weapons permit if he chooses to leave it in his car in the parking lot of an employer. Concealed weapons permit holders are 300 times less likely to criminally misuse a firearm.

Since adopting CCW (1987), Florida's homicide rate has fallen 21% while the U.S. rate has risen 12%. From start-up 10/1/87 - 2/28/94 (over six years) Florida issued 204,108 permits: only 17 (0.008%) were revoked because permittees later committed crimes (not necessarily violent) in which guns were present (not necessarily used). http://www.sacsconsulting.com/ccw_Statistics.htm

I would predict an increase in the number of Floridians who have concealed carry permits. A lot of us already have them. A lot more will obtain one. They are easy to obtain and not all that expensive...as long as you're an honest citizen.

If more guns are stolen from parking lots, expect an increase in the sale of auto gun safes. http://www.gunsafestore.com/vehiclegunsafe.htm

A car gun safe might be an excellent idea and the sales might help the economy.

When the first concealed weapons bill passed in Florida, the crime rate dropped dramatically. Maybe it will drop again.

[iverglas]

303. "Once passed, employees must have a concealed weapons permit"

Yeah, and we all know how very difficult THAT is to get:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=165346&mesg_id=165346

Neighborhood resident Charles Podany, 57, confronted the driver of the truck <that had been speeding on the neighbourhood street> but Landes ended up arguing with Podany, deputies said. Casey Landes, 24, died at the scene after being shot Friday night.

Podany, who was armed, shot and killed Landes, deputies said. Podany, who does possess a concealed weapons permit, was arrested and charged with manslaughter.

Podany, who does possess a concealed weapons permit ... and teensy bit of a violent criminal history ...

* 1994/10/10 -- Not Guilty (Deny) First Degree Misdemeanor -- Statute: 784.03 -- FELONY BATTERY (ETA: Acquitted)
* 1997/01/16 -- Nolo First Degree Misdemeanor (Adjudication Withheld) -- Statute: 790.10 -- Improper Exhibition of a Weapon
* 1999/04/27 -- Nolo Third Degree Felony (Adjudication Withheld) -- Statute: 784.021 -- Aggravated Assault

Now there's somebody you just really want having a firearm in his vehicle at the parking lot where you work.

Heck, it might keep speeding in the parking lot down.

[beevul]

313. My what important details we leave out...

"The passenger in the truck grew angry. He jumped out, took off his shirt and punched Podany, knocking him to the ground, the sheriff's office said. With his attacker on top of him and about to strike again, Podany was in fear of his life and felt trapped, according to an arrest report written by Deputy Dale Bunten."

One who did not understand, might even ask why they were left out.

[iverglas]

326. my, how we overlook the point

The individual in question had a record of committing serious criminal offences, AND HE HAD A PERMIT TO CARRY A CONCEALED FIREARM.

Nice try, though.

[iverglas]

301. oh well, eh?

My reading of the law is thus. Florida is a state where you may carry a weapon in your vehicle. Certain employers, if they got wind of you doing this would simply fire you.

I wouldn't likely call that your reading of the law. I'd call it your assumption about some facts.

I never know how things work in US states. Up here in Canada, we have a thing called "unjust dismissal". If you get fired for no good reason, you sue, or your union grieves for reinstatement, or you file a complaint if you're covered by employment standards legislation that allows for it.

So if anybody here were fired for doing something there was no rule against doing, and that wasn't obviously a breach of the employment contract or the employer-employee trust, the employer would find itself with a possibly expensive problem.

So from that perspective, my reading of the fact situation is that some employers made a rule to govern employees in the workplace, prohibiting them from keeping firearms in their vehicles on company property.

Then, if the employer got wind of an employee violating the clear and known rule to that effect, the employer could fire the employee.

I think my reading makes more sense, but what do I know?


This doesn't really much change the existing law.

Not for you I imagine it doesn't.

If you happened to be an employer, it would have just stripped you of the right/ability to control the use that is made of the property you own.

Some people just don't think it's the government's job to tell anyone how they must allow their property to be used by other people.

Funny how so many people don't want the gummint telling them what to do, but are so happy about the gummint telling other people what to do.

Maybe we can look forward to the government of Florida telling employers that they must permit employees to hold old-fashioned religious revival meetings in the parking lot, or set up small businesses in the parking lot, or camp overnight in the parking lot ...

[FlaGranny]

324. Calm down there.

Your reading makes more sense how? That's exactly what I said. An employer could have fired you for having a weapon in your vehicle. The new law states they can't do that any more. It DOES change existing law very little.

The employer can still fire you if you take the weapon OUT of the car. You haven't changed the employer's "use" in any way. Carrying any item locked in your car at your work parking lot doesn't change an employer's "use." It's a bit hard to see this having even a minute impact on the way an employer runs his business. A weapon in a locked vehicle is no different than a porn film in a locked vehicle. Neither can do any harm while locked in a vehicle. Should a porn film locked in the trunk be grounds to fire? Even at Disney World?

The rest of what you said is a tad silly.

[iverglas]

327. aren't we old folks supposed to have better manners?

Keep your "calm down now" to yourself, if you would. Or give it to someone who's interested.

You said:

My reading of the law is thus. Florida is a state where you may carry a weapon in your vehicle. Certain employers, if they got wind of you doing this would simply fire you.

That was apparently false. Employees were not fired if employers got wind of them having firearms in their vehicles. They were fired if employers got wind of them VIOLATING THE WORKPLACE RULE PROHIBITING FIREARMS IN VEHICLES ON COMPANY PROPERTY. I'll bet you really can see the difference.


The new law states they can't do that any more. It DOES change existing law very little.

What can you posibly mean by that?

Previously, employers were able to control the use that employees made of the employer's property.

Employers now have no control over the use of their property to store firearms in vehicles.

What can you possibly mean by saying that this changes existing law very little?


It's a bit hard to see this having even a minute impact on the way an employer runs his business.

Too bad you have to make shit up instead of discussing what's actually at hand.

Nobody said aything about how employers run their businesses. The issue is the employer's control over its property and the use that is made of its property.


A weapon in a locked vehicle is no different than a porn film in a locked vehicle. Neither can do any harm while locked in a vehicle.

And if someone steals a vehicle with a porn film in it, they aren't too likely to use the porn film to hold up a convenience store or do a drive-by shooting.

Ditto if someone breaks into the vehicle and steals the porn film.

"Neither can do any harm while locked in a vehicle." Brilliant. Why, you'd almost think someone had said it could, or that you were speaking to someone likely to think it could.

Not all shootings are carefully planned undertakings. Some are impulsive. It's hard to impulsively shoot someone if you don't have a firearm handy.

It's also hard for someone else to steal a firearm if there is no firearm handy to steal.

[Marrah_G]

274. I see these stories and always think they are talking about another country........

Yet one more reason to not leave the North East.

[spin]

300. I understand your viewpoint...

However, mine differs from yours.

Before I retired, the company I worked for ask to to journey to Massachusetts as a tech rep.

I refused. When they asked why I replied, "the gun laws there are too strict."

You can stay in the North East. I'll chose to stay in the South.

[Fla_Democrat]

293. Cool

:thumbsup:

[HuffleClaw]

317. "take your guns to work" + "take your kid to work day" = ???

n/t