Florida Declares Open Season On Targets In 'Gunshine State'

[Formaldehyde]

Yes, and yes.

Then your own state law clearly has nothing in common with the Florida law, which now allows people to shoot their firearms on even the smallest properties in the most dense urban environments.

And your notion of "suburb" does not reflect the reality of the situation here, or most anyplace for that matter other than extremely affluent neighborhoods. 100 yards from this owner's house would put him a number of lots away from his own.

Yes, but your thinking is colored by a swirl of bias in which facts counter to your option tend to drift off and fade away.

That statement seems to refer to you.

Anecdotal and personal experience after 15yrs of watching gun control debates in various places I've lived, so feel free to disregard and move on.

The only cops where I have ever lived who wanted to restrict private gun ownership were those in NYC. But then again, I can't claim to have ever gone to a "gun control debate" before, so I can't say what sort of cops show up at such events and express their own personal opinions.

 

[JollyRoger]

If you are convicted of any felony you lose the right to bear arms, that is the law as it stands now. I'd be willing to consider allowing felons to have firearms if their crime was a malum prohibitum type of offense.

I would consider expanding the right to bear arms is the point I am trying to convey.

The Constitution, as you well like to say, indicates "shall not be infringed" - so the way the statutory law stands - it is unconstitutional and you should be more than merely "willing to consider" a partial return to Constitutionality. Unless of course, when you howl about "shall not be infringed" you really mean "shall not be infringed unless I see a common sense reason for gun grabbing."

I would like to hear your reasoning for the Latin-based infringement that is more specific than "common sense".

 

[BvBPL]

Dude deserves props for providing education in gun safety and the law.

Journalist deserves props for bringing this to the public's attention.

 

[KmDubya]

The Constitution, as you well like to say, indicates "shall not be infringed" - so the way the statutory law stands - it is unconstitutional and you should be more than merely "willing to consider" a partial return to Constitutionality. Unless of course, when you howl about "shall not be infringed" you really mean "shall not be infringed unless I see a common sense reason for gun grabbing."

I would like to hear your reasoning for the Latin-based infringement that is more specific than "common sense".

When you are convicted of a felony you pretty much lose all of your rights as a citizen. You can no longer vote, you can no longer own a firearm. Why would anyone want to allow convicted felons of owning firearms? They have already proven that they are not fit for society.

A malum in se crime is one that is evil in nature, something like murder, rape, theft. They are the sort of crime that everyone can agree are bad regardless of the law.

A malum prohibitum crime is one that breaks an administrative type law, something like failure to pay taxes, jaywalking, prostitution. They are the sort of crime that people make up a law to control behavior that they do not agree with. The crimes are not inherently evil per se.

I don't consider not allowing convicted felons of owning firearms as being an infringement on the Constitution. Call it common sense if you want, as the saying goes the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

In a strict interpretation every weapon system would be allowed to be privately owned. RPGs, belt fed machineguns, flamethrowers and stinger missiles would be legal to own. That is never going to happen nor should it in my opinion. If that makes me a gun grabber in your eyes what can I do? Fully automatic weapons were regulated in the 1934 firearms act. The constitutionality of that is moot as it happened so long ago and there is no way of rolling it back. All that can be done now is to dig in your heels and retreat no further, molon labe.

 

[Antilogic]

... Call it common sense if you want, as the saying goes the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

In a strict interpretation every weapon system would be allowed to be privately owned. RPGs, belt fed machineguns, flamethrowers and stinger missiles would be legal to own. That is never going to happen nor should it in my opinion. If that makes me a gun grabber in your eyes what can I do? ...

Gotta say, KmDubya, every once in awhile you make some sense.

 

[KmDubya]

Gotta say, KmDubya, every once in awhile you make some sense.

Thanks


That will change as soon as I go off on some lazy minimum wage worker

 

[Antilogic]

Thanks


That will change as soon as I go off on some lazy minimum wage worker

Probably so.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I just realized something. If this guy really wants to practice his shooting in near complete safety, all he has to do is buy a skiff. He can take it 5 miles into the gulf and shoot at all the targets he wants.

 

[JollyRoger]

When you are convicted of a felony you pretty much lose all of your rights as a citizen. You can no longer vote, you can no longer own a firearm. Why would anyone want to allow convicted felons of owning firearms? They have already proven that they are not fit for society.

A malum in se crime is one that is evil in nature, something like murder, rape, theft. They are the sort of crime that everyone can agree are bad regardless of the law.

A malum prohibitum crime is one that breaks an administrative type law, something like failure to pay taxes, jaywalking, prostitution. They are the sort of crime that people make up a law to control behavior that they do not agree with. The crimes are not inherently evil per se.

I don't consider not allowing convicted felons of owning firearms as being an infringement on the Constitution. Call it common sense if you want, as the saying goes the Constitution is not a suicide pact.

In a strict interpretation every weapon system would be allowed to be privately owned. RPGs, belt fed machineguns, flamethrowers and stinger missiles would be legal to own. That is never going to happen nor should it in my opinion. If that makes me a gun grabber in your eyes what can I do? Fully automatic weapons were regulated in the 1934 firearms act. The constitutionality of that is moot as it happened so long ago and there is no way of rolling it back. All that can be done now is to dig in your heels and retreat no further, molon labe.

You still have not given a reason other than felons lose some rights and common sense.

As to the rights things, they lose some "rights", but certainly not all. You cannot quarter soldiers in their home. They still get a right to a fair trial and a right to confront witnesses against them and a right to not have their property taken without a public purpose/just compensation. There are many more. I am not in agreement with the loss of other rights, so because the government is wrong on a couple of rights does not excuse the government being wrong on this point.

As to "common sense" as it specifically relates to felons, you have not really given specific reasons. The closest you get is the Constitution is not a suicide pact. My guess is that is euphemistic for the general gun grabbing arguments that many gun grabbers make in other contexts (namely public safety) - something you want to make in regards to felons.

An even bigger problem is that the felon possession bans also strips others of their right to bear arms. Members of the felon's household under most current laws, would not be able to possess in a home they share with the felon, even a spouse. Perhaps you are ok with a woman choosing between her husband or her gun. I do not think there should be such a choice forced on a law abiding spouse of a felon.

As to your last paragraph, again, more infringements. It's ok to have those views, I guess - but I think one that is doing that should not be so quick to pull the "shall not infringe" trigger in threads such as this. Be honest that you are looking at it in a common sense manner rather than posting "shall not be infringed" when you disagree with what others view as a common sense infringement.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think George Orwell summed that up quite eloquently:

 

[Bugfatty300]

In a strict interpretation every weapon system would be allowed to be privately owned. RPGs, belt fed machineguns, flamethrowers and stinger missiles would be legal to own. That is never going to happen nor should it in my opinion.

But never is soooo long. Actually stuff like that is already legal to own in most places in the US, the only obvious exception being machine guns made after 1986. Flamethrowers aren't even regulated by any laws in most states. You might get a ticket and fine for using one during the dry seasons though.

 

[Flying Pig]

His range doesn't actually sound any more dangerous than most military ones in the UK - I've shot on a range before where you needed to post two sentries to tell you to stop firing every time a boat came behind your bullet-catching sandbank - but it seems bizarre to have a range in an actual residential area that isn't constructed in such a way so as to have no danger area. That is, it should be so contained that no shots can go beyond it - you essentially just need a large concrete emplacement at the other end with three walls and a roof. There are quite a few of these on military camps and indoors in towns in the UK.

 

[Formaldehyde]

Did you watch the video?

Did you check out the satellite view of the neighborhood?

But I completely agree with your final assessment. There are lots of similar legitimate shooting ranges in Florida. This guy just doesn't want to be inconvenienced by driving to one, or even taking a boat out into the adjoining ocean where nobody would even notice. He would much rather scare his own dogs and inconvenience his neighbors.

 

[Flying Pig]

I'm surprised that there's no law requiring planning permission for this sort of thing, I must say. Surely any change of the use of a property which causes a great deal of noise needs some sort of consultation?

 

[Bugfatty300]

He would much rather scare his own dogs and inconvenience his neighbors.

Easy solution; deregulate suppressors.

 

[Formaldehyde]

I'm surprised that there's no law requiring planning permission for this sort of thing, I must say. Surely any change of the use of a property which causes a great deal of noise needs some sort of consultation?

Nope. Not when it conflicts with their god-given right to make armed nuisances of themselves. And if you are a public official, even suggesting it should be regulated can lead to a $5K fine and being fired by the governor.

 

[KmDubya]

You still have not given a reason other than felons lose some rights and common sense.


As to the rights things, they lose some "rights", but certainly not all. You cannot quarter soldiers in their home. They still get a right to a fair trial and a right to confront witnesses against them and a right to not have their property taken without a public purpose/just compensation. There are many more. I am not in agreement with the loss of other rights, so because the government is wrong on a couple of rights does not excuse the government being wrong on this point.

As to "common sense" as it specifically relates to felons, you have not really given specific reasons. The closest you get is the Constitution is not a suicide pact. My guess is that is euphemistic for the general gun grabbing arguments that many gun grabbers make in other contexts (namely public safety) - something you want to make in regards to felons.

An even bigger problem is that the felon possession bans also strips others of their right to bear arms. Members of the felon's household under most current laws, would not be able to possess in a home they share with the felon, even a spouse. Perhaps you are ok with a woman choosing between her husband or her gun. I do not think there should be such a choice forced on a law abiding spouse of a felon.

As to your last paragraph, again, more infringements. It's ok to have those views, I guess - but I think one that is doing that should not be so quick to pull the "shall not infringe" trigger in threads such as this. Be honest that you are looking at it in a common sense manner rather than posting "shall not be infringed" when you disagree with what others view as a common sense infringement.

If someone proposed an amendment to current laws that would allow felons and their families to maintain their 2nd amendment rights I would be willing to hear it and have others much smarter than I discuss its merits. I already would support some felons regaining their rights depending on the crime so going all the way would be a smaller step. in today's political world I am not sure who would champion the plight of felons even if it was the right thing to do.


In today's America there is not a chance of expanding gun ownership and rights to allow individuals to posses fully automatic weapons and RPGs. In 1934 if Americans had stood up for the Constitution and stopped the Firearms Act we would not be in the situation we are in today of creeping regulations taking away the right to bear arms one small step at a time. Arguing for full access to every weapon system is folly and would just be used to show 2nd amendment supporters as being crazy by the lapdog media. The best that one can do is hold what we have. Barring some sort of violent upheaval or revolution the march to a dictatorship is inevitable and where democracy always ends up.

Common sense reasons are used by the anti 2nd amendment types to justify taking all firearms one step at a time. First you grab .50 rifles as they are very rare and only a few people own them. Then you go after large capacity magazines and scary looking weapons such as ARs. Then you'll want a national registry, of course you can't call it that, you have to call it a universal background check. Once you have the list you know where to go to grab the rest of the guns. Maybe start with scoped large caliber "sniper rifles" or hunting rifles as they used to be called.

Look at what is happening in Connecticut, the new law there has made some 350,000 people felons for not disarming. If that is not the action of a fascist police state, then the word fascist no longer has any meaning.

 

[Flying Pig]

Easy solution; deregulate suppressors.

I like the way you think, but unfortunately all but the most unreasonably large don't reduce the noise of the shot beyond 'car door slamming', which would still be irritating to the neighbours.

Nope. Not when it conflicts with their god-given right to make armed nuisances of themselves. And if you are a public official, even suggesting it should be regulated can lead to a $5K fine and being fired by the governor.

I think it could probably be covered by laws not targeting shooting ranges. If he'd built a nightclub, for example, there would be planning permission. The condition of building might be that the range was soundproofed, as most indoor ranges in residential areas are, which does not infringe his right to build it any more than insisting that it must be safe.

Common sense reasons are used by the anti 2nd amendment types to justify taking all firearms one step at a time. First you grab .50 rifles as they are very rare and only a few people own them. Then you go after large capacity magazines and scary looking weapons such as ARs. Then you'll want a national registry, of course you can't call it that, you have to call it a universal background check. Once you have the list you know where to go to grab the rest of the guns. Maybe start with scoped large caliber "sniper rifles" or hunting rifles as they used to be called.

Look at what is happening in Connecticut, the new law there has made some 350,000 people felons for not disarming. If that is not the action of a fascist police state, then the word fascist no longer has any meaning.

This is fun, can I have a go? Fascism glorifies the strong and ordains that they should overpower the weak. America allows the rich, whom fascists claim are obviously naturally, genetically and morally better than the poor, to buy guns, while refusing to issue free or cheap firearms to the poor to defend themselves. This creates a situation in which the master-race of wealthy people have the means to exterminate the poor. There's also a universal registry of poor people via the welfare state. It's obviously only a matter of time before the government orders them to be liquidated. How is keeping this level of deregulation anything other than fascist?

 

[Formaldehyde]

I think it could probably be covered by laws not targeting shooting ranges. If he'd built a nightclub, for example, there would be planning permission. The condition of building might be that the range was soundproofed, as most indoor ranges in residential areas are, which does not infringe his right to build it any more than insisting that it must be safe.

I don't think you still understand the essence of this matter. No local laws can restrict their right in this regard. As long as the bullet doesn't travel over a road or an occupied dwelling, you can now do as you please on your own property.

From the second article I posted:

When Monroe County commissioners asked whether noise ordinances could be invoked to stop shooting at private homes, County Attorney Bob Shillinger said no.

At least Varrieur built a 7'x7' backstop. But according to the law, he didn't even have to do that.

 

[Flying Pig]

Interesting. Suppose the phrase 'only in Florida' exists for a reason.