The Thread Where We Discuss Guns and Gun Control

[TheMeInTeam]

I mostly agree. If I buy a gun and just keep it at the range under lock and key and just fire it there, very little regulation is probably required.
But I'll bet that most guns don't stay COMPLETELY at home. But if I shoot on my land and there's a possibility that the bullet might leave my property, then I consider it not complete at home.

And for the record, almost 40,000 gun deaths a year should warrant attention.

If you want to make statements for the record, they should not be openly disingenuous.

 

[cardgame]

What percentage of guns do you think never leave private land? I'd bet it's really low. If it is that low, it's not worth differentiating.
And I would guess that gun owners wouldn't care about that differentiation and would object anyway.
I'd be more willing to except it despite hearing some good objections to it here.

What's your definition of private and public land? Aside from being in my car while transported, my gun would qualify for that. It's been to a few private homes and a few private gun ranges. When I think public land, I think school zones and national parks. Vast majority of hunting is done on private land too, although that may depend on area.

 

[rah]

If you want to make statements for the record, they should not be openly disingenuous.

Don't guns kill more in the US than cars? It's really close. You seem to claim that gun deaths are insignificant vs. others methods like knives. Which is it? If cars and guns are almost the same, then regulating them should be of similar concern. And for the record, I doubt there's ever been a person killed sitting in their living room from a knife used in an attack in front of their house. So yeah, they should be regulated more.



And if you're taking a gun in car to transport it, by definition you're taking it out in public. Now if was transported in a locked box, I'd have to reconsider.

 

[Commodore]

so the analogy might work for open or concealed carry,

Not really because, again, this is a Constitutional right we are talking about here. And the right that is to "not be infringed" isn't just the right to keep arms, but to keep and bear arms. Bearing arms means being able to carry them openly in public.

 

[Farm Boy]

What's your definition of private and public land?

I believe he's already specified anyplace where the shot or bullet, if fired with the wind up at a 45 degree angle has a possibility of crossing any public right of way counts as "out in public." So, Commerce Clause Public. As in, always public no matter what, or extremely nearly, and exceptions can always be made.

 

[rah]

Not really because, again, this is a Constitutional right we are talking about here. And the right that is to "not be infringed" isn't just the right to keep arms, but to keep and bear arms. Bearing arms means being able to carry them openly in public

The first amendment is limited for public safety, so there is precedence to regulate arms also for the same reason.
But then even if they rule such, you're on record saying you will take up arms and kill people, so obviously reason isn't your bag.

 

[Berzerker]

Not really because, again, this is a Constitutional right we are talking about here. And the right that is to "not be infringed" isn't just the right to keep arms, but to keep and bear arms. Bearing arms means being able to carry them openly in public.

Did the states and localities ever regulate guns on public or private land prior to the civil war amendment extending (some of) the Bill of Rights to the states?

 

[cardgame]

And if you're taking a gun in car to transport it, by definition you're taking it out in public. Now if was transported in a locked box, I'd have to reconsider.

The car is a locked box

 

[rah]

If everyone in the car can access it, I don't consider it one.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

The car is a locked box

That must be why there is such a shortage of stolen car stereos.

 

[Glassfan]

If everyone in the car can access it, I don't consider it one.

When traveling through Blue States, I follow the Federal laws on firearms transport. The weapon must be located in an area of the vehicle inaccessible to driver or passengers without stopping and getting out of the car (in practice, the trunk). The weapon must be unloaded, with no ammunition withing reach. I typically don't stop but drive straight through. Generally, in Red States you can have a loaded firearm in your vehicle or on your person and usually falls under Castle Doctrine. Though obviously there are minor differences between the various State laws. Ohio is an open carry state, as everyone saw during the Republican National Convention in Cleveland in 2016.

 

[Commodore]

Did the states and localities ever regulate guns on public or private land prior to the civil war amendment extending (some of) the Bill of Rights to the states?

I honestly don't know. I'm not really all that familiar with state laws prior to the Civil War. You've definitely given me something interesting to research.

The first amendment is limited for public safety, so there is precedence to regulate arms also for the same reason.

Yeah, your 1st Amendment rights are curtailed when the exercising of them would violate the rights of others. We already have that with 2nd Amendment rights as well with our various laws against murder and violent assault. Merely carrying a firearm in public does not violate anyone else's rights so there really is no justification to have regulations that limit one's ability to carry a firearm in public.

 

[rah]

Just saying the courts have the right to interpret that. Your opinion is not the law of the land.

 

[Commodore]

Your opinion is not the law of the land.

Actually...it kinda is because I base my opinions off of what the Constitution and the Supreme Court have to say on the matter and they are the law of the land.

 

[rah]

And the Supreme Court can change that. That was my point. Or the people can modify the constitution. If that happens, will you still consider it the law of the land and follow it?

 

[Farm Boy]

Wondering if you're going to have to sigh with predictable regret after advocating Ruby Ridging him or something?

 

[rah]

Nah, more likely laugh

 

[Farm Boy]

Dark.

 

[rah]

Naw, just absurd. He's already claimed that he would openly revolt against the government if it happened.

 

[Farm Boy]

hilarious