View Poll Results: Which right holds sway?

Voters
79. You may not vote on this poll
  • 2nd Amendment

    17 21.52%
  • Property Rights

    62 78.48%
Page 23 of 54 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast
Results 221 to 230 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #221
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,039

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Every right has limits.

    Try and refuse service to someone strictly because they're black, and see what happens.

    Even while fighting to protect my right to carry in public I have acknowledged various limitations on my right. such as only carrying concealed, making my CCW available for verification, and conforming to dress code. I can walk downtown with a loaded assault rifle slung, but that's while on publicly owned property, which is different from privately owned property subject to public accommodation. Private owners have more control over their land, but a total ban goes to far.
    You keep crying discrimination but can you prove that legally? I suspect if the NRA could prove discrimination that they would have gone for the right to carry firearms anywhere including Government buildings schools and those dangerous work places. Speaking of dangerous work places where a gun should not be allowed because of the potential for accidents around volatile substances, that alone is enough proof that I need to claim that a gun is not safe at my business. If a gun can somehow pose a threat in a area with flammables or explosives then the same threat exists for places without dangerous compounds.

    The problem with your argument is that on one hand you tell us that Americans have the right to carry guns on their person anywhere, then on the other hand you tell us well except these places.

    If certain places can be gun free zones than other places can be gun free zones. Which shows that it is not always up to the gun owner to decide where he can or cannot carry his gun.

  2. #222
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    You keep crying discrimination but can you prove that legally? I suspect if the NRA could prove discrimination that they would have gone for the right to carry firearms anywhere including Government buildings schools and those dangerous work places.
    We had a recent victory:

    Citizens with a permit should be allowed to carry onto any public school:
    Oregon Firearms Federation

    Putting aside for a moment that Oregon does not issue "concealed weapons permits," this school just like every other public school in the state, has NO authority to forbid a person with a concealed handgun license from entering school property. While both Oregon and Federal law forbid people from being on school property with firearms, concealed handgun license holders are exempt from both laws.Oregon statute 166.370 forbids firearms in "public buildings" which schools are, but subsection B says "this section does not apply to:... (d) A person who is licensed under ORS 166.291 and 166.292 to carry a concealed handgun"

    As we have said elsewhere, if you have a child you maycarry unto public school property.
    Oregon is not alone, either.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-09-12 at 02:16 PM.

  3. #223
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,039

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    We had a recent victory:

    Citizens with a permit should be allowed to carry onto any public school:


    Oregon is not alone, either.
    True in Oregon you can legally carry a concealed hand gun in public buildings. But it is a empty law since if you unholster your weapon you just committed a crime.

    Other than schools (because there really is no safe place to shoot with children all around you) I really have nothing against what happens in public buildings. One could obviously argue that a public building is, well public property. But I still do not feel that we need a new law to muddle up our rights. It would be one thing if the NRA was just making a Constitutional case because that would not require writing new intrusive laws. The NRA is making yet another case for the Government to regulate what decisions that a private property owner can make. Which affects all private property. How long until the NRA wants a law that makes it impossible for me to tell someone not to bring a gun into my home? You already made it clear that the Parking lot laws were just a foundation for more laws to come. How many new laws are you guys planning? What other liberties do you guys have your eyes on?

  4. #224
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    True in Oregon you can legally carry a concealed hand gun in public buildings. But it is a empty law since if you unholster your weapon you just committed a crime.
    That statement is not true:
    166.220 Unlawful use of weapon.

    (1)
    A person commits the crime of unlawful use of a weapon if the person:
    (a) Attempts to use unlawfully against another, or carries or possesses with intent to use unlawfully against another, any dangerous or deadly weapon as defined in ORS 161.015; or
    (b) Intentionally discharges a firearm, blowgun, bow and arrow, crossbow or explosive device within the city limits of any city or within residential areas within urban growth boundaries at or in the direction of any person, building, structure or vehicle within the range of the weapon without having legal authority for such discharge.
    (2)
    This section does not apply to:
    (a) Police officers or military personnel in the lawful performance of their official duties;
    (b)
    Persons lawfully defending life or property as provided in ORS 161.219;
    (c) Persons discharging firearms, blowguns, bows and arrows, crossbows or explosive devices upon public or private shooting ranges, shooting galleries or other areas designated and built for the purpose of target shooting;
    (d) Persons lawfully engaged in hunting in compliance with rules and regulations adopted by the State Department of Fish and Wildlife; or
    (e) An employee of the United States Department of Agriculture, acting within the scope of employment, discharging a firearm in the course of the lawful taking of wildlife.
    (3) Unlawful use of a weapon is a Class C felony.
    [Amended by 1975 c.700 §1; 1985 c.543 §1; 1991 c.797 §1; 2009 c.556 §5]
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    How long until the NRA wants a law that makes it impossible for me to tell someone not to bring a gun into my home?
    Please link to your evidence substantiating your concern.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    You already made it clear that the Parking lot laws were just a foundation for more laws to come. How many new laws are you guys planning?
    The right of the citizen to otherwise lawfully carry in all places open to the public except locations where a demonstrable 'need' exists to be gun free. This automatically means no one was ever talking about your residence, unless of course you hire employees to work in it.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    What other liberties do you guys have your eyes on?
    The NRA concerns itself with firearms.

    *****
    In Oregon, if you have completed training, have passed a background check, and in all ways are otherwise lawfully carrying a legal firearm, you may carry into court houses and public schools, and you may defend yourself and others.

    We view this behavior as reasonable and prudent action.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-10-12 at 12:34 AM.

  5. #225
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,039

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    That statement is not true:
    I said that if you take your gun out of your holster that you broke the law. I said nothing about taking the gun out in a situation that is legal. You are missing my point entirely. My point is that the law is regulating the use of a firearm not actually giving the gun owner any real liberty. If you are in a court room and you take your gun out you will have to surrender your gun to an officer. Clearly the law does not follow the 2nd Amendment bet sets its regulatory restrictions that go beyond the 2nd Amendment. Such laws do harm to the 2nd Amendment since they create precedence that allow statutory laws to exceed the Constitution.


    Again my concern is that NRA is using poor legal judgement that are doing more harm to gun rights than good.



    Please link to your evidence substantiating your concern.
    Link what my concerns? I couldnt possibly think for myself I must parrot someone else?


    The right of the citizen to otherwise lawfully carry in all places open to the public except locations where a demonstrable 'need' exists to be gun free. This automatically means no one was ever talking about your residence, unless of course you hire employees to work in it.
    Making qualifications for bearing arms is the wrong tactic that will actually just lead us straight into gun control. As I said before other country with very strict gun controls require you to justify why you should own a gun. Justifying why there should be no gun in asny given location just opens the door for legislation that requires a gun owner to justify their needs.



    The NRA concerns itself with firearms.
    Well duh its in their name, but perhaps you should start here: NRA NO! - Gun Owners Against NRA Lies and Deceit The only communication with the subcommittee by GO-NH/Hohenwarter was via an e-mail which suggested the so-called “NRA amendment.” This amendment was considered and rejected by the committee, in part because it was too extensive, proposed new gun control measures, instituted new criminal penalties, and added NICS checks on licenses. For those reasons and others it was felt the amendment should be offered as a bill of its own so it would go through the proper process of a public hearing and vetting. HB330 was again heard in Executive Session, where the committee discusses the pros and cons of the bill, and finally it went before the whole House of Representatives for a vote of “ought to pass” or “inexpedient to legislate.” The bill passed out of the House with a large margin of victory and was sent to the Senate.

    Just prior to the full vote of the House, the “NRA amendment” was

    I noticed that you asserted the Castle Doctrine Tonight at a Tea Party meeting in Reynoldsville, PA in front of a group of about 30 people Senator Scarnati stated that he is aware that the NRA liaison has been working with Senator Leech on a compromise for the Florida Loophole and HB40.

    There you have it ladies and gentlemen. The NRA is playing games with your rights.



    the Castle Doctrine is actually a non gun issue. It just states that deadly force not just guns.


    About NRA No

    For far too long the NRA has convinced gun owners across America that they were working to stop anti gun legislation, all while they were really working to line their pockets with millions of dollars.
    To make matters worse the NRA has actually been helping anti gun groups stop laws from being passed that would enhance the rights of gun owners.
    We are here to expose these lies and back stabbing!


    *****
    In Oregon, if you have completed training, have passed a background check, and in all ways are otherwise lawfully carrying a legal firearm, you may carry into court houses and public schools, and you may defend yourself and others.

    We view this behavior as reasonable and prudent action.
    The Oregon laws are just gun control laws with a carrot out front to fool the uneducated gun owner.

    NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense | ThinkProgress

  6. #226
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    My point is that the law is regulating the use of a firearm not actually giving the gun owner any real liberty.
    Depends on the regulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    If you are in a court room and you take your gun out you will have to surrender your gun to an officer.
    That's the presiding judge's call, not yours. Even in court houses where firearms are allowed, judges still retain control over their court room. I have never argued to change that. A lot of business occurs in a court house which has nothing to do with criminal charges or hearings, such as vehicle registration, business/marriage license applications, construction permits, paying tickets and fines, any request for public records, and of course: obtaining a concealed weapon's permit. One can do a lot of business in a court house and never see the inside of a court room.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Clearly the law does not follow the 2nd Amendment bet sets its regulatory restrictions that go beyond the 2nd Amendment. Such laws do harm to the 2nd Amendment since they create precedence that allow statutory laws to exceed the Constitution.
    If you say so. Please be ready with your source material when folks challenge your claim.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Link what my concerns? I couldnt possibly think for myself I must parrot someone else?
    Link to what substantiated your concerns. For example, when I claim a concern that gun control will increase crime rates, I have working links at the ready to demonstrate that concern. You should do the same.

  7. #227
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Well duh its in their name, but perhaps you should start here: NRA NO! - Gun Owners Against NRA Lies and Deceit The only communication with the subcommittee by GO-NH/Hohenwarter was via an e-mail which suggested the so-called “NRA amendment.” This amendment was considered and rejected by the committee, in part because it was too extensive, proposed new gun control measures, instituted new criminal penalties, and added NICS checks on licenses. For those reasons and others it was felt the amendment should be offered as a bill of its own so it would go through the proper process of a public hearing and vetting. HB330 was again heard in Executive Session, where the committee discusses the pros and cons of the bill, and finally it went before the whole House of Representatives for a vote of “ought to pass” or “inexpedient to legislate.” The bill passed out of the House with a large margin of victory and was sent to the Senate.

    Just prior to the full vote of the House, the “NRA amendment” was

    I noticed that you asserted the Castle Doctrine Tonight at a Tea Party meeting in Reynoldsville, PA in front of a group of about 30 people Senator Scarnati stated that he is aware that the NRA liaison has been working with Senator Leech on a compromise for the Florida Loophole and HB40.

    There you have it ladies and gentlemen. The NRA is playing games with your rights.



    the Castle Doctrine is actually a non gun issue. It just states that deadly force not just guns.


    About NRA No

    For far too long the NRA has convinced gun owners across America that they were working to stop anti gun legislation, all while they were really working to line their pockets with millions of dollars.
    To make matters worse the NRA has actually been helping anti gun groups stop laws from being passed that would enhance the rights of gun owners.


    I can't find the actual text of any version of the "NRA Amendment". Could you help me with that?

    *****
    While looking into your source I found this:
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-vUYeJXSrA

    While yes the civilian was disrespectful and uncooperative, this is still a perfect example of the government infringements we're fighting against. By fighting us, you are supporting the actions of that police officer.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-10-12 at 05:13 AM.

  8. #228
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    United States
    Last Seen
    01-21-16 @ 12:21 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    51,124

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    The Oregon laws are just gun control laws with a carrot out front to fool the uneducated gun owner.

    NRA Members Agree: More Gun Regulation Makes Sense | ThinkProgress
    From your link:
    1. Requiring criminal background checks on gun owners and gun shop employees. 87 percent of non-NRA gun-owners and 74 percent of NRA gun owners support the former, and 80 percent and 79 percent, respectively, endorse the latter.
    2. Prohibiting terrorist watch list members from acquiring guns. Support ranges from 80 percent among non-NRA gun-owners to 71 percent among NRA members.
    3. Mandating that gun-owners tell the police when their gun is stolen. 71 percent non-NRA gun-owners support this measure, as do 64 percent of NRA members.
    4. Concealed carry permits should only be restricted to individuals who have completed a safety training course and are 21 and older. 84 percent of non-NRA and 74 percent of NRA member gun-owners support the safety training restriction, and the numbers are 74 percent and 63 percent for the age restriction.
    5. Concealed carry permits shouldn’t be given to perpetrators of violent misdemeanors or individuals arrested for domestic violence. The NRA/non-NRA gun-owner split on these issues is 81 percent and 75 percent in favor of the violent misdemeanors provision and 78 percent/68 percent in favor of the domestic violence restriction.
    Why would anyone object to any of that?

  9. #229
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:35 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,039

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Depends on the regulation.



    That's the presiding judge's call, not yours. Even in court houses where firearms are allowed, judges still retain control over their court room. I have never argued to change that. A lot of business occurs in a court house which has nothing to do with criminal charges or hearings, such as vehicle registration, business/marriage license applications, construction permits, paying tickets and fines, any request for public records, and of course: obtaining a concealed weapon's permit. One can do a lot of business in a court house and never see the inside of a court room.



    If you say so. Please be ready with your source material when folks challenge your claim.



    Link to what substantiated your concerns. For example, when I claim a concern that gun control will increase crime rates, I have working links at the ready to demonstrate that concern. You should do the same.
    What weird ****ing world that you live in. I asked a rhetorical question and you want a source....

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    [/I]
    I can't find the actual text of any version of the "NRA Amendment". Could you help me with that?

    *****
    While looking into your source I found this:
    SHOCKING AUDIO: Philadelphia Police violate rights of open carrier at gunpoint - YouTube

    While yes the civilian was disrespectful and uncooperative, this is still a perfect example of the government infringements we're fighting against. By fighting us, you are supporting the actions of that police officer.
    Google is your friend

    And whats with this crap if you are fighting us you are supporting that cop bs? The NRA like any other NGO must be accountable, but even more so since they claim to be standing up for everyones rights. Im not one to just believe that a powerful organization is ok. Especially since their track record is than to be desired.
    You posting this video then trying to say that if I do not support the NRA I will be supporting cops that do not know the law that they promised to keep is just ridiculous and an amateurish attempt. But then it is typical of NRA members to parrot the tactics of the NRA. Whats next you are going to accuse me of being unAmerican because I do not trust the NRA with our Constitutional rights? Seriously did you expect me to say that your right I must become a member of the NRA now to save my right to bear arms?


    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    From your link:


    Why would anyone object to any of that?
    We need to take a test to enjoy the Constitutional rights of the 2nd Amendment? I didnt see that part in the Constitution could you link that please?

  10. #230
    Advisor
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    393

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    For example:


    When you open your business to the public, you have to conduct 'fair and equal treatment' to each person who voluntarily walks through your door. You cannot deny access to your business just because a customer is one of these protected classes. You cannot refuse to sell to a customer just because the customer belongs to one of these classes.

    I want to add 'lawfully carrying a firearm' to these classes because I have a need to carry whereas the business does not have a need to deny.

    I don't carry for preference, I've actually had to use my gun. No bushiness can demonstrate a streak of lawful CCW carriers committing crimes, that the business would need to ban otherwise lawfull carry.
    For what it's worth, I believe you have made me question my convictions a bit - the thought that a "Public" store front perhaps ought to comply with the laws of the public does not seem to be an unreasonable consideration. As a customer, I would want the right to carry my concealed weapon legally into any public place (I'm actually in the process of applying for my license to conceal at the moment!). At the same time, if I were a business owner I would want the right to freely do business with whoever I please. It is very conflicting, so I must ask myself - which of the two rights being 'infringed' upon is most improper? I still conclude that the right of the private business because they would be forced to act in a certain way to continue to exist vs than the gun owner who is simply given a choice to either do business within the terms of the private business or do not do business with the private business. In the free society, if there is adequate demand, the gun-carrying citizens will be provided for with gun-allowable store fronts regardless.

Page 23 of 54 FirstFirst ... 13212223242533 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •