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 36 of 54 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... LastLast
Results 351 to 360 of 538

Thread: Which right holds sway?

  1. #351
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,047

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I know a lot of folks take it as disrespect, that I'm shrugging off their private property rights, and I see where they're coming from....but it's not about disrespect.

    It's about self defense.
    It is also about self defense for the private property owner as well. Do you believe that your own self defense is more important than that of the property owners? You are a free agent you can go where you want to go, but private property does not move, so it is you that chose to enter onto the private property. If you feel that it is dangerous on that piece of private property that you do not own, you can leave at will.

    Why do you even go to such dangerous places then whine about your safety there? Why should we have to accommodate you when we do not even want you there, are you a special person with more rights than the property owner something? Perhaps if you are working somewhere so dangerous that you need a gun for self defense you should call the authorities and get to the bottom of the threats that face you?

    I can think of much more dangerous places than most work places where the danger of violence is possible. Yet people endure the danger because well you cannot go through life being afraid of everything. There are times and places for carry any type of weapon. I hardly go anywhere without at least a pocket knife. I leave my knife in the car when i go into my kids school. Not a problem weapons are available anywhere. You have to keep aware of your surroundings at all times. Position yourself in a room or building where you can do something if bad guys show up. Even if you have a gun it is no guarantee that you will not be harmed or killed.

    So far this is the main message that you have been telling us: 'I have the right to bear arms and I am going to carry a gun anywhere I want too period end of discussion. And if the laws dont allow it want new laws that will go against other Constitutional rights just so I can carry my gun everywhere. And if that doesnt work Ill still just carry my gun everywhere, to hell with everyone Ill even hide it if I have too!'

    If you look that is what you have been saying. Which does not sound reasonable at all. Minus the gun control nuts we all want the right to bear arms, but if we run around making demands that insist the the right to bear arms is the highest right of them all we only look like fanatics and no one really believes that fanatics should be armed.

    Life, Liberty and Property, unalienable Rights. That means that your right to bear arms while on my property is intruding on my Natural Rights because it is easy and rational to show that you intruded on my rights since you put yourself on my property by your own doing. I invited you onto my land under o uncertain terms I demand that you follow those terms or leave. You can take your unadulterated person fully intact and unarmed off of my property. At this point your only argument are existing laws that IMO are against the Constitution. Which means IMO you have no argument you are just hiding behind unconstitutional laws. Which is why I do not like the NRA, time after time they have proven that they really are not looking after our freedom and our liberties since they choose to create their own laws that hedge our liberties.


    Thats how I see what do you have to say?

  2. #352
    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
    It is also about self defense for the private property owner as well.
    Good point, they should carry a gun, too. IMO everyone should choose to, though no one should be forced either way.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Do you believe that your own self defense is more important than that of the property owners?
    I do not, that's why I don't try to infringe on their 2A rights.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    You are a free agent you can go where you want to go, but private property does not move, so it is you that chose to enter onto the private property. If you feel that it is dangerous on that piece of private property that you do not own, you can leave at will.
    I told you I'm a carpenter, right? The shop doesn't move, the office doesn't move, but the job sites move all the time.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Why do you even go to such dangerous places then whine about your safety there?
    A Letter from Colonel L. Caudill USMC (Ret).

    ...When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation--and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Why should we have to accommodate you when we do not even want you there, are you a special person with more rights than the property owner something?
    An employer doesn't have to do anything to accommodate me. No access ramps, to automatic doors, no special parking, nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Perhaps if you are working somewhere so dangerous that you need a gun for self defense you should call the authorities and get to the bottom of the threats that face you?
    Cops are to heavy to carry around all day.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    I can think of much more dangerous places than most work places where the danger of violence is possible. Yet people endure the danger because well you cannot go through life being afraid of everything. There are times and places for carry any type of weapon. I hardly go anywhere without at least a pocket knife. I leave my knife in the car when i go into my kids school. Not a problem weapons are available anywhere. You have to keep aware of your surroundings at all times. Position yourself in a room or building where you can do something if bad guys show up. Even if you have a gun it is no guarantee that you will not be harmed or killed.
    I don't have to be afraid when I'm armed, because I've taken the bad guy's ability to apply force away from him.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    So far this is the main message that you have been telling us: 'I have the right to bear arms and I am going to carry a gun anywhere I want too period end of discussion.
    Well I'm sorry you see it that way but your interpretation is quite inaccurate.

    It goes like this: Every citizen who can otherwise lawfully carry a firearm, should be able to do so in all places open to the public, and of employment, unless those places can produce a demonstratable need to maintain a gun-free zone.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    If you look that is what you have been saying. Which does not sound reasonable at all. Minus the gun control nuts we all want the right to bear arms, but if we run around making demands that insist the the right to bear arms is the highest right of them all we only look like fanatics and no one really believes that fanatics should be armed.
    Life is the highest right of them all, because a dead man has no liberty.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Life, Liberty and Property, unalienable Rights
    Life is at the beginning of your list. Protecting that right is automatic because if someone takes your life away you have no liberty or property.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    That means that your right to bear arms while on my property is intruding on my Natural Rights because it is easy and rational to show that you intruded on my rights since you put yourself on my property by your own doing.
    I keep asking you folks to show real examples of how you're harmed (harm = infringement and it is harm you must demonstrate in court), but you never give those examples.

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    I invited you onto my land under o uncertain terms I demand that you follow those terms or leave. You can take your unadulterated person fully intact and unarmed off of my property. At this point your only argument are existing laws that IMO are against the Constitution. Which means IMO you have no argument you are just hiding behind unconstitutional laws. Which is why I do not like the NRA, time after time they have proven that they really are not looking after our freedom and our liberties since they choose to create their own laws that hedge our liberties.
    Just wate until we get the National Reciprocity Act passed...we came close last year...then folks are gona stir for sure (link)
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-21-12 at 04:07 PM.

  3. #353
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,047

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Good point, they should carry a gun, too. IMO everyone should choose to, though no one should be forced either way.
    Thanx for your opinion, but others do not see any wisdom in the assertion that America should return to the wild west. Should we bring back lynchings as well?


    I do not, that's why I don't try to infringe on their 2A rights.
    perhaps not their 2nd Amendments rights but you willing intrude on their private property rights.



    I told you I'm a carpenter, right? The shop doesn't move, the office doesn't move, but the job sites move all the time.
    It is your choice to be a carpenter, if you cannot follow the simple rules of the people requesting your services they will find other people to do the job. Its a free country you cant force people to be customers.



    A Letter from Colonel L. Caudill USMC (Ret).
    This gentleman is very naive even delusional. Perhaps he is only around people that do not have guns. Or most likely he thinks that everyone is afraid of him because he has a gun. If he runs into someone else with a gun that thinks that they can kill him before he does then his little assertion of cold war philosophy goes right out the door. His gun versus several guns he is no better of than that 100 pound woman against that 220 pound thug. His gun vs an assault rifle in the right situation and hes dead. His gun vs a sneak attack from behind with a knife and hes dead. His gun and him not aiming well and he may possibly be dead. I can go on but you should already know this considering your military training.

    In realty that link was useless and just proved my point about some gun owners being fanatics. Its those type of people that are drawing out the attacks by the gun control nuts. Hell you guys are just playing into their hands. If you guys keep doing things like that in a couple years we will be debating about how the new laws dont allow us to keep guns in our houses.



    An employer doesn't have to do anything to accommodate me. No access ramps, to automatic doors, no special parking, nothing.
    that isnt your decision. An employer may find reason to do something like banning you from being armed.



    Cops are to heavy to carry around all day.
    You do not need armed protection 24/7 if you do then someone is after you and that is why i said seek help.



    I don't have to be afraid when I'm armed, because I've taken the bad guy's ability to apply force away from him.
    No you havent, all they need is to be better than you to have a quicker draw or more guns than you do.


    Well I'm sorry you see it that way but your interpretation is quite inaccurate.
    How so? Should I piece together your posts and have it in your own words?

    It goes like this: Every citizen who can otherwise lawfully carry a firearm, should be able to do so in all places open to the public, and of employment, unless those places can produce a demonstratable need to maintain a gun-free zone.
    And if we disagree with that idea, what then? You will just not tell the property owner where you are working and carry anyways?



    Life is the highest right of them all, because a dead man has no liberty.
    Which is precisely why I want the right to keep whoever I want off my property.



    Life is at the beginning of your list. Protecting that right is automatic because if someone takes your life away you have no liberty or property.
    You are not the only citizen with that right. And as I said location is everything. If you are putting yourself in a dangerous location then you are choosing to do so. You are not required to put yourself in dangerous situations you have the liberty to leave. But I own the property and must protect my property I cannot just leave and let you do whatever you want. So It is my choice to remove you as a threat to the safety of everyone on my property.



    I keep asking you folks to show real examples of how you're harmed (harm = infringement and it is harm you must demonstrate in court), but you never give those examples.
    What part of you are on my property do you not understand? When I ask you to leave and you refuse to leave you have become a threat whether you have a gun or not. If I decide that it would be safer if you were not armed on my property that is my call not yours. The fact that you do not want to accept that simple request shows that you have a reason to carry a weapon on my property. I cannot assume for the safety of everyone that you do not intend to hurt someone with your weapon. I am making the decision for the same reasons that you claim the need to carry your weapon everywhere. Its called self defense. I can better defend myself and everyone on my property and my property is you are unarmed.

    To barrow from your link I am making things equal. Sure I have guns but I do not always carry them on myself while I am at home or at work. This is not the lord of the flies this is the real world where adults do not control by force. In fact you are more likely during a day to run into rational or at least half rational humans more than those that use force. Adults have to access a situation and decide whether there is a threat or not. You cannot go through life assuming that everyone is a threat, so therefor I am not armed 24/7 so when you are on my property carry a gun you have made the tables unequal; for me. I request that you make things equal and that you need not carry your gun on my property. You can park just off of my property and carry as much weapons as you desire I dont care because by the time you go get them I will have mine.




    Just wate until we get the National Reciprocity Act passed...we came close last year...then folks are gona stir for sure (link)
    That would be a federal law telling individual states what they can and cannot do pertaining to their laws. Which just makes my point.


    I do not agree with states not respecting the laws and rules of other states by I far more hate the Federal Government forcing states to do things that they do not agree with. It would be better for the NRA to lobby each state and try to get them to agree as some states have.

  4. #354
    Resident Martian ;)
    PirateMk1's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    California
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Private
    Posts
    9,926

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    Thanx for your opinion, but others do not see any wisdom in the assertion that America should return to the wild west. Should we bring back lynchings as well?


    perhaps not their 2nd Amendments rights but you willing intrude on their private property rights.



    It is your choice to be a carpenter, if you cannot follow the simple rules of the people requesting your services they will find other people to do the job. Its a free country you cant force people to be customers.



    This gentleman is very naive even delusional. Perhaps he is only around people that do not have guns. Or most likely he thinks that everyone is afraid of him because he has a gun. If he runs into someone else with a gun that thinks that they can kill him before he does then his little assertion of cold war philosophy goes right out the door. His gun versus several guns he is no better of than that 100 pound woman against that 220 pound thug. His gun vs an assault rifle in the right situation and hes dead. His gun vs a sneak attack from behind with a knife and hes dead. His gun and him not aiming well and he may possibly be dead. I can go on but you should already know this considering your military training.

    In realty that link was useless and just proved my point about some gun owners being fanatics. Its those type of people that are drawing out the attacks by the gun control nuts. Hell you guys are just playing into their hands. If you guys keep doing things like that in a couple years we will be debating about how the new laws dont allow us to keep guns in our houses.



    that isnt your decision. An employer may find reason to do something like banning you from being armed.



    You do not need armed protection 24/7 if you do then someone is after you and that is why i said seek help.



    No you havent, all they need is to be better than you to have a quicker draw or more guns than you do.


    How so? Should I piece together your posts and have it in your own words?

    And if we disagree with that idea, what then? You will just not tell the property owner where you are working and carry anyways?



    Which is precisely why I want the right to keep whoever I want off my property.



    You are not the only citizen with that right. And as I said location is everything. If you are putting yourself in a dangerous location then you are choosing to do so. You are not required to put yourself in dangerous situations you have the liberty to leave. But I own the property and must protect my property I cannot just leave and let you do whatever you want. So It is my choice to remove you as a threat to the safety of everyone on my property.




    What part of you are on my property do you not understand? When I ask you to leave and you refuse to leave you have become a threat whether you have a gun or not. If I decide that it would be safer if you were not armed on my property that is my call not yours. The fact that you do not want to accept that simple request shows that you have a reason to carry a weapon on my property. I cannot assume for the safety of everyone that you do not intend to hurt someone with your weapon. I am making the decision for the same reasons that you claim the need to carry your weapon everywhere. Its called self defense. I can better defend myself and everyone on my property and my property is you are unarmed.

    To barrow from your link I am making things equal. Sure I have guns but I do not always carry them on myself while I am at home or at work. This is not the lord of the flies this is the real world where adults do not control by force. In fact you are more likely during a day to run into rational or at least half rational humans more than those that use force. Adults have to access a situation and decide whether there is a threat or not. You cannot go through life assuming that everyone is a threat, so therefor I am not armed 24/7 so when you are on my property carry a gun you have made the tables unequal; for me. I request that you make things equal and that you need not carry your gun on my property. You can park just off of my property and carry as much weapons as you desire I dont care because by the time you go get them I will have mine.




    That would be a federal law telling individual states what they can and cannot do pertaining to their laws. Which just makes my point.


    I do not agree with states not respecting the laws and rules of other states by I far more hate the Federal Government forcing states to do things that they do not agree with. It would be better for the NRA to lobby each state and try to get them to agree as some states have.
    Reciprocity is a constitutional matter. States have to recognize each others drivers licences contracts ect. Same theoretically with carry law.
    Semper Fidelis, Semper Liber.
    I spit at lots of people through my computer screen. Not only does it "teach them a lesson" but it keeps the screen clean and shiny.
    Stolen fair and square from the Capt. Courtesey himself.

  5. #355
    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
    What part of you are on my property do you not understand?
    I don't understand what you're need is.

    You opened your property to the public. You hired employees. That means you surrendered a level of privacy. You chose to open your property, you can choose to reclose it at any time.

    Once you open your property to the public, or hire an employee, in order to infringe on a specifically enumerated constitutional, or basic human right, the laws allowing your choice must meet Strict Scrutiny standards. This means you must have a specific, demonstratable need.

    When I've discussed this issue before, some pro-property folks spoke up with real examples of demonstratable needs, such as above-ground fuel tanks. Discharge of a firearm could puncture the tank and cause damage to it and the surrounding structures. One could even go into the types of fuel tanks and fuel, building code for such tanks, and research actual fires caused by ruptured tanks. That is an example of a demonstratable need.

    I don't understand why you won't just say what your need is, link to your source material proving it true, so we can move on.

    So again I ask, what is your need?

    Quote Originally Posted by FreedomFromAll View Post
    That would be a federal law telling individual states what they can and cannot do pertaining to their laws. Which just makes my point.
    The federal law has the authority to regulate specifically enumerated constitutional rights, as per the 10th Amendment. Further, the federal government has the duty to protect specifically enumerated rights against States who would infringe upon them, such as a hand-gun ban or racial segregation in privately owned school.

    So, what is your need? What material damage, with a dollar value, would you or could you suffer if lawful carry were protected? How does it harm you in any way? I thank you in advance for linking to your source material.


    ****
    If you just don't like guns or are paranoid, that's to bad, because that's not good enough. Keep to that argument and this will be forced on you like taxes.
    Last edited by Jerry; 08-22-12 at 04:55 AM.

  6. #356
    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 PirateMk1 View Post
    Reciprocity is a constitutional matter. States have to recognize each others drivers licences contracts ect. Same theoretically with carry law.
    And marriage licenses, which is why pro-ssm is pressing for reciprocity of same-sex marriage.

    Many of the same arguments for ssm reciprocity also apply to CCW reciprocity, in that if it's legal, and it's not harming anyone, it should be allowed everywhere in the union.

  7. #357
    Matthew 16:3

    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Everywhere and nowhere
    Last Seen
    06-24-17 @ 05:05 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    45,603

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    The problem with applying the full faith and credit clause to CCW permits is that a CCW permit only allows people to carry within the state that it is issued, as per that state's laws.

    If a state allows it's residents to carry concealed, they should have to recognize another state's license. But if a state doesn't allow anyone to do so, they have to apply that law equally even to those who have CCW's from other states.

    To explain, if a state didn't issue driver's licenses at all, and banned driving within their borders, they would not necessarily be compelled to make an exception for those who wish to drive in their state using out of state licenses.

    The marriage issue is slightly different, because the way that the laws apply are a little different. Getting a marriage license in one state would not force another state to perform the marriage. Marriage is an existing inherent state rather than an activity.
    Last edited by Tucker Case; 08-22-12 at 08:54 AM.
    Tucker Case - Tard magnet.

  8. #358
    Dungeon Master
    Veni, vidi, dormivi!

    spud_meister's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Location
    Didjabringabeeralong
    Last Seen
    @
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    33,877
    Blog Entries
    8

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    Once you open your property to the public, or hire an employee, in order to infringe on a specifically enumerated constitutional, or basic human right, the laws allowing your choice must meet Strict Scrutiny standards. This means you must have a specific, demonstratable need.
    I agree completely. Just like I shouldn't be allowed to block someone from my property if they're insulting me. Or if they set up a printing press, or hold a religious ceremony, or a party, or form a militia.

    After all, enumerated rights such as speech, press, religion, militias and assembly trump property rights.
    So follow me into the desert
    As desperate as you are
    Where the moon is glued to a picture of heaven
    And all the little pigs have God

  9. #359
    Anti political parties
    FreedomFromAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    New Mexico USA
    Last Seen
    Today @ 06:53 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,047

    Re: Which right holds sway?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    I don't understand what you're need is.

    You opened your property to the public. You hired employees. That means you surrendered a level of privacy. You chose to open your property, you can choose to reclose it at any time.

    Once you open your property to the public, or hire an employee, in order to infringe on a specifically enumerated constitutional, or basic human right, the laws allowing your choice must meet Strict Scrutiny standards. This means you must have a specific, demonstratable need.
    Just because I hired someone does not mean that I opened my property up to the public. It means that I agreed that those workers can come on my property under conditions that I set.

    When I've discussed this issue before, some pro-property folks spoke up with real examples of demonstratable needs, such as above-ground fuel tanks. Discharge of a firearm could puncture the tank and cause damage to it and the surrounding structures. One could even go into the types of fuel tanks and fuel, building code for such tanks, and research actual fires caused by ruptured tanks. That is an example of a demonstratable need.

    I don't understand why you won't just say what your need is, link to your source material proving it true, so we can move on.

    So again I ask, what is your need?
    Gun violence statistics indicate that with a gun on my property uncontrolled by me that there is a danger to the defense of the property. You say that you have military training, right? Well how many foreign weapons do you allow inside the perimeter of a military base? In order to secure my property I have decided that I can not allow people that I do not trust to carry weapons on my property. Mind you that I do allow some people to carry weapons. Hell sometimes Tom a college student that I have been training to carve wood/rock when we get bored we shoot targets. That is because I trust him enough to allow him to bring his AR15 on my property. Which is cool since I do not own a AR15. I would love to take it hunting.



    The federal law has the authority to regulate specifically enumerated constitutional rights, as per the 10th Amendment. Further, the federal government has the duty to protect specifically enumerated rights against States who would infringe upon them, such as a hand-gun ban or racial segregation in privately owned school.
    True. But states have the right to make laws that adhere to the Constitution. Federal laws that force states to comply to something that they didnt want to and was well within the states right to not comply with under the Constitution are wrong.

    So, what is your need? What material damage, with a dollar value, would you or could you suffer if lawful carry were protected? How does it harm you in any way? I thank you in advance for linking to your source material.
    My need as I have stated all along is my right to defend my property from threats. Not all legal gun owners with whatever license and permits are trust worthy. A good example would be every crime involving a gun where the gun was legally obtained and owned.

    Texan Todd Canady accidentally fires shot at Walmart - UPI.com

    [I]DALLAS, July 24 (UPI) -- Dallas police said they arrested a man whose gun accidentally went off inside a Walmart store, injuring two other customers.

    Todd Canady, 23, of Waco had allegedly bolted from the store in the Lake Highlands district Monday night when he was confronted by an off-duty police officer about the shooting, which left a woman and a 5-year-old child wounded.

    Police told the Dallas Morning News they grabbed Canady after a short foot pursuit and booked him on charges of injuring a child and evading arrest.

    KDFW-TV, Dallas/Fort Worth, said Canady, who has a concealed-weapons permit, was reportedly reaching for his wallet in the checkout line but grabbed the pistol he was carrying instead. The gun went off, wounding Canady in the buttocks. The bullet then hit the floor and sent fragments into the other two victims.

    An off-duty officer saw the incident and confronted Canady, who allegedly ran off.






    So **** happens...

    ****
    If you just don't like guns or are paranoid, that's to bad, because that's not good enough. Keep to that argument and this will be forced on you like taxes.
    Dont try to use that lame argument where Im either A or B. What you are doing is ignoring that as a property owner I am trying to save my right to chose reason C (that being property security). I have the right to defend myself and my property from possible harm. All I have to do is determine you as a threat, a danger to the well being of myself and the other people on the property and the property itself. In a court of law I would be able to bring forward thousands of examples of legal gun owners that have harmed people and property perhaps even on a daily basis.

    Here is where pushing special gun laws actually will hurt the 2nd Amendment, every time that a new law is made that controls the use of firearms (yes even pro-gun laws is a form of gun control) you create a possibility that case law will change the 2nd Amendments powers. As I just stated that if I involve the courts when a concealed handgun permittee wants to tell me what I can or cannot do on my own property and I provide evidence that gun owners can be careless or even violent. Such cases build legal purpose to further control guns. In other words by you insisting that I obey your wants on my property you are making it more difficult to own a gun in the US. ANd all it will take Is an anti-gun business owner to get the ball rolling.


    I have been trying to tell you in as many different ways as I can that forcing property owners to allow guns on their private property will not help the 2nd Amendment. But you keep falling back to the typical stance of gun owner vs gun control nut. I have tried to make it clear that I am a gun owner and proponent of the 2nd Amendment. My NEED is to keep the 2nd Amendment and private property rights a Constitutional right. And I fear that the NRA has lost its vision since it continuously opens the door for more gun control laws. Politicians looking to keep their office will rally behind anything. If you force property owners into allowing guns despite the wants of the property owners to protect their property, you will find that the gun control nuts will push for a counter law to fight it. The first thing that comes to mind is laws that dictate the type of guns allowed on private property. And they will most likely argue that if guns are to be allowed everywhere then overly dangerous guns should be outlawed. So goodbye to any good handgun and hello to pea shooters that wont even hardly injure someone at arms distance.


    The gun control nuts do have power and should not be ignored and the NRA is blind enough to believe their power is bigger, and in doing so plays right into the hands of the gun control nuts. Bravo well done...

  10. #360
    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 Tucker Case View Post
    The problem with applying the full faith and credit clause to CCW permits is that a CCW permit only allows people to carry within the state that it is issued, as per that state's laws.

    If a state allows it's residents to carry concealed, they should have to recognize another state's license. But if a state doesn't allow anyone to do so, they have to apply that law equally even to those who have CCW's from other states.

    To explain, if a state didn't issue driver's licenses at all, and banned driving within their borders, they would not necessarily be compelled to make an exception for those who wish to drive in their state using out of state licenses.

    The marriage issue is slightly different, because the way that the laws apply are a little different. Getting a marriage license in one state would not force another state to perform the marriage. Marriage is an existing inherent state rather than an activity.
    Currently IL is the only state which denies concealed carry. Open carry only. They've been forced to progress a long way, since the Heller ruling, and they're being worked on, but until they allow concealed carry I think you're right, open carry only.

    Handgunlaw.us

Page 36 of 54 FirstFirst ... 26343536373846 ... 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
  •