Mega-Thread: Gun Control Thread

[Svifnymr]

I would think that being convicted of a violent crime would fall under the federal prohibition of:

"a person convicted of a crime punishable by imprisonment exceeding one year;"

But if not, yeah, I'd agree. Not sure why they limit it strictly to domestic violence.

The rule is "convicted of a felony" and a different prohibition of "convicted of misdemeanor crime of domestic violence".


- - - Updated - - -

I've read cases of people convicted of domestic violence only getting 90 days or something, and having most of it suspended.

My family member got 2 days + 30 days work release, but was actually "no contest, adjudication withheld", so wasn't technically a conviction.

[Annoying]

Apparently if this isn't on the front page, threads about dogs derail into gun control. Friendly reminder, this is the thread to talk about that.

[TwoNineMarine]

Apparently if this isn't on the front page, threads about dogs derail into gun control. Friendly reminder, this is the thread to talk about that.

I saw that. Cracked me up.

The anti-gun crusade is real around these parts.

[Stormdash]

Would be nice of software developers to figure out a way to make sure threads always stay on the front page.

<.<

>.>

[TITAN308]

Source: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Bill...=SB1736&ga=109

Cliff Notes: Property owners held liable in gun-free zones for the safety of occupants.

Present law authorizes persons in control of property to post a notice that prohibits firearms on the premises. This bill imposes a duty of care on any person who posts their property to prohibit firearms whereby such person will be responsible for the safety of any handgun carry permit holder while the permit holder is on the posted premises and traversing any area to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder's firearm is stored. The duty of care created by this bill will extend to the conduct of other invitees, trespassers, employees of the person or entity, vicious animals, wild animals, and defensible man-made and natural hazards.

This bill creates a cause of action whereby any permit holder who is harmed while on posted premises or traversing any area to and from the premises and the location where the permit holder's firearm is stored may bring suit against the person who posted the property.

Now I am going to go totally against the grain here and say this law is total bullshit.

Second Amendment rights should not trump private property owner rights. Ever.

If a property owner doesn't want you armed then you have a personal choice to:

A. Take your business elsewhere
B. Disarm and do business
C. Ignore the sign stay armed and do business (some states signs hold no weight of law)
D. Use your first amendment rights to vocalize their policy to others
E. Any combination of the above

[Roxinius]

Source: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Bill...=SB1736&ga=109

Cliff Notes: Property owners held liable in gun-free zones for the safety of occupants.



Now I am going to go totally against the grain here and say this law is total bullshit.

Second Amendment rights should not trump private property owner rights. Ever.

If a property owner doesn't want you armed then you have a personal choice to:

A. Take your business elsewhere
B. Disarm and do business
C. Ignore the sign stay armed and do business (some states signs hold no weight of law)
D. Use your first amendment rights to vocalize their policy to others
E. Any combination of the above

i agree i respect their right to choose to not allow guns but i will not shop there simple as that

[TwoNineMarine]

Source: http://wapp.capitol.tn.gov/apps/Bill...=SB1736&ga=109

Cliff Notes: Property owners held liable in gun-free zones for the safety of occupants.



Now I am going to go totally against the grain here and say this law is total bullshit.

Second Amendment rights should not trump private property owner rights. Ever.

If a property owner doesn't want you armed then you have a personal choice to:

A. Take your business elsewhere
B. Disarm and do business
C. Ignore the sign stay armed and do business (some states signs hold no weight of law)
D. Use your first amendment rights to vocalize their policy to others
E. Any combination of the above

I've got to disagree with you on this one Titan.

If I'm understanding all this is doing is making it where the property owner is responsible for the safety of those who can't or who the property owner won't allow to defend themselves on that property right? What's wrong with that? If you won't let law abiding citizens protect themselves then that should be on you as the property owner.

The people can still leave or not go to that property.

Because if I understand this correctly all it is saying is if you don't allow guns on your property you better protect those folks that are on the premises.

[Ghostpanther]

I've got to disagree with you on this one Titan.

If I'm understanding all this is doing is making it where the property owner is responsible for the safety of those who can't or who the property owner won't allow to defend themselves on that property right? What's wrong with that? If you won't let law abiding citizens protect themselves then that should be on you as the property owner.

The people can still leave or not go to that property.

Because if I understand this correctly all it is saying is if you don't allow guns on your property you better protect those folks that are on the premises.

But it seems to only apply to those with conceal carry permits. Why would they be required to provide safety for those with permits and not others?

[TwoNineMarine]

But it seems to only apply to those with conceal carry permits. Why would they be required to provide safety for those with permits and not others?

In that regard it should cover everyone.

My guess is that their thinking was along the lines of: "Well if you want to actively take away a law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves you better be willing to take up the slack."

Or something along those lines.

[Ghostpanther]

In that regard it should cover everyone.

My guess is that their thinking was along the lines of: "Well if you want to actively take away a law abiding citizens ability to defend themselves you better be willing to take up the slack."

Or something along those lines.

It should, but the words say it does not when it states it is for those with permits. Names them specifically.

Here in Ohio, we can carry firearms openly except where prohibited. And concealed with permits, but are still required to respect places which bars them. So if a person used a firearm in those places to protect themselves, they could lose their right to carry one by exercising their right to self defense with one. Madness. :P

[TwoNineMarine]

It should, but the words say it does not when it states it is for those with permits. Names them specifically.

Here in Ohio, we can carry firearms openly except where prohibited. And concealed with permits, but are still required to respect places which bars them. So if a person used a firearm in those places to protect themselves, they could lose their right to carry one by exercising their right to self defense with one. Madness. :P

It really is madness.

I've already come to terms with the fact that if I have to use mine in a place where they are barred I'm probably going to jail. But if it means my wife or boys make it out ok then that's a trade I'm willing to make.

I won't ever take it with me if I plan on drinking though. Way too fine a line to walk there.

[Ghostpanther]

It really is madness.

I've already come to terms with the fact that if I have to use mine in a place where they are barred I'm probably going to jail. But if it means my wife or boys make it out ok then that's a trade I'm willing to make.

I won't ever take it with me if I plan on drinking though. Way too fine a line to walk there.

Yep. I do not go to bars any more period. I do agree with your attitude. And I do like the saying, " I would rather be caught with one than without one. "

[Stormdash]

I agree with the premise that the owner of private property has a superior right in who does or does not have a gun on their property, than I have in having one on my person at all times. Unfortunately, I do think the possible penalties are too severe. Like in FL, you can ostensibly be stripped of your carry permit if caught carrying where prohibited by a private property owner. Seems to me that should be like... $100 fine.

[TwoNineMarine]

Yep. I do not go to bars any more period. I do agree with your attitude. And I do like the saying, " I would rather be caught with one than without one. "

Yep.

Better to have and not need than need and not have.

- - - Updated - - -

I agree with the premise that the owner of private property has a superior right in who does or does not have a gun on their property, than I have in having one on my person at all times. Unfortunately, I do think the possible penalties are too severe. Like in FL, you can ostensibly be stripped of your carry permit if caught carrying where prohibited by a private property owner. Seems to me that should be like... $100 fine.

Yeah that's a bit much. Damn.

[TITAN308]

I've got to disagree with you on this one Titan.

Well we can agree to disagree on this one.

If you choose to remain on a property that has disarmed you that is a personal choice. I'm all for personal responsibility even if that decision is one of inconvenience (like shopping somewhere else).

No one is forcing you to remain on the property disarmed.

[TwoNineMarine]

Well we can agree to disagree on this one.

If you choose to remain on a property that has disarmed you that is a personal choice. I'm all for personal responsibility even if that decision is one of inconvenience (like shopping somewhere else).

No one is forcing you to remain on the property disarmed.

I understand.

What I'm saying is that I agree with the premise that if the property owners refuse to allow people to protect themselves and others then the property owners need to take on that responsibility.

Someone has to do the protecting. Unless you want to wait on the cops to arrive...

[enragedgorilla]

Well we can agree to disagree on this one.

If you choose to remain on a property that has disarmed you that is a personal choice. I'm all for personal responsibility even if that decision is one of inconvenience (like shopping somewhere else).

No one is forcing you to remain on the property disarmed.

Apparently (I have never seen this in writing) My Condo complex has a clause stating you can not have firearms in your unit.
I ignore that "rule" because it makes no sense to me that they are telling me what I can/can't do inside my personally owned unit. If it had to do with the walls,plumbing etc. I understand it.
What is inside the unit , or not ...is my choice.

The way I see it , IF I had to use a firearm to defend myself inside my home, one more court case suing the shit out of the HOA would be the least of my issues...and I would still be alive to go to court if they so chose to try and evict me .

I understand not all people are going to think this way though.

[TITAN308]

Apparently (I have never seen this in writing) My Condo complex has a clause stating you can not have firearms in your unit.
I ignore that "rule" because it makes no sense to me that they are telling me what I can/can't do inside my personally owned unit. If it had to do with the walls,plumbing etc. I understand it.
What is inside the unit , or not ...is my choice.

The way I see it , IF I had to use a firearm to defend myself inside my home, one more court case suing the shit out of the HOA would be the least of my issues...and I would still be alive to go to court if they so chose to try and evict me .

I understand not all people are going to think this way though.

I think you'll find time and time again that tenant clauses of this type are unenforceable. It ventures into the same line of thought that companies cannot prohibit you from having a gun in your car even if it is on company property. Not from a legal standpoint at the very least.

A landlord can write whatever they want into your rental agreement, even if you sign it that doesn't mean they have any legal grounds to stand on.

- - - Updated - - -

Oh Cabelas you so silly:

http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2...fu-at-cabelas/

Measure twice cut once. Well in the case of selling firearms you should probably measure a few more times and understand ATF NFA guidelines of what constitutes an SBR. Josh P. saw this at a local Cabela’s. The store purchased a used Remington 700 chambered in .300blk and it has a 15″ barrel. Josh brought this to their attention and they are looking into it. If they had sold it obviously the customer would be in possession of an unregistered SBR. But what ramifications would the FFL receive?

[Roxinius]

It really is madness.

I've already come to terms with the fact that if I have to use mine in a place where they are barred I'm probably going to jail. But if it means my wife or boys make it out ok then that's a trade I'm willing to make.

I won't ever take it with me if I plan on drinking though. Way too fine a line to walk there.

i've been to a few bars and concealed carried but i wasnt going there to drink it was always to see the band.

[zenkai]

Good guy with a gun shoots bad guy with an illegally owned gun

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/...at-south-caro/