Are we fighting the wrong battles?


PDA






usmarine0352_2005
July 17, 2010, 07:14 PM
.
With lawsuits such as the SAF lawsuit in New York to Void 'Good Cause' Carry Permit Requirement we are asking SCOTUS to narrowly decide if cities can have restrictions on who they allow to carry weapons with a permit.


However, even if we win that battle it means that we need a permit to carry a weapon.


No Constitutional right should have to have a permit attached to exercising it.


So, why don't we attack laws that simply make a permit required to carrying a weapon instead?


And are we currently fighting the wrong battles?
.

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we fighting the wrong battles?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
LHRGunslinger
July 17, 2010, 07:26 PM
In my opinion no. The rantings of a madman no matter how offensive won't kill you. Firearms need to be regulated, maybe not the way they are now but would you like to see a known pedophile walking down the street with a pocket pistol in his pocket? I completely agree that SOME of the restrictions need to be torn down. BUT NOT ALL.

alan
July 17, 2010, 07:34 PM
usmarine0352_2005 writes:



No Constitutional right should have to have a permit attached to exercising it.


So, why don't we attack laws that simply make a permit required to carrying a weapon instead?

He closes with the following: "And are we currently fighting the wrong battles", which might prove to be a lot more than simply an interesting, provocative question.


LHRGunslinger responds as follows:

In my opinion no. The rantings of a madman no matter how offensive won't kill you. Firearms need to be regulated, maybe not the way they are now but would you like to see a known pedophile walking down the street with a pocket pistol in his pocket? I completely agree that SOME of the restrictions need to be torn down. BUT NOT ALL.
-----------------------

Which restrictions would he keep, aside from some that most would likely consider obvious, and why? I wonder.

Deanimator
July 17, 2010, 08:14 PM
In my opinion no. The rantings of a madman no matter how offensive won't kill you. Firearms need to be regulated, maybe not the way they are now but would you like to see a known pedophile walking down the street with a pocket pistol in his pocket? I completely agree that SOME of the restrictions need to be torn down. BUT NOT ALL.
"Known" by WHOM?

He doesn't need to be "known" in order to have a fundamental right abridged. He needs to be CONVICTED.

LHRGunslinger
July 17, 2010, 08:16 PM
Lets start at the top. Obvious to one man is not necessarily so for another. I do not know every firearm law in my state let alone the country so if I miss something please forgive me. Now here's a list of what I can think of off the top of my head

>Legal age for carrying open and concealed: 18 with permit.

>Background check to prevent those who are a danger to themselves and others from obtaining a weapon

>No firearms on pre-k through 12th grade school property, government buildings, bars or night clubs.

>Open carry permitted everywhere (excluding aforementioned locations)

>NFA restrictions seem to make sense except for the once you convert a pistol to a rifle you can't switch it back bit. that's gotta go.

>I'd mandate that police have to wear class IIIa ballistic protection with balistic plates front and back

>I know this is going to be EXTREMELY unpopular but I would limit magazine sizes to 15 rounds for all weapons. I honestly cannot imagine someone being unable to defend themself with 15 rounds of 9mm. Overkill is good for defense. Not so good when you're the one getting shot at.

That's all I can think of right now. I know alot (if not all) of my ideas are not going to be well received. Firearms were designed from the get go as lethal weapons. They need to be treated with respect and care.

@Deanimator: Or be compelled under the law to register himself as a sex offender. It was illustrating a point.

I do not ask anyone to agree with me, but I do ask that you try and look at things from a different point of view

This is all I have to say on this issue. I will not feed the trolls nor will I build a bandwagon for people to jump on.

mljdeckard
July 17, 2010, 08:28 PM
It's easy to spot the new guys, isn't it?

You are buying into the antis' logic. Why on earth is it a good thing to restrict carry on school property? In making it illegal, exactly who is it you are stopping from committing crimes on school grounds?

How many rounds is a nice round number for people to carry? In agreeing with this arbitrary number for magazine capacity, you are siding with the antis that limited capacity makes guns less lethal. (I carry a 1911 with 9 rounds, I don't carry something with a larger magazine because I have faith in my training to shoot well and reload. NOT because higher capacity guns are......unsafe.) Exactly what good do you think is being done by limiting capacity?

Treating with respect and care and infringing on rights are two completely different things. No, I will NEVER see things from this point of view.

msiley
July 17, 2010, 08:33 PM
> I honestly cannot imagine someone being unable to defend themself with 15 rounds of 9mm.

How could you possibly need 15!! Are you going up against an army or something?
Why would you need to shoot someone more then once? (end of sarcasm)

I don't think someone should decide how many rounds I need. If you think 15 is what
you need, great. But let others make their own decisions.

LHRGunslinger
July 17, 2010, 08:40 PM
Honestly I would not restrict carry in schools because of crimes. I think it's a good idea because I know that when I was in school (6 years ago) people I knew liked poking around the teachers personal property. I like the idea because it'd avoid a student accidentally finding the firearm and giving the antis more leverage to restrict carry further.

No I don't think restricting mag caps makes a gun less lethal. It makes it easier for the police to manuver because it forces any "crazed gunmen" to spend more time reloading.

And I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend unto the death your right to say it with a gun in your hand.

Now how about instead of getting upset with me for being enough of a free thinker to come up with my own ideas of how things should be done and come up with some of your own.

JohnKSa
July 17, 2010, 08:41 PM
So, why don't we attack laws that simply make a permit required to carrying a weapon instead?Because winning small battles is much, MUCH better than losing big ones.

Your question is like asking me why I don't just pay off my house instead of making monthly payments. Sure, it would save me money on interest and it would keep me from having to deal with the payments on a regular basis for the next few decades. The only problem with your "strategy" is that I can't pay off my house because I don't have a monster boatload of cash available.

Similarly, the problem with attacking laws like the ones you mention is that while it sounds good, we just couldn't win. Minor details and all that...

Gouranga
July 17, 2010, 08:43 PM
IMO,

Legal age to carry 18. IF we decide to keep with the 21, then it ABSOLUTELY needs to have a military exemption. There is no reason why an 18 yr old can be trusted with a M16, grenades and with making a commitment to career which endangers their life (defending US) and cannot be trusted with a firearm when in the states.

Background check..yeah, there are those who cannot and should not be trusted with firearms. However, this needs to be done VERY carefully. It is extreme to declare someones rights invalid. It should be done in extreme cases.

On schools, this needs to go. What if I drive my child to school? Now I have to leave a firearm at home, drive to school, then drive home to get it, etc. It is a restriction that does nothing to make the schools safer. I have yet to see a case where someone would have shot up a school but decided not to because it was illegal to take the gun there.

>mag sizes...definitely not. There are many reasons for a larger clip. For one, range time. I find it easier to put in a 30rd clip in my AR for shooting vs the 4 rnd clip I keep in it while hunting. I have 15 +1 in my 40. Which comes in handy on the range as well. Also, there are documented cases of LEO's and normal citizens getting in defense situations where more than a clip is needed. Also, more importantly, does keeping law abiding citizens from having large clips make the world a safer place? IMO what criminals do, irrelevant cause they will do it anyway. I CCW my fullsize 40 so putting a larger clip, not practical for me, so I do not do it. I would not deny others that right.

The one opinion i have which would be unpopular here though is on the background checks. I would deny violent felons from ever having a firearm legally again. They paid their debt to society in jail and probation, however, IMO, they have shown a clear lack of appropriate self control and I think the potential danger they pose to society is too great..

Oh also anything declared an "Assault weapon" is garbage. This rediculous notion they are someone more dangerous than any other weapon in a shooters hand, is garbage. All firearms are lethal.

rainbowbob
July 17, 2010, 08:44 PM
...would you like to see a known pedophile walking down the street with a pocket pistol in his pocket?


First of all, how would I SEE the pistol in his pocket?

Secondly, how will a law prohibiting him from having one PREVENT him from having one?


...instead of getting upset with me for being enough of a free thinker to come up with my own ideas of how things should be done and come up with some of your own.

Some of us have done quite a lot of "free thinking" to get to the point where we realize that restrictive firearm laws are INEFFECTIVE - and only serve to restrict those that abide by the laws.

We won't be spending any time at all coming up with some of our own.

bigalexe
July 17, 2010, 08:45 PM
Are we fighting the wrong battles? Yes
Are we fighting the necessary battles? Yes

The fact is that no the right to carry should not have a permit attached to it, yet it does anyway. In some jurisdictions however there isn't even a real way to get a permit to exercise the right to carry a firearm, or even a way to legally obtain some firearms.

So while it is a worthy goal to see the entire permit to carry system struck down, right now what we need to do is give everyone access to that right at least. It's a multi-step process.

Also to the poster that said firearm regulations are necessary, I see that you are new so your confusion is understandable. Let me give an analogy; some people probably cannot consume alcohol as a part of their court probation or court ordered rehab, so by your logic everyone that can drink alcohol needs to get registered and have a background check every time they buy a beer to make sure those that cannot consume alcohol do not obtain it.

mljdeckard
July 17, 2010, 08:47 PM
LHR, NONE of those ideas make any sense at all. You are saying that it's ok to give up your rights as long as it's only a little bit at a time.

LHRGunslinger
July 17, 2010, 08:48 PM
@rainbowbob: Printing.

@JohnKSa & Gouranga: It's nice to see people thinking with their head. Thank you for the well thought out responses

General Geoff
July 17, 2010, 08:52 PM
I'd like to eventually see all firearms deregulated and proliferated to the point where they're as ubiquitous and easy to acquire as cell phones (and can be carried anywhere by anyone without permission from the government).

LHRGunslinger
July 17, 2010, 08:55 PM
@ General Geoff: That's one of my less popular ideas. Seeing as if that happened about.....oh....half the worlds population would be gone in a week. Oh Natural Selection how do I love thee.

As long as there are 2 people left in the world somebody is gonna want somebody dead.

General Geoff
July 17, 2010, 09:05 PM
Seeing as if that happened about.....oh....half the worlds population would be gone in a week. Oh Natural Selection how do I love thee.

Strange, I don't seem to recall any references to half of the United States' population being perpetually gunned down prior to 1968, when most firearms were completely and totally unregulated by the federal government. Or prior to 1934, when you could mail order a machine gun and have it arrive at your door, no paperwork, no background checks, not even proof of age required (and you could buy a disposable silencer for it at the local hardware store to boot). And to carry it further, during these times Vermont had no restrictions on people 16 years of age and older carrying whatever they wished, anywhere they wanted, open or concealed. According to your hypothesis, Vermont should have been a perpetual bloodbath.

It just doesn't happen that way.

mljdeckard
July 17, 2010, 09:07 PM
I will try to continue sleeping at night knowing what you think of me.

I carry a gun to pick up my kids at school every day. I took guns to school as shop projects all the time in high school. I am not the problem. If you are willing to let the antis chip away at your rights and tell yourself it's ok and that it's ALL they want from you, then you certainly aren't part of the solution.

dancer
July 17, 2010, 09:21 PM
What we should have, but will certainly never get in my lifetime anyway, is an OBJECTIVE TEST to determine a person's capability for informed, rational thinking. To pass the test, a person would have to be pretty high up on the scale of social awareness (that is, have a low likelihood of causing harm to, or fear in another person).

A person inclined toward non-consensual sex acts with anyone else would fail. A public figure, or public servant, or public service person -- such as a teacher -- would fail if capable of exposing a lethal weapon to a non-rational person (such as a minor student who would probably not pass the test for rational thinking in his/her own right). Any person who gets irrational -- drunk, stoned, or with "the rapture" -- would fail.

A person who performs a violent act in SELF-defense, or defense of another (presumed) innocent, would pass the test.

Things would get sticky when it came to using the test to winnow voters. What is an informed rational decision when it comes to politics and voting?

I have no idea what the test would look like or consist of, how it would be administered, or by whom, or what the consequences of failure would be (exile to a reservation in northern Nevada, maybe).

Yes, we are probably fighting the wrong battles...

LHRGunslinger
July 17, 2010, 09:23 PM
I have no animosity, anger, or any strong emotion either way. I respect your opinion. You're entitled to it. Like I said before I may not agree with what you say but I will defend unto death your right to say it with a gun in your hand.

jonmerritt
July 17, 2010, 09:31 PM
If you think about it, guns were never a real threat or problem in society untill the anti-gun people started screaming and yelling about guns.:what:

General Geoff
July 17, 2010, 09:32 PM
What we should have, but will certainly never get in my lifetime anyway, is an OBJECTIVE TEST to determine a person's capability for informed, rational thinking.

Rights are not given to someone after they pass a test. Rights are inherent to ALL people. Such a test is morally reprehensible.

Manco
July 17, 2010, 09:42 PM
LHRGunslinger, restrictions only negatively impact law-abiding citizens and curtail their natural right to self-defense. Criminals will simply do whatever they want regarding firearms because they don't obey laws, being criminals and all. They'll only get busted when they've already committed other crimes, such as murder, using firearms. You knew that your point of view wouldn't be well received, and the reasons are that it doesn't make sense because restrictions are ineffective in preventing crime, and it plays right into the hands of those who oppose our RKBA and right of self-defense (they'll chip away until we have nothing left).

benEzra
July 17, 2010, 09:46 PM
>I know this is going to be EXTREMELY unpopular but I would limit magazine sizes to 15 rounds for all weapons. I honestly cannot imagine someone being unable to defend themself with 15 rounds of 9mm. Overkill is good for defense. Not so good when you're the one getting shot at.
Absolutely, positively, no, never, ever. As to why I think so?

(1) If I, or my wife, have to respond in the night to a home invasion or whatever, it will likely be with only the magazine in the gun, and no reloads. And your hypothetical 15 rounds includes not just the rounds you expend, but the rounds you want to have left in the gun while waiting for the police to arrive in the unlikely event you have to use it.

(2) Magazine capacity is much more relevant for a defender than it is for an attacker. An attacker can plan ahead and carry as many 10- or 15-round magazines as he/she wants (the worst mass murder using a gun in U.S. history was committed with a 15-round 9mm and ten or twenty magazines), it takes only a second or two to change magazines, and the attacker can plan reloads in advance. Not so the defender.

(3) Consider that your local police officer has 45 to 60 rounds ready to go in the pistol and on the belt, and she/he has body armor and armed backup only minutes away. You won't be that well equipped.

If you are comfortable with a 15-round magazine, fine! I have absolutely no problem with that. But the carbine in my safe is loaded with a 20-round magazine, and most of the magazines I own for it are 30-rounders. We will keep those, thanks.

>No firearms on pre-k through 12th grade school property, government buildings, bars or night clubs.
So what do I do if I'm a CHL holder and have a child that I drop off and pick up from school every day? Ask the school crossing guard to hold my 9mm while I go pick up my kid, I'll just be a minute? I also don't think that the prohibition on carrying into post offices, etc. makes any sense, since anyone with ill intent will carry anyway, whereas a woman might *need* a firearm walking across a parking lot to check her P.O. box after getting off a late shift. I think that rule just penalizes the people who aren't a problem.

Finally, if by "bar" you mean "a place that serves alcohol" then we have another problem, because most decent restaurants serve alcohol and a lot of them have bars. I certainly wouldn't drink while carrying and I don't go to saloons, but the "you can't even see anyone drinking alcohol if you're carrying" argument doesn't make much sense to me. If you're not drinking, but want to take your family to a nice restaurant or you want to visit a sports "bar" and have a hot dog and a Pepsi while watching ESPN, how is that a problem?

mljdeckard
July 17, 2010, 10:03 PM
I will try to continue sleeping at night knowing what you think of me.

I carry a gun to pick up my kids at school every day. I took guns to school as shop projects all the time in high school. I am not the problem. If you are willing to let the antis chip away at your rights and tell yourself it's ok and that it's ALL they want from you, then you certainly aren't part of the solution.

mljdeckard
July 17, 2010, 10:06 PM
In my state, I can carry in bars, non-federal government buildings, and schools, k-PhD. No bloodbaths or accidents yet.

Autolycus
July 17, 2010, 11:58 PM
Can someone point out where in the Bill of Rights it mentions that my 7 year old nephew cannot have a handgun? I don't see it. Should he be restricted from taking it into his 2nd grade classroom? If his mother and father trust him with it, then what is the problem?

P.O.2010
July 18, 2010, 12:05 AM
With lawsuits such as the SAF lawsuit in New York to Void 'Good Cause' Carry Permit Requirement we are asking SCOTUS to narrowly decide if cities can have restrictions on who they allow to carry weapons with a permit.
However, even if we win that battle it means that we need a permit to carry a weapon.
No Constitutional right should have to have a permit attached to exercising it.
So, why don't we attack laws that simply make a permit required to carrying a weapon instead?
And are we currently fighting the wrong battles?

Right now we're fighting the battles that have to be fought. Had Miller been properly decided and the NFA ruled unconstitutional then we wouldn't be in the mess we are today. But that isn't what happened. As a result we have been forced to painstakingly disassemble all of the unconstitutional legislation and judicial precedent which has built up in the interim and this will take time. It's going to take twenty or thirty years.

Constitutional carry, however, is the way of the future. We've gone from having one state which recognized the right to keep and bear arms without a permit or license to three in less than ten years. In the eighties and nineties "shall issue" was the future. "No issue required" is the successor to "shall issue". Arizona will be remembered as the tipping point. Vermont and Alaska could be dismissed as rural and lightly populated. Arizona has major metropolitan areas. When Constitutional carry succeeds there the last arguments against it will be erased. Utah is already considering legislation and New Hampshire has in the past. In twenty years my prediction is that the majority of states west of the Mississippi (with the exception of California) will be Constitutional carry. If we keep fighting there' s a bright future ahead for gun owners.

Ignition Override
July 18, 2010, 01:03 AM
I don't have a handgun and really enjoy my Enfields, SKS etc, being a very late-bloomer with guns, for my age.

My point is that I

Respect all of you guys for being able to disagree without name-calling and personal insults (they achieve nothing), and may these discussions continue to be so, as they are very educational and enlightening. Keeping my fingers crossed.

When topics (i.e. the best 'battle rifle'...) go down to the level of the coarse, crude Youtube mentality, people go elsewhere and they learn less about these issues.

War Squirrel
July 18, 2010, 01:48 AM
Since I've entered the firearms world, I've been learning more and more how laws and statutes function. And one thing I've realized is that there is a ridiculous number of them for problems that do not exist.

Laws are not toys; they are powerful things that can destroy lives with the swing of a gavel. So why are they created so wantonly? I'm of the school of thought that no law should be created without a clear and present need, the problem has a victim, and the law is within constitutional bounds. For instance, we have a law here in SC prohibiting anyone over the age of 16 from wearing a mask in public (16-7-110). That would be a violation of the First, wouldn't it? Granted, it is an anti-KKK law, but stupid regardless. Laws should be built around this: If a man does something but it does not harm anyone else or their property, stay out of his business.

So as for your propositions;

>Legal age for carrying open and concealed: 18 open and concealed.

>Keep current NICS system.

>No restrictions on where you can carry, unless the property owner requests that you do not.

>Open carry permitted everywhere (excluding aforementioned locations)

>Keep Firearm Owners Protection Act, but slash and burn the GCA and NFA.

>Oh gee, I can only put 15 round links in my new Goriyunov at a time... /sarcasm
It you're not harming anyone, have 1500 rnd. sextuple-stacked AK magazines in your full auto AK while strutting down the street in a Speedo.
No problem.

And last but not least, require states to have a sub-court dedicated only to repealment of useless laws. Their only duty is to test the validity of current laws and test their usage over the past so-many years. If it falls under a certain percentage or is ruled unnecessary/unconstitutional, slash it.

Oh, and require states and counties to maintain a public website containing all local, town, county and state statues on the books. Poor folks can tell what the state laws are, but not local statues and ordnances. Even the police around here don't know the current laws.

Girodin
July 18, 2010, 04:59 AM
>Legal age for carrying open and concealed: 18 open and concealed.

More important battles than lowering the age from 21 IMHO. When concealed carry is actually available in all states we can start talking about open carry and when that is a reality then we can start talking about the age.


>No firearms on pre-k through 12th grade school property, government buildings, bars or night clubs.

This is a bunch of needless regulation. Please explain how it keeps anyone safer. Utah is a great example, there one can carry in schools bars, etc. There have been to the best of my knowledge no issues. Now, I have no problem saying you cannot carry if you are consuming alcohol. That does make sense, an otherwise responsible law abiding person who is drunk and has a weapon can present a danger. A responsible law abiding person with a CCW does not present such a danger simply because they are in a school. The restrictions on carry ought to be secure facilities such as prisons, mental hospitals, etc. Also a property owner ought o be able to ask some one to leave. If the person fails to then it is a matter of trespass.


>NFA restrictions seem to make sense except for the once you convert a pistol to a rifle you can't switch it back bit. that's gotta go.

IMHO many of them make about as much sense as a screen door in a submarine. The fact that a shotgun with a barrel of 18" is legal and one with 17.9 could get you ten years makes sense? Really? Please explain the rationale. If anything many of them are arbitrary and do not serve any great purpose and certainly not one that could not be served as well with less restrictive rules.

>I know this is going to be EXTREMELY unpopular but I would limit magazine sizes to 15 rounds for all weapons. I honestly cannot imagine someone being unable to defend himself with 15 rounds of 9mm. Overkill is good for defense. Not so good when you're the one getting shot at.

In addition to the critiques about the inability to know how many rounds are required for defense your argument has other flaws. This will do nothing substantial to stop the mass shooter. The mall shooter in Utah did his mayhem with a shotgun that held few than 15 rounds. Also the difference between a 15 round a mag and a 30 round mag is a reload that takes maybe one second. Further, and most importantly, your argument can be dismissed out of hand because the sole purpose for having a constitutional right to bear arms is not self defense. Framing things only in those terms is flawed. The purpose is to protect the people from tyranny and a mag that holds more than 15 rounds is most useful for that.

Can someone point out where in the Bill of Rights it mentions that my 7 year old nephew cannot have a handgun? I don't see it. Should he be restricted from taking it into his 2nd grade classroom? If his mother and father trust him with it, then what is the problem?

Can someone point out in the bill of rights where it says I cannot kill my seven year old on an altar in ceremonial fashion if that is a tenet of my religion?

Or where it says I can not slander/libel someone?

Where does it say I cannot stand on my roof at 2:00 AM with a bull horn and shout obscenities and flash Morris code messages at my neighbors with runway lights.

Show me were it says I cannot peaceably assemble with 300 of my closest friends in your front yard?

After all the 1st states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,"

It is well established at this point that rights enshrined in the bill of rights are not absolute nor should they be. Hell no a seven year old shouldn't be able to carry a gun into class. Also your argument fails to take into account who the bill of rights was enshrining the rights of. There is a huge jump you made that the founders were talking about children at all in the bill of rights.

Girodin
July 18, 2010, 05:11 AM
All this talk and the most important legal battle has not been mentioned. The most important legal battle is setting the standard of scrutiny with which gun laws will be reviewed. Establishing strict scrutiny would be a huge victory for the RKBA. It is the biggest single step forward that one can take. Establishing the level of scrutiny will let us know what laws will likely be upheld and which will likely be struck. It is the battle that determines the real value of the Heller and McDonald decisions.

There are a lot of federal laws I would like to see go but I'm not sure how feasible it is to change them through the legislature at this point.

My states laws are are pretty good and I have a hard time identifying any issues that need immediate rectifying there. Obviously other states have a long ways to go.

Grantman
July 18, 2010, 05:38 AM
>I know this is going to be EXTREMELY unpopular but I would limit magazine sizes to 15 rounds for all weapons. I honestly cannot imagine someone being unable to defend themself with 15 rounds of 9mm. Overkill is good for defense. Not so good when you're the one getting shot at.

That's all I can think of right now. I know alot (if not all) of my ideas are not going to be well received. Firearms were designed from the get go as lethal weapons. They need to be treated with respect and care.

@Deanimator: Or be compelled under the law to register himself as a sex offender. It was illustrating a point.

I do not ask anyone to agree with me, but I do ask that you try and look at things from a different point of view

This is all I have to say on this issue. I will not feed the trolls nor will I build a bandwagon for people to jump on.
All you've done is penalise anyone who abides by the restriction and shifted the advantage further over to the criminals who are hardly going to be stupid enough to wake up one morning and cherry pick assorted firearms regulations to abide by. Do you think a criminal is going to abide by a 15 round magazine restriction when they have already ignored laws that prohibit them owning a gun? It's illegal but let's make it more illegal?

unloved
July 18, 2010, 06:26 AM
>Legal age for carrying open and concealed: 18 with permit.An 18 year old may carry openly without a license here in PA.
>No firearms on pre-k through 12th grade school property, government buildings, bars or night clubs.
It's legal to carry firearms in all of these places save K-12 schools here in PA.
>Open carry permitted everywhere (excluding aforementioned locations)
Open carry is your right, not "permitted", but your right in all of those locations here in PA. Our right isn't currently recognized in the buildings, or on the grounds of, K-12 schools. It is our right, nonetheless.
>NFA restrictions seem to make sense...
Really? I mean, seriously? They make sense? You obviously haven't done your research.
>I know this is going to be EXTREMELY unpopular but I would limit magazine sizes to 15 rounds for all weapons.
To what purpose?

You should probably move, LHRGunslinger. You must feel terribly unsafe, living here in PA where so many of the ineffective, and unconstitutional restrictions you yearn for don't exist. New Jersey is just across the river. I'm sure you'll find that things are much more to your liking there.


The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned.

Art Eatman
July 18, 2010, 09:39 AM
From Post #1: "No Constitutional right should have to have a permit attached to exercising it.

So, why don't we attack laws that simply make a permit required to carrying a weapon instead?"

An opinion and a question. How about going back to the subject of the thread, and avoid wandering about with extraneous notions? :) Otherwise, this thread is toast.

Bartholomew Roberts
July 18, 2010, 10:46 AM
And are we currently fighting the wrong battles?

No. We aren't. They are following the classic path used by Thurogood Marshall in his civil rights litigation. You start with a very narrowly defined, as uncontroversial as possible issue and when you have established it as law, you use that as a stepping stone to the next issue. You continue to build on your previous success and simultaneously identify areas where the legal culture isn't ready to go yet,

Let's say Heller had been "I want to carry my unlicensed, unregistered machinegun concealed in Washington D.C. even though I'm a felon because the Second Amendment says I can." We would have lost that case. Instead of talking about the limits and boundaries of the individual right protected by the Second Amendment, we would still be fighting to overturn the old "collective rights" theory.

Remember, both Heller and McDonald were about as uncontroversial and legally straightforward as you could possibly get. Both positions are supported by WIDE majorities of Americans and have a rock-solid legal foundation. Both positions also came 1 vote away from being losing cases. The only thing you are going to find out by your approach is which of the Justices is the swing vote keeping that majority from becoming the minority.

No Constitutional right should have to have a permit attached to exercising it.

You should put up a radio station or television station in your neighborhood without a permit and broadcast that to your neighbors and see how it goes over. And if they give you any trouble, go hold a protest outside City Hall without a permit - after all you have the freedom of speech and free assembly right?

I honestly cannot imagine someone being unable to defend themself with 15 rounds of 9mm.

Why should your lack of imagination limit the options of someone who might need more than 15 rounds? There was a police shooting where police hit a guy 16 times (with both .40 S&W and 5.56) and the guy still had to be wrestled to be put in handcuffs. This was just one single guy and it doesn't count the shots that missed. What if you had to face that guy without the body armor, additional people, radio, etc.?

Do you understand the important difference between deciding that for your own personal needs, there is no point to a magazine bigger than X size and deciding that none of the other 300 million people in the United States needs a magazine biggerBecause when we pass a law, that is what we do. We impose a "one-size fits all" solution on everybody.

gc70
July 18, 2010, 11:47 AM
Are we fighting the wrong battles?
.
With lawsuits such as the SAF lawsuit in New York to Void 'Good Cause' Carry Permit Requirement we are asking SCOTUS to narrowly decide if cities can have restrictions on who they allow to carry weapons with a permit.

Kachalsky claims that government cannot require a person to show a need to exercise a fundamental constitutional right and exercising that right must be equally available to everyone. Those are concepts for which there is a tremendous amount of favorable precedent to help win the case.

All-or-nothing lawsuits would only result in losses and bad precedents. Remember that Dick Heller only asked to register a .22 revolver to keep in his home, but the decision in that case laid the cornerstone and the current cases will build the foundation for the future.

wishin
July 18, 2010, 04:19 PM
First of all, how would I SEE the pistol in his pocket?
Secondly, how will a law prohibiting him from having one PREVENT him from having one?

My contribution to free thinking is to require that all perverts wear pocketless pants, shirts and jackets, and make them wear an outer garment with a "P" on the front and back.:neener:

wishin
July 18, 2010, 04:26 PM
Can someone point out where in the Bill of Rights it mentions that my 7 year old nephew cannot have a handgun? I don't see it. Should he be restricted from taking it into his 2nd grade classroom? If his mother and father trust him with it, then what is the problem?
I don't believe you're serious here, are you? There's not a seven year-old alive with enough maturity to have a firearm unsupervised. Statements and positions like this are what puts RKBA credibility in question.

rainbowbob
July 18, 2010, 04:52 PM
My contribution to free thinking is to require that all perverts wear pocketless pants, shirts and jackets, and make them wear an outer garment with a "P" on the front and back.

Works for me.

bearcreek
July 18, 2010, 05:10 PM
Perhaps I missed it but not one seems to have mentioned in this thread the fact that the 2nd amendment originally was meant to have very little or nothing to do with defending oneself against criminals. It was intended to give the people the power to make the government afraid of them so that it did not get out of hand and overstep it's bounds. So, high cap magazine restrictions, bans on automatic weapons, barrel length restrictions etc not only do not make sense, they are the polar opposite of the founder's intentions for our country.

alan
July 18, 2010, 06:41 PM
LHRGunslinger writes in part:


>I know this is going to be EXTREMELY unpopular but I would limit magazine sizes to 15 rounds for all weapons. I honestly cannot imagine someone being unable to defend themself with 15 rounds of 9mm. Overkill is good for defense. Not so good when you're the one getting shot at.

----------------------------------


It likely will, but let that slide, we arenít involved in popularity contests here. You are of course entitled to your opinion, however I submit that this particular opinion is badly in need of reconsideration. If you want a reason for this view here is one for you to think on, The Slippery Slope, as it is sometimes described. In my view, giving anything to the antis, limits on magazine size is "giving" them something, only encourages them to seek more, and this "more" comes out, fuguratively speaking, of our hides. Personally I'm already on the thin side.

fireside44
July 18, 2010, 08:19 PM
You should put up a radio station or television station in your neighborhood without a permit and broadcast that to your neighbors and see how it goes over.

Yeah, not only do the feds presume they can tell everyone what kind of guns they can and can't have, but they also assume authority over the air. Air is free, yet tightly regulated by the FCC. Funny.

All-or-nothing lawsuits would only result in losses and bad precedents.

If they had gone all or nothing when the NFA was enacted we probably wouldn't get taxed on machine guns today.

Girodin
July 18, 2010, 08:20 PM
Perhaps I missed it but not one seems to have mentioned in this thread the fact that the 2nd amendment originally was meant to have very little or nothing to do with defending oneself against criminals. It was intended to give the people the power to make the government afraid of them so that it did not get out of hand and overstep it's bounds. So, high cap magazine restrictions, bans on automatic weapons, barrel length restrictions etc not only do not make sense, they are the polar opposite of the founder's intentions for our country.

I did in fact mention that in post #31 I wrote the following:

Further, and most importantly, your argument can be dismissed out of hand because the sole purpose for having a constitutional right to bear arms is not self defense. Framing things only in those terms is flawed. The purpose is to protect the people from tyranny and a mag that holds more than 15 rounds is most useful for that.

bearcreek
July 18, 2010, 09:47 PM
Sorry, didn't see your post. Well stated.

Girodin
July 18, 2010, 10:15 PM
It is certainly a point worth reiterating.

Cosmoline
July 18, 2010, 10:29 PM
One step at a time. Alaska went from no carry to may issue to shall issue with a lot of bizarre restrictions to general shall issue to Vermont carry. If folks had insisted on getting to Vermont carry immediately, it never would have gotten off the ground.

The court cases are another way of nudging the laws in the right direction. It's just one more tool in the kit.

mljdeckard
July 18, 2010, 10:40 PM
I agree. Slow progress is still progress. I am patient.

ConstitutionCowboy
July 18, 2010, 11:15 PM
In my opinion no. The rantings of a madman no matter how offensive won't kill you. Firearms need to be regulated, maybe not the way they are now but would you like to see a known pedophile walking down the street with a pocket pistol in his pocket? I completely agree that SOME of the restrictions need to be torn down. BUT NOT ALL.

First of all, how would I SEE the pistol in his pocket?

Secondly, how will a law prohibiting him from having one PREVENT him from having one?

Lock up the pedophiles and throw away the key. Disarming pedophiles does not keep them from being pedophiles.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Legal age for carrying open and concealed: 18 with permit. People under 18 are under the guardianship of their parents. Requiring a permit is a violation of the Constitution.

>Background check to prevent those who are a danger to themselves and others from obtaining a weapon Such people belong under full time guardianship, locked up in an institution, or prison as required, or executed.

>No firearms on pre-k through 12th grade school property, government buildings, bars or night clubs. What do you have against protecting our kids, protecting ourselves in buildings, and while we're out partying?

>Open carry permitted everywhere (excluding aforementioned locations) Why permit it to begin with? Ditch the law that prevents it and there will be no need for a law to permit it.

>NFA restrictions seem to make sense except for the once you convert a pistol to a rifle you can't switch it back bit. that's gotta go. Which NFA restrictions make sense to you and why? The country did just fine without them for the 158 years since the revolution and hundreds of years prior to that!

>I'd mandate that police have to wear class IIIa ballistic protection with ballistic plates front and back That would not be a gun control law.

>I know this is going to be EXTREMELY unpopular but I would limit magazine sizes to 15 rounds for all weapons. I honestly cannot imagine someone being unable to defend himself with 15 rounds of 9mm. Overkill is good for defense. Not so good when you're the one getting shot at. It's about more than self defense.

That's all I can think of right now. I know alot (if not all) of my ideas are not going to be well received. Firearms were designed from the get go as lethal weapons. They need to be treated with respect and care.There is and has never been a problem with arms that are simply kept and borne. The problem is crime, not tools.


I do not ask anyone to agree with me, but I do ask that you try and look at things from a different point of view View looked at.



To the OP, I'm with you on attacking the laws that make keeping and bearing arms illegal. Without those laws, there would never be a need for any kind of permit. Those laws "allowing" you to carry a gun after you jump through hoops and pay a fee are nothing more than exceptions to the requirements of the underlying laws prohibiting keeping and/or bearing arms in the first place. The underlying laws are unconstitutional to begin with and remain in effect except as allowed by subsequent law. Remove the law allowing keep and/or bear, and the underlying unconstitutional law remains to infringe your right.

The battles being fought are good battles tackling those unconstitutional underlying laws that make keeping and/or bearing arms illegal. As I said, get rid of those laws and you'll never need a permit.

Woody

Buck Snort
July 19, 2010, 02:20 AM
LHR GUNSLINGER wrote: "..........would you like to see a known pedophile walking down the street with a pocket pistol in his pocket?"

Pedophelia and misuse of firearms are apples and oranges.

Buck Snort
July 19, 2010, 02:29 AM
LHRGunslinger wrote: "No I don't think restricting mag caps makes a gun less lethal. It makes it easier for the police to manuver because it forces any "crazed gunmen" to spend more time reloading."

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!! Criminals and "crazed gunmen" don't give a fly'n rat's ass about handgun capacity, WHATTA JOKE!!!!!!!!

Buck Snort
July 19, 2010, 02:33 AM
Gouranga wrote: "Legal age to carry 18. IF we decide to keep with the 21, then it ABSOLUTELY needs to have a military exemption. There is no reason why an 18 yr old can be trusted with a M16, grenades and with making a commitment to career which endangers their life (defending US) and cannot be trusted with a firearm when in the states."

Evidently you have NO IDEA what boot camp is all about or how it changes a young mind.

Buck Snort
July 19, 2010, 02:38 AM
LHRGunslinger wrote: "@ General Geoff: That's one of my less popular ideas. Seeing as if that happened about.....oh....half the worlds population would be gone in a week. Oh Natural Selection how do I love thee. As long as there are 2 people left in the world somebody is gonna want somebody dead."

Your, sir, are hanging out at the wrong website. There are lots of folks who think like you over at gungrabbersareus.com. Please leave.

Buck Snort
July 19, 2010, 02:48 AM
Autolycus wrote: "Can someone point out where in the Bill of Rights it mentions that my 7 year old nephew cannot have a handgun? I don't see it. Should he be restricted from taking it into his 2nd grade classroom? If his mother and father trust him with it, then what is the problem."

The problem is that his brain is not physiologically mature and he cannot make rational decisions concerning the use of lethal force.

Guns and more
July 19, 2010, 05:25 AM
As long as there are 2 people left in the world somebody is gonna want somebody dead.
How did you come up with that?
So you are anti gun?

Art Eatman
July 19, 2010, 08:04 AM
Could have been a good thread, but folks keep ignoring the issue and get bogged down in off-topic commentary...

If you enjoyed reading about "Are we fighting the wrong battles?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!