No Carry Zones: Abolishing Them

Status
Not open for further replies.
F

five0

Member
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
25
I am preparing to do a persuasive speech on getting rid of the "no-carry zones." I was hoping to get some more insight from this wild bunch.

Right now my key points are the fact that it is indeed needed. Going to tell the story of an off-duty cop that was able to resolve a deadly situation when a CCW permit holder would not have been able to carry. Any articles or stories of this sort would be helpful. I plan to point to the school shootings and the fact that schools are one of the no-carry zones.

The second point, involves looking for stats that promote the fact that CCW does not lead to rambo types playing hero. That it wouldn't just be making the situation worse.

Any other ideas about this topic would be helpful and links/stats appreciated. Thanks!
 
I agree with your purpose and i think there should not be any "no carry zones". I think that we have the right to bear arms so they should let us take that right to its full limits, making no limit on where we can and cant carry a gun.
 
Are you talking about places like public schools, post offices, and court houses? If so, I agree. If you're talking about those "no guns allowed signs" on private businesses, I would have to disapprove. I think someone's property rights would trump you second amendment rights while on their property.
 
Not necessarily. In many states, including mine, the state has pre-emption. Meaning, the state decides where guns are and are not allowed. Property owners have no say in this. Property owners have a say in whether or not they allow a particular person, group of people, or anyone at all onto their private property. The state regulates the guns, the property owner regulates the people. (They won't ask you to leave if they don't know you're carrying.)
 
Those with a permit (I thought constitution gave us all one but Oh well) do not carry most places without incident and then when going to church, college campus, PO all of a sudden go wacko and show off-aint happened-and wont.

College carry has focused on(all?) students carrying. All students has never been suggested only those with a permit.

Permittees=paid fee, got printed. took instruction, no misdeameanors and for sure no FELONIES, run thru FBI files, shoot regularly AND must keep alcohol below driving level couple times. Michigan-carry level allowed= less than 0.02, driving less than 0.08--checked
 
try google for Suzanna Gratia-Hupp. do you remember what happened at killeen Texas? (Hint, it was in a Luby's cafeteria). Her pistol was in the car. and she got to watch her parents killed.

She has gone into politics, and is now a leader in the fight for the RKBA.
 
Here's an idea: search every school shooting in recent history. From the news reports, gather the average time of police response...

That should give you some good stats. I'd actually be interested in seeing this if you do it.

As for CCW persons ending violent acts, I think there's a thread somewhere on THR dedicated to it.
 
I'll start the google searching later today. And yes, the no-carry zones I am talking about are schools, etc. I agree that private property is different.
 
I'll start the google searching later today. And yes, the no-carry zones I am talking about are schools, etc. I agree that private property is different.
Click to expand...

At worst, private property owners or agents thereof, should be allowed to ask an armed individual to leave in a reasonable manner.

Regarding schools, if you allow private property owners to set their own rules, then private schools can still be gun-free zones.
 
Appalachian Law School,NC ,Pearl,MS High School,Trolley Square,SLC,UT are other incidents,involving GFZ shootings being stopped by the good guys.
 
How about that elementary Principal that was down south, who grabbed his .45 from his car to avert a situation.
 
I also agree the privite property ownwers should have the finial say so on whether or not CCW is allowed on their property. I wish everyone would allow it, but I also respect privite property ownwer's rights as well.
 
mljdeckard - "Not necessarily. In many states, including mine, the state has pre-emption. Meaning, the state decides where guns are and are not allowed."


Ok but that's wrong. If I own a restaurant or a car dealership, it's my property, same as my house. I should be able to make my house and my business gun free zones if I want. Of course I wouldn't because I know how beneficial guns are but people should have the final say on their own property.

EDITED TO ADD: If I'm carrying and I see a sign that says "no guns allowed" on a private business I will either leave my gun in the car or not visit that private business. If I expect people to respect my rights, I should be willing to respect their rights as well.
 
If you are not willing to let armed, law abiding citizens into your business, maybe, just maybe, you should not be in business. (No fat people allowed, it offends me!)
 
I agree it's a bad idea but it's THEIR business. They can do whatever they want and you don't have to shop there. They have the right to ban guns, dogs, apple pies, fat people, looney toons shirts, or whatever else they want. It might be bad for business but whatever. Let them go out of business then. But you shouldn't violate their private property rights. As far as I'm concerned a man's private store front is the same as his home. His rules are law. If you don't like it, shop at the other guy's store.
 
TheArchDuke said:
mljdeckard - "Not necessarily. In many states, including mine, the state has pre-emption. Meaning, the state decides where guns are and are not allowed."


Ok but that's wrong. If I own a restaurant or a car dealership, it's my property, same as my house. I should be able to make my house and my business gun free zones if I want.
Click to expand...

It may not be what you or I want, but apparently it's state law; how then could he be wrong? It's not an opinion if it's state law.
 
Not "wrong" as in "incorrect". I meant "wrong" as in "immoral".

It's wrong that the state forces businesses to allow guns on their property if the property owner doesn't want that. Just like it's wrong for another state to forbid people from carrying guns at all. Or just like it's wrong for states to ban smoking in private businesses.

If they just leave people alone, we'll figure it out for our selves. We don't need government intervention. And I'll go further. For some gun-people to support a law that would force people to allow them to carry in their private business is just as morally repugnant as the Brady campaign trying to outlaw our right to own guns all together.
 
If they just leave people alone, we'll figure it out for our selves. We don't need government intervention. And I'll go further. For some gun-people to support a law that would force people to allow them to carry in their private business is just as morally repugnant as the Brady campaign trying to outlaw our right to own guns all together.
Click to expand...

Oh, my bad. I would normally agree with you, and as I've stated in many previous threads regarding businesses, take away the regulation but only AFTER the corporate personhood is taken away as well.

I'm surprised more pro-constitution people aren't calling for that, frankly, since that is a far bigger injustice that perpetuates oppression (at least in my view) than just a law that says businesses can't discriminate based on carrying a firearm.
 
For a property owner to want to have that level of control, it is only fair to hold him or her responsible for that decision-

1 Removal of Corp personhood- the vehicle that grants a corp most of the rights, but none of the responsibilities of a real person

2 allowing at least some civil liability to property owners whose disarmament policy is at least partly responsible for a shooting or attack
 
I like the first point. I don't agree with the second. You don't have to go to places that don't allow guns and the employees don't have to work there. It's not the business owner's fault if someone commits a shooting in their store. Come on. I thought we all believed in blaming ONLY the person who decides to pull the trigger.

Suing a business owner that doesn't allow guns on his property because someone shot you is like suing a bar owner for allowing smoking in his bar. You-don't-have-to-be-there.


EDIT: 500 Posts! Where's my badge? hehe
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

K
  • Locked
Gun free school zones
2
Replies
28
Views
2K
209
2
F
  • Locked
Time to end the Fish In A Barrel Zones
Replies
13
Views
573
breakingcontact
B
I
  • Locked
crime rates of CCWers vs crime rates of police?
2 3
Replies
58
Views
3K
Art Eatman
A
C
  • Locked
Nugent@CNN: Gun-free zones are recipe for disaster
Replies
0
Views
315
Cheeseybacon
C
G
  • Locked
Utah Action Alert: Open Carry Clarification Becomes Trojan Horse
Replies
1
Views
561
green-grizzly
G
Back
Top