General Geoff
Member
Gun law: any law that regulates the purchase, ownership, possession, carry, or usage of firearms. Meaning states like illinois and hawaii would then have unarmed police officers.
Any New Laws You Would Like To See?
- Thread starter Tipro
- Start date
- Status
General Geoff said:
See, I think that goes a bit too far. Like I said, I like where you are coming from/going with this, and generally agree, but there ought to be some exceptions. Mostly I am thinking about SECURE locations with restricted/controlled access where every single person who enters is screened, and there exists 24/7 armed (government) security. I don't expect to be able to carry a gun if I visit somebody in prison/jail, tour important buildings like the White House (I have done that, not that you can really do that today...), or enter a courthouse to testify in a court of law. I do, however, expect an armed presence from government employees. (secret service, local sheriff's office, whatever)
Flame on:
No business or institution that is open to the public may ban the carry of firearms unless it can be demonstrated that there is a highly technical risk to carrying of the firearm (ex. your gun and MRI). No penalty or liability can be assigned to that business or institution based on the actions with the firearm by the person carrying it.
No employer can ban the carry of a firearm by an employee unless it can be demonstrated that there is a highly technical risk to carrying of the firearm (ex. your gun and MRI). No penalty or liability can be assigned to that business or institution based on the actions with the firearm by the person carrying it.
No business or institution that is open to the public may ban the carry of firearms unless it can be demonstrated that there is a highly technical risk to carrying of the firearm (ex. your gun and MRI). No penalty or liability can be assigned to that business or institution based on the actions with the firearm by the person carrying it.
No employer can ban the carry of a firearm by an employee unless it can be demonstrated that there is a highly technical risk to carrying of the firearm (ex. your gun and MRI). No penalty or liability can be assigned to that business or institution based on the actions with the firearm by the person carrying it.
beatledog7
Member
No, thanks. That's very anti-free enterprise. I'd rather see tort reform, which if done right would have a similar effect.
Ah, the ancient debate - property rights are important but the right to protect yourself trumps that.
That's why you can use lethal force in SD. Your right to your life trumps the right to life of the attacker.
IMHO, my right to protect myself trumps your right to ban carry in a business open to the public. Note, that as a business person you don't have absolute control of your property. You can't sell kiddie porn, you must have clean restrooms, etc. Thus the absolute control of property argument fails as it is not what is actually the case for a business.
Life is the most important right.
That's why you can use lethal force in SD. Your right to your life trumps the right to life of the attacker.
IMHO, my right to protect myself trumps your right to ban carry in a business open to the public. Note, that as a business person you don't have absolute control of your property. You can't sell kiddie porn, you must have clean restrooms, etc. Thus the absolute control of property argument fails as it is not what is actually the case for a business.
Life is the most important right.
GEM said:
No.
You chose (with very few exceptions) to enter their property. You cannot CHOOSE to enter somebody else's property while refusing follow their rules because you don't like them.
GEM said:
What you have is the right NOT to visit said business so that you can stay armed.
Let's end this thread drift. The OP asked folks to tell us what laws they'd like to see - not to debate people's choices.
bigbore442001
Member
What new laws would I like to see? Ok. To get back on threat this is what I would like to see.
1. For my home state of Massachusetts to allow the use of handguns for deer hunting with a striaght walled case. As an example, southeastern New Hampshire has portions of the state that do not allow rifles for deer hunting due to the human population. They do allow handguns in .357,41,44,45,480 and 50 for deer hunting. Why not Massachusetts? We are a shotgun and muzzleloading state. Many hunters now use sabot slugs that are the equivalent of a 45-70 handload. Same is true of the inline rifles. I hunt my home state with an inline rifle and I recall running loads pushing a 300 grain sabot at 1900 fps. What is the difference if I hunt with a TC Contender in 44 magnum with a 240 grain XTP at 1600 fps or a tad more? In my mind, none. It is more of a fact that the law was put in place about one hundred years ago when these things did not exist.
2. For Connecticut to allow non residents to use revolvers on deer for private land hunting. Last year Connecticut allowed hunters to use revolvers for deer hunting on private land. Non residents, unless you own land, were excluded. Why? I had a non resident permit for Connecticut since I was 19( I am 46 now). I have been good enough to carry concealed and hunt small game/varmints in the Nutmeg State for 27 years but not good enough to hunt deer on land I can use a rifle? Nonsense.
3. For Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island to allow muzzleloading handguns for deer hunting. Northern New England allows it during their special season and do not have issues with it. A modern muzzleloading handgun like a CVA Optima, Kahnke M82 or a custom TC barrel put them in to the hot 44 magnum class which can take deer cleanly. So far I have taken three wild boar and one red deer with a muzzleloading handgun. It is funny that in both RI and CT I can hunt with a 16" barreled carbine but if I switch the grip to a pistol grip somehow it is less effective.
4. For both Massachusetts and Rhode Island to become shall issue states. The old patroon mentality must go and we need to be more in line with other enlightened states.
Hopefully this is on track.
1. For my home state of Massachusetts to allow the use of handguns for deer hunting with a striaght walled case. As an example, southeastern New Hampshire has portions of the state that do not allow rifles for deer hunting due to the human population. They do allow handguns in .357,41,44,45,480 and 50 for deer hunting. Why not Massachusetts? We are a shotgun and muzzleloading state. Many hunters now use sabot slugs that are the equivalent of a 45-70 handload. Same is true of the inline rifles. I hunt my home state with an inline rifle and I recall running loads pushing a 300 grain sabot at 1900 fps. What is the difference if I hunt with a TC Contender in 44 magnum with a 240 grain XTP at 1600 fps or a tad more? In my mind, none. It is more of a fact that the law was put in place about one hundred years ago when these things did not exist.
2. For Connecticut to allow non residents to use revolvers on deer for private land hunting. Last year Connecticut allowed hunters to use revolvers for deer hunting on private land. Non residents, unless you own land, were excluded. Why? I had a non resident permit for Connecticut since I was 19( I am 46 now). I have been good enough to carry concealed and hunt small game/varmints in the Nutmeg State for 27 years but not good enough to hunt deer on land I can use a rifle? Nonsense.
3. For Massachusetts, Connecticut and Rhode Island to allow muzzleloading handguns for deer hunting. Northern New England allows it during their special season and do not have issues with it. A modern muzzleloading handgun like a CVA Optima, Kahnke M82 or a custom TC barrel put them in to the hot 44 magnum class which can take deer cleanly. So far I have taken three wild boar and one red deer with a muzzleloading handgun. It is funny that in both RI and CT I can hunt with a 16" barreled carbine but if I switch the grip to a pistol grip somehow it is less effective.
4. For both Massachusetts and Rhode Island to become shall issue states. The old patroon mentality must go and we need to be more in line with other enlightened states.
Hopefully this is on track.
Gottahaveone
Member
Just one...TERM LIMITS. For every level of elected position from POTUS to local Dog Catcher.......
Crashbox
Member
I wouldn't mind seeing a national law similar to what Kennesaw, Georgia has, REQUIRING possession of a firearm unless there are personal, religious, etc. objections. In other words, "Constitutional Carry" would be a requirement for law-abiding citizens.
I would fight against a law requiring possession or ownership of a firearm.
Then again if the required had an exception for personal objections there isn't much actual point to the law, and it then becomes just another feel-good that doesn't really do anything.
Then again if the required had an exception for personal objections there isn't much actual point to the law, and it then becomes just another feel-good that doesn't really do anything.
TrickyDick
Member
A stupidity test would be nice. I mean, everyone has the right to bear arms, but some people scare me when they don't understand the basic fundamentals regarding firearms and the responsibility that comes with them. i.e. holding a pistol sideways, referring to hi-cap rifles as machine guns/ assault rifles. Insisting that because they carry a pistol, they're now Johnny law.
I don't like restrictions on alot of things, but sometimes it just hurts my brain to see people do foolish things with firearms.
I don't like restrictions on alot of things, but sometimes it just hurts my brain to see people do foolish things with firearms.
Not really.
Mike OTDP
Member
I'll play...
First, I want a national preemptive act. All state and local legislation pertaining to the purchase, ownership, or transportation of firearms or ammunition overridden, any attempt to pass or enforce such legislation shall constitute Rebellion Against the United States. I could see a proviso allowing state or local governments to prosecute violations of the uniform national laws if the Federal Government elects not to prosecute. Right now, the United States is a crazywork quilt of laws. We need one uniform law.
Second, I want a Personal FFL to replace the Curio & Relic license. The C&R is great if you are buying older guns, but not that great if you are buying newer stuff. And going through a dealer is a PITA if you are buying high-end target arms.
Third, I want suppressors removed from NFA. Require NICS if you want, but the whole NFA rigamarole? I could see rewording the Any Other Weapon category and moving "gadget guns" out of the NFA as well.
Fourth, I want import/export reform. Getting rid of the infamous ATF import point system for pistols would be a good start, but I'd like to see firearm owners have the ability to import arms...and export them for repair. There are several makes of very-high-end target pistols (Match Guns, for example) that don't have much support in the United States. If you need repair work, you're SOL - because the whole idea was that you sent the gun back to the factory. We live in a global marketplace, our laws need to be adjusted for it.
First, I want a national preemptive act. All state and local legislation pertaining to the purchase, ownership, or transportation of firearms or ammunition overridden, any attempt to pass or enforce such legislation shall constitute Rebellion Against the United States. I could see a proviso allowing state or local governments to prosecute violations of the uniform national laws if the Federal Government elects not to prosecute. Right now, the United States is a crazywork quilt of laws. We need one uniform law.
Second, I want a Personal FFL to replace the Curio & Relic license. The C&R is great if you are buying older guns, but not that great if you are buying newer stuff. And going through a dealer is a PITA if you are buying high-end target arms.
Third, I want suppressors removed from NFA. Require NICS if you want, but the whole NFA rigamarole? I could see rewording the Any Other Weapon category and moving "gadget guns" out of the NFA as well.
Fourth, I want import/export reform. Getting rid of the infamous ATF import point system for pistols would be a good start, but I'd like to see firearm owners have the ability to import arms...and export them for repair. There are several makes of very-high-end target pistols (Match Guns, for example) that don't have much support in the United States. If you need repair work, you're SOL - because the whole idea was that you sent the gun back to the factory. We live in a global marketplace, our laws need to be adjusted for it.
gunnysmith
Member
Sunset amendment passed.
No law shall retain effect for greater than two years from the date of passage.
That'll keep them busy with their pet projects until they are voted out of office.
No law shall retain effect for greater than two years from the date of passage.
That'll keep them busy with their pet projects until they are voted out of office.
Mike OTDP
Member
I'll add one more...
CMP should be the only legal option to dispose of Federally owned firearms. At least those not NFA.
CMP should be the only legal option to dispose of Federally owned firearms. At least those not NFA.
Bonesinium
Member
Is anyone allowed to bring charges to a grand jury, or are just state prosecutors/district attorneys and the like able to?
Not just anybody can bring criminal charges. Only the government can do that, not individuals.
Zeke/PA
Member
Here is my VERY staunch reply to this question.
As we speak, every criminal MISUSE of firearms is ALREADY covered by EXISTING Legislation.
My hope is that the Black Robed Buffoons who run our supposed Justice System get up off their butts and start, using the stuff that's on the books, putting these creep offenders in jail.
Without fail, the violators are repeat offenders but the SERIOUS gun crime offences are permitted to be Plea Barganed away.
In 2008, my last access to the goings on in Philadelphia there were 6500 UN-PROSECUITED Gun crimes on the books.
Is it any wonder that the inner city violence prospers?
As to the Blacked Robed Buffoons :
"All Rise to His Honor" !
I will NEVER ,EVER do this again, Court Room crap withstanding.
I'll risk a jail sentence.
As we speak, every criminal MISUSE of firearms is ALREADY covered by EXISTING Legislation.
My hope is that the Black Robed Buffoons who run our supposed Justice System get up off their butts and start, using the stuff that's on the books, putting these creep offenders in jail.
Without fail, the violators are repeat offenders but the SERIOUS gun crime offences are permitted to be Plea Barganed away.
In 2008, my last access to the goings on in Philadelphia there were 6500 UN-PROSECUITED Gun crimes on the books.
Is it any wonder that the inner city violence prospers?
As to the Blacked Robed Buffoons :
"All Rise to His Honor" !
I will NEVER ,EVER do this again, Court Room crap withstanding.
I'll risk a jail sentence.
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
