Been hearing anti-gun sentiment on airwaves

[Red Wind]

Certainly nothing new needs to be added. But the 22,000 worthless,stifling, debilating gun laws now on the books have to be removed.

Gun Free School Zones,no gun signs carrying the force of law in many states, no guns in any Federal Buildings, no guns on planes,trains and bus lines.

No gun on school grounds, courtrooms , Capitol Buildings. No guns ad nauseum. All that has to go.

Not a single gun control law has ever had any value whatsoever.

 

[USAF_Vet]

I listen to the radio to hear about UFOs, bigfoot, and people vanishing from national parks...

I miss Art Bell...


Cee Zee, wow. I had no idea about most of that stuff. I've heard about some of it, but never used it. Then again, I'm a neanderthal when it comes to most tech. THR, Amazon, a few other forums, and half a million gun sites are in my book marks. And Facebook. That's about the extent of my internet travels. I had to have my daughter show me how to use my iPhone.
It's surprising that stuff is out there, I just thought it was all Hollywierd BS script writers used to cover glaring plot holes and for the added suspense of fast paced music set to fast paced keyboard pecking. It's not surprising, however, that those same script writers lump perfectly legal activities along with terrorism and child porn.

Red Wind,
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this, but I sort of agree with no guns in courtrooms. Generally, courtrooms are very boring, lack luster places. But on the rare occasion you do have a highly emotional case, or sentencing hearing or the like, it can and does get ugly. I'm okay with the guy contesting a parking ticket with a pistol on his hip, or other trivial business, but during painful, emotional trials where grief and rage rule members of the gallery... that's a powder keg. Even minor matters of civil or small claims can get ugly very quickly.

 

[Red Wind]

Red Wind,
I can't believe I'm actually going to say this, but I sort of agree with no guns in courtrooms. Generally, courtrooms are very boring, lack luster places. But on the rare occasion you do have a highly emotional case, or sentencing hearing or the like, it can and does get ugly. I'm okay with the guy contesting a parking ticket with a pistol on his hip, or other trivial business, but during painful, emotional trials where grief and rage rule members of the gallery... that's a powder keg. Even minor matters of civil or small claims can get ugly very quickly.

That's OK. You are a cool guy and we are going to agree 99% of the time. We'll just agree to disagree on this one point,Amigo.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Can't win 'em all.

 

[barnbwt]

In the courts' defense (pun) they do typically have a security presence (all we now need is a duty to protect liability/responsibility to go in hand with that and I'd be cool with ceding responsibility for my own defense for a short while.) Ya'll do know that even droolingly violent criminals would otherwise retain their carry rights there until properly adjudacated, right?

TCB

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

Worried about shootings in court? There is this thing called bullet proof glass, and there is video linking, there is body armor, and I'm sure there are many other ways to interfere with a shooting, or a spear chucking, or a strangulation, or whatever. Bullet proof glass and cages separating plaintiffs, defendants, the judge, and the gallery seems the most practical to me.

If you are going to abide the Second Amendment, abide it all the way.

Woody

 

[Red Wind]

If you are going to abide the Second Amendment, abide it all the way

Agree, It has to be All the Way, Sir.

1964-1968.

 

[ConstitutionCowboy]

In the courts' defense (pun) they do typically have a security presence (all we now need is a duty to protect liability/responsibility to go in hand with that and I'd be cool with ceding responsibility for my own defense for a short while.) Ya'll do know that even droolingly violent criminals would otherwise retain their carry rights there until properly adjudacated, right?

TCB

While the droolingly violent criminals are in custody, they are in the care of the state. The same probable cause that arrested them can be used to disarm them. Once released from custody, their right to keep and bear arms is still there for them to exercise as they wish.

Woody

 

[barnbwt]

Lol, seriously? You'd rather have everyone in cages (i.e. just as powerless as if disarmed) for testimony like they do in Egypt? They'll never be bulletproof enough, I'll tell you right now. Court is one of the few places where it actually is practical/possible for the State to defend you like they love to play at elsewhere. Cops and bailiffs abound, as do passive security measures and procedures. I just wish they'd be more friendly towards storage once you get there, since courts have a habit of being in shady parts of downtown, so disarming before arrival is pretty lame...

""Something must be done" doesn't mean necessarily that guns need to be taken away."
And yet they inevitably propose something with that aim in mind...

One might say everyone in the court is in its custody, under its authority/protection. A violent crook on bail is on equal standing with a private citizen; innocent until proven guilty and right to due process and all that, right?

TCB

 

[Red Wind]

We remember the 2005 Atlanta Courtroom Shooting. There are no sure things in this world.

Brian Gene Nichols (born December 10, 1971) is known for his escape and killing spree in the Fulton County courthouse in Atlanta, Georgia on March 11, 2005.

Nichols was on trial for rape when he escaped from custody and murdered the judge presiding over his trial, a court reporter, a sheriff's deputy and later a federal agent.

After a large-scale manhunt was launched in the metropolitan Atlanta area, Nichols was taken into custody 26 hours later. The prosecution charged him with committing 54 crimes during the escape and he was found guilty on all counts on November 7, 2008.

 

[USAF_Vet]

Worried about shootings in court? There is this thing called bullet proof glass, and there is video linking, there is body armor, and I'm sure there are many other ways to interfere with a shooting, or a spear chucking, or a strangulation, or whatever. Bullet proof glass and cages separating plaintiffs, defendants, the judge, and the gallery seems the most practical to me.

If you are going to abide the Second Amendment, abide it all the way.

Woody

Sounds like an expensive retrofit where the tax payer foots the bill.

If we're okay with allowing courtroom carry, why not expand it to jails and prisons? I'm sure it'll be okay for momma to be packing a .44 when she goes to visit Bubba in prison on Sunday.

I'm a vehement supporter of the 2A. I support repeal of all guns laws, deregulating machine guns and grenade launchers and I support Constitutional carry. But, I also support individual rights, the right to disallow arms on private property, or where violence is likely. I'm not for a blanket ban on guns in the courtroom, as I stated pretty clearly. I would be okay with not allowing guns in the courtroom at the judges discretion following certain parameters and guidelines.

I can open or concealed carry in my states Legislature, under certain guidelines and parameters.

I'd rather there be some sort of gun storage, (like checking in at a detention facility) a gun valet, if you will, at the court house. I'd prefer judges discretion of weapon possession in his/her court room over bullet resistant cages sectioning off the room.

What I'd prefer is still more liberty and freedom than we currently have.

 

[JTHunter]

jmorris said:

I agree and you won't hear me quoting Dianne Feinstin either.

Maybe you should.
What better way to keep showing their lies and hypocrisy than by illuminating the differences between what they SAY and what they DO.

 

[Cee Zee]

It's not surprising, however, that those same script writers lump perfectly legal activities along with terrorism and child porn.

Not surprising at all. There's just enough truth in their claim to make it sound legit to someone already leaning towards hating guns but I don't think we have any gun runners on this board. I hope not. The government does that work any way. Oh yeah. They only "walk" guns across the border and sell them to drug gangs. Sheesh!

BTW I have been in the business of computers for over 30 years. I started with the original Mac back in 1984 but I had been around them going back to the mid-70's. I was a consultant for about 15 years. I've done just about every job you can do with a computer I guess. Started out with desktop publishing and finished doing consulting for businesses and writing scripts for them to do their work better. I got paid pretty good for that. I had some jobs that ran as long as 10 years. I published a church bulletin all that time. It wasn't a lot of money but it paid for my toys. It didn't take long to do it and I had other things going of course.

I've taught computer skills, built and sold computers, repaired computers, set up networks and most of the stuff the IT departments do and probably a whole lot of other things I can't remember right now. I had to keep my nose in everything for the work I did. But I enjoyed it and when you have that it doesn't even seem like work. I moved on to doing video work with my editing done on computers and I've been doing that for a while when I've been able to work. Unfortunately that seems to happen less and less. I still enjoy a good fight with a testy computer I guess but my heart doesn't like it much.

 

[230RN]

Court is one of the few places where it actually is practical/possible for the State to defend you like they love to play at elsewhere. Cops and bailiffs abound, as do passive security measures and procedures. I just wish they'd be more friendly towards storage once you get there, since courts have a habit of being in shady parts of downtown, so disarming before arrival is pretty lame...

Isn't there at least one state (Arkansas ?) which requires that if an organization (like the Courts) restricts guns, it has to provide safe storage facilities for your gun while you're there? I seem to recall reading about that somewhere.

TimSr remarked,

There used to be a large number of NRA members who did not even own firearms, but understand the importance of the right to do so. Today I think there is a lot more "I'm only concerned if it's specifically about one of mine or me".

I'm not sure about that first part regarding NRA members, but I sure agree with the second part. A couple of years ago I wanted to get a non-resident Utah CCW as a backup in case my Colorado one was lost or my wallet was stolen or whatever. At the time, Colorado honored non-resident CCWs from other states. I was going to keep the Utah non-resident CCW in safe storage just in case.

But then the legislature decided it wasn't in the best interests of Colorado to honor non-resident CCWs from other states and passed a law about that.

The outcry from Colorado permittees was nonexistent. After all, who cared about it? It was, to my mind, another case of "I'm only concerned if it's specifically about one of mine or me," as TimSr put it.

Moral: You've got to fight against any abridgment of gun rights, regardless of whether it affects you personally or not.

Terry, 230RN

 

[Red Wind]

Isn't there at least one state (Arkansas ?) which requires that if an organization (like the Courts) restricts guns, it has to provide safe storage facilities for your gun while you're there? I seem to recall reading about that somewhere.

Pennsylvania has this rule:

Title 18 Section 913

e)
Facilities for checking firearms or
other dangerous weapons.
--
Each county shall make available at or
within the building containing a court facility by July 1, 2002, lockers or similar facilities at no charge or
cost for the temporary checking of firearms by persons carrying firearms under
section 6106(b) or 6109 or
for the checking of other dangerous weapons that are not otherwise prohibited by law. Any individual
checking a firearm, dangerous weapon or an item deemed to be a dangerous weapon at a court facility must
be issued a receipt.
Notice of the location of the facility shall be posted as required under subsection (d).

http://handgunlaw.us/states/pennsylvania.pdf

 

[Panzerschwein]

[QUOTEThere are a considerable number of entertainment industry liberals who have no problem justifying their guns and denying yours. ][/QUOTE]

Well said. "You can own a gun, but something has to change", just an oxymoron to say the least.