It is also about self defense for the private property owner as well. Do you believe that your own self defense is more important than that of the property owners? You are a free agent you can go where you want to go, but private property does not move, so it is you that chose to enter onto the private property. If you feel that it is dangerous on that piece of private property that you do not own, you can leave at will.I know a lot of folks take it as disrespect, that I'm shrugging off their private property rights, and I see where they're coming from....but it's not about disrespect.
It's about self defense.
Good point, they should carry a gun, too. IMO everyone should choose to, though no one should be forced either way.It is also about self defense for the private property owner as well.
I do not, that's why I don't try to infringe on their 2A rights.Do you believe that your own self defense is more important than that of the property owners?
You are a free agent you can go where you want to go, but private property does not move, so it is you that chose to enter onto the private property. If you feel that it is dangerous on that piece of private property that you do not own, you can leave at will.
Why do you even go to such dangerous places then whine about your safety there?
A Letter from Colonel L. Caudill USMC (Ret).
...When I carry a gun, I don't do so because I am looking for a fight, but because I'm looking to be left alone. The gun at my side means that I cannot be forced, only persuaded. I don't carry it because I'm afraid, but because it enables me to be unafraid. It doesn't limit the actions of those who would interact with me through reason, only the actions of those who would do so by force. It removes force from the equation--and that's why carrying a gun is a civilized act.
Why should we have to accommodate you when we do not even want you there, are you a special person with more rights than the property owner something?
Perhaps if you are working somewhere so dangerous that you need a gun for self defense you should call the authorities and get to the bottom of the threats that face you?
I can think of much more dangerous places than most work places where the danger of violence is possible. Yet people endure the danger because well you cannot go through life being afraid of everything. There are times and places for carry any type of weapon. I hardly go anywhere without at least a pocket knife. I leave my knife in the car when i go into my kids school. Not a problem weapons are available anywhere. You have to keep aware of your surroundings at all times. Position yourself in a room or building where you can do something if bad guys show up. Even if you have a gun it is no guarantee that you will not be harmed or killed.
So far this is the main message that you have been telling us: 'I have the right to bear arms and I am going to carry a gun anywhere I want too period end of discussion.
If you look that is what you have been saying. Which does not sound reasonable at all. Minus the gun control nuts we all want the right to bear arms, but if we run around making demands that insist the the right to bear arms is the highest right of them all we only look like fanatics and no one really believes that fanatics should be armed.
Life, Liberty and Property, unalienable Rights
That means that your right to bear arms while on my property is intruding on my Natural Rights because it is easy and rational to show that you intruded on my rights since you put yourself on my property by your own doing.
I invited you onto my land under o uncertain terms I demand that you follow those terms or leave. You can take your unadulterated person fully intact and unarmed off of my property. At this point your only argument are existing laws that IMO are against the Constitution. Which means IMO you have no argument you are just hiding behind unconstitutional laws. Which is why I do not like the NRA, time after time they have proven that they really are not looking after our freedom and our liberties since they choose to create their own laws that hedge our liberties.
Thanx for your opinion, but others do not see any wisdom in the assertion that America should return to the wild west. Should we bring back lynchings as well?Good point, they should carry a gun, too. IMO everyone should choose to, though no one should be forced either way.
perhaps not their 2nd Amendments rights but you willing intrude on their private property rights.I do not, that's why I don't try to infringe on their 2A rights.
It is your choice to be a carpenter, if you cannot follow the simple rules of the people requesting your services they will find other people to do the job. Its a free country you cant force people to be customers.I told you I'm a carpenter, right? The shop doesn't move, the office doesn't move, but the job sites move all the time.
This gentleman is very naive even delusional. Perhaps he is only around people that do not have guns. Or most likely he thinks that everyone is afraid of him because he has a gun. If he runs into someone else with a gun that thinks that they can kill him before he does then his little assertion of cold war philosophy goes right out the door. His gun versus several guns he is no better of than that 100 pound woman against that 220 pound thug. His gun vs an assault rifle in the right situation and hes dead. His gun vs a sneak attack from behind with a knife and hes dead. His gun and him not aiming well and he may possibly be dead. I can go on but you should already know this considering your military training.A Letter from Colonel L. Caudill USMC (Ret).
that isnt your decision. An employer may find reason to do something like banning you from being armed.An employer doesn't have to do anything to accommodate me. No access ramps, to automatic doors, no special parking, nothing.
You do not need armed protection 24/7 if you do then someone is after you and that is why i said seek help.Cops are to heavy to carry around all day.
No you havent, all they need is to be better than you to have a quicker draw or more guns than you do.I don't have to be afraid when I'm armed, because I've taken the bad guy's ability to apply force away from him.
How so? Should I piece together your posts and have it in your own words?Well I'm sorry you see it that way but your interpretation is quite inaccurate.
And if we disagree with that idea, what then? You will just not tell the property owner where you are working and carry anyways?It goes like this: Every citizen who can otherwise lawfully carry a firearm, should be able to do so in all places open to the public, and of employment, unless those places can produce a demonstratable need to maintain a gun-free zone.
Which is precisely why I want the right to keep whoever I want off my property.Life is the highest right of them all, because a dead man has no liberty.
You are not the only citizen with that right. And as I said location is everything. If you are putting yourself in a dangerous location then you are choosing to do so. You are not required to put yourself in dangerous situations you have the liberty to leave. But I own the property and must protect my property I cannot just leave and let you do whatever you want. So It is my choice to remove you as a threat to the safety of everyone on my property.Life is at the beginning of your list. Protecting that right is automatic because if someone takes your life away you have no liberty or property.
What part of you are on my property do you not understand? When I ask you to leave and you refuse to leave you have become a threat whether you have a gun or not. If I decide that it would be safer if you were not armed on my property that is my call not yours. The fact that you do not want to accept that simple request shows that you have a reason to carry a weapon on my property. I cannot assume for the safety of everyone that you do not intend to hurt someone with your weapon. I am making the decision for the same reasons that you claim the need to carry your weapon everywhere. Its called self defense. I can better defend myself and everyone on my property and my property is you are unarmed.I keep asking you folks to show real examples of how you're harmed (harm = infringement and it is harm you must demonstrate in court), but you never give those examples.
That would be a federal law telling individual states what they can and cannot do pertaining to their laws. Which just makes my point.Just wate until we get the National Reciprocity Act passed...we came close last year...then folks are gona stir for sure (link)
Thanx for your opinion, but others do not see any wisdom in the assertion that America should return to the wild west. Should we bring back lynchings as well?
perhaps not their 2nd Amendments rights but you willing intrude on their private property rights.
It is your choice to be a carpenter, if you cannot follow the simple rules of the people requesting your services they will find other people to do the job. Its a free country you cant force people to be customers.
This gentleman is very naive even delusional. Perhaps he is only around people that do not have guns. Or most likely he thinks that everyone is afraid of him because he has a gun. If he runs into someone else with a gun that thinks that they can kill him before he does then his little assertion of cold war philosophy goes right out the door. His gun versus several guns he is no better of than that 100 pound woman against that 220 pound thug. His gun vs an assault rifle in the right situation and hes dead. His gun vs a sneak attack from behind with a knife and hes dead. His gun and him not aiming well and he may possibly be dead. I can go on but you should already know this considering your military training.
In realty that link was useless and just proved my point about some gun owners being fanatics. Its those type of people that are drawing out the attacks by the gun control nuts. Hell you guys are just playing into their hands. If you guys keep doing things like that in a couple years we will be debating about how the new laws dont allow us to keep guns in our houses.
that isnt your decision. An employer may find reason to do something like banning you from being armed.
You do not need armed protection 24/7 if you do then someone is after you and that is why i said seek help.
No you havent, all they need is to be better than you to have a quicker draw or more guns than you do.
How so? Should I piece together your posts and have it in your own words?
And if we disagree with that idea, what then? You will just not tell the property owner where you are working and carry anyways?
Which is precisely why I want the right to keep whoever I want off my property.
You are not the only citizen with that right. And as I said location is everything. If you are putting yourself in a dangerous location then you are choosing to do so. You are not required to put yourself in dangerous situations you have the liberty to leave. But I own the property and must protect my property I cannot just leave and let you do whatever you want. So It is my choice to remove you as a threat to the safety of everyone on my property.
What part of you are on my property do you not understand? When I ask you to leave and you refuse to leave you have become a threat whether you have a gun or not. If I decide that it would be safer if you were not armed on my property that is my call not yours. The fact that you do not want to accept that simple request shows that you have a reason to carry a weapon on my property. I cannot assume for the safety of everyone that you do not intend to hurt someone with your weapon. I am making the decision for the same reasons that you claim the need to carry your weapon everywhere. Its called self defense. I can better defend myself and everyone on my property and my property is you are unarmed.
To barrow from your link I am making things equal. Sure I have guns but I do not always carry them on myself while I am at home or at work. This is not the lord of the flies this is the real world where adults do not control by force. In fact you are more likely during a day to run into rational or at least half rational humans more than those that use force. Adults have to access a situation and decide whether there is a threat or not. You cannot go through life assuming that everyone is a threat, so therefor I am not armed 24/7 so when you are on my property carry a gun you have made the tables unequal; for me. I request that you make things equal and that you need not carry your gun on my property. You can park just off of my property and carry as much weapons as you desire I dont care because by the time you go get them I will have mine.
That would be a federal law telling individual states what they can and cannot do pertaining to their laws. Which just makes my point.
I do not agree with states not respecting the laws and rules of other states by I far more hate the Federal Government forcing states to do things that they do not agree with. It would be better for the NRA to lobby each state and try to get them to agree as some states have.
I don't understand what you're need is.What part of you are on my property do you not understand?
That would be a federal law telling individual states what they can and cannot do pertaining to their laws. Which just makes my point.
And marriage licenses, which is why pro-ssm is pressing for reciprocity of same-sex marriage.Reciprocity is a constitutional matter. States have to recognize each others drivers licences contracts ect. Same theoretically with carry law.
Once you open your property to the public, or hire an employee, in order to infringe on a specifically enumerated constitutional, or basic human right, the laws allowing your choice must meet Strict Scrutiny standards. This means you must have a specific, demonstratable need.
Just because I hired someone does not mean that I opened my property up to the public. It means that I agreed that those workers can come on my property under conditions that I set.I don't understand what you're need is.
You opened your property to the public. You hired employees. That means you surrendered a level of privacy. You chose to open your property, you can choose to reclose it at any time.
Once you open your property to the public, or hire an employee, in order to infringe on a specifically enumerated constitutional, or basic human right, the laws allowing your choice must meet Strict Scrutiny standards. This means you must have a specific, demonstratable need.
Gun violence statistics indicate that with a gun on my property uncontrolled by me that there is a danger to the defense of the property. You say that you have military training, right? Well how many foreign weapons do you allow inside the perimeter of a military base? In order to secure my property I have decided that I can not allow people that I do not trust to carry weapons on my property. Mind you that I do allow some people to carry weapons. Hell sometimes Tom a college student that I have been training to carve wood/rock when we get bored we shoot targets. That is because I trust him enough to allow him to bring his AR15 on my property. Which is cool since I do not own a AR15. I would love to take it hunting.When I've discussed this issue before, some pro-property folks spoke up with real examples of demonstratable needs, such as above-ground fuel tanks. Discharge of a firearm could puncture the tank and cause damage to it and the surrounding structures. One could even go into the types of fuel tanks and fuel, building code for such tanks, and research actual fires caused by ruptured tanks. That is an example of a demonstratable need.
I don't understand why you won't just say what your need is, link to your source material proving it true, so we can move on.
So again I ask, what is your need?
True. But states have the right to make laws that adhere to the Constitution. Federal laws that force states to comply to something that they didnt want to and was well within the states right to not comply with under the Constitution are wrong.The federal law has the authority to regulate specifically enumerated constitutional rights, as per the 10th Amendment. Further, the federal government has the duty to protect specifically enumerated rights against States who would infringe upon them, such as a hand-gun ban or racial segregation in privately owned school.
My need as I have stated all along is my right to defend my property from threats. Not all legal gun owners with whatever license and permits are trust worthy. A good example would be every crime involving a gun where the gun was legally obtained and owned.So, what is your need? What material damage, with a dollar value, would you or could you suffer if lawful carry were protected? How does it harm you in any way? I thank you in advance for linking to your source material.
****
If you just don't like guns or are paranoid, that's to bad, because that's not good enough. Keep to that argument and this will be forced on you like taxes.
Currently IL is the only state which denies concealed carry. Open carry only. They've been forced to progress a long way, since the Heller ruling, and they're being worked on, but until they allow concealed carry I think you're right, open carry only.The problem with applying the full faith and credit clause to CCW permits is that a CCW permit only allows people to carry within the state that it is issued, as per that state's laws.
If a state allows it's residents to carry concealed, they should have to recognize another state's license. But if a state doesn't allow anyone to do so, they have to apply that law equally even to those who have CCW's from other states.
To explain, if a state didn't issue driver's licenses at all, and banned driving within their borders, they would not necessarily be compelled to make an exception for those who wish to drive in their state using out of state licenses.
The marriage issue is slightly different, because the way that the laws apply are a little different. Getting a marriage license in one state would not force another state to perform the marriage. Marriage is an existing inherent state rather than an activity.
Currently IL is the only state which denies concealed carry. Open carry only. They've been forced to progress a long way, since the Heller ruling, and they're being worked on, but until they allow concealed carry I think you're right, open carry only.
Handgunlaw.us
Gun violence statistics indicate that with a gun on my property uncontrolled by me that there is a danger to the defense of the property.
Please link to the statistics you referred to.You say that you have military training, right? Well how many foreign weapons do you allow inside the perimeter of a military base?
Please link to the statistics you referred to.I have the right to defend myself and my property from possible harm.
Reciprocity is a constitutional matter. States have to recognize each others drivers licences contracts ect. Same theoretically with carry law.
But hunting and fishing license do not carry over to other States. Non-residents must obtain a non-resident license to hunt or fish.
Wouldn't it be funny if after this reciprocity law passes, you buy a very small piece of cheap property in, say, Iowa, so you could get an IA resident carry permit, and then use that IA permit to carry in IL?The progress isn't as much as you'd think. I'd still have to jump through a million and a half hoops to legally own a handgun in my own home since I live in Chicago. Ironically, I could probably get a gun illegally in only a couple of hours without ever leaving the city almost as easily as I could legally purchase a gun in a gun friendly state.
The laws here are a ****ing joke and most people I know around here agree that they are absurd.
But hunting and fishing license do not carry over to other States. Non-residents must obtain a non-resident license to hunt or fish.
Not all laws are mutual between the States.
Wouldn't it be funny if after this reciprocity law passes, you buy a very small piece of cheap property in, say, Iowa, so you could get an IA resident carry permit, and then use that IA permit to carry in IL?
I don't understand what you're need is.
You opened your property to the public. You hired employees. That means you surrendered a level of privacy. You chose to open your property, you can choose to reclose it at any time.
Once you open your property to the public, or hire an employee, in order to infringe on a specifically enumerated constitutional, or basic human right, the laws allowing your choice must meet Strict Scrutiny standards. This means you must have a specific, demonstratable need.
When I've discussed this issue before, some pro-property folks spoke up with real examples of demonstratable needs, such as above-ground fuel tanks. Discharge of a firearm could puncture the tank and cause damage to it and the surrounding structures. One could even go into the types of fuel tanks and fuel, building code for such tanks, and research actual fires caused by ruptured tanks. That is an example of a demonstratable need.
I don't understand why you won't just say what your need is, link to your source material proving it true, so we can move on.
So again I ask, what is your need?
The federal law has the authority to regulate specifically enumerated constitutional rights, as per the 10th Amendment. Further, the federal government has the duty to protect specifically enumerated rights against States who would infringe upon them, such as a hand-gun ban or racial segregation in privately owned school.
So, what is your need? What material damage, with a dollar value, would you or could you suffer if lawful carry were protected? How does it harm you in any way? I thank you in advance for linking to your source material.
****
If you just don't like guns or are paranoid, that's to bad, because that's not good enough. Keep to that argument and this will be forced on you like taxes.
But hunting and fishing license do not carry over to other States. Non-residents must obtain a non-resident license to hunt or fish.
Not all laws are mutual between the States.
According to SCOTUS "Strict Scrutiny", need overrides preference every time. Pro-carry can demonstrate a need, so pro-property has to counter with a demonstratable need of their own, or pro-property will not win. When both sides have a demonstratable need, that's when they're on equal footing, and that's when the property owner's preference will rule. Which ever side does not have a need, loses.Its not a matter of need Jerry. Its matter of control, rights, domain and sovereignty. Need is not a factor.
Here these gun control nuts made a page for you: VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry KillersPlease link to these statistics.
Please link to the statistics you referred to.
MyBaseGuide.com | MILITARY | KITSAP | Rules & Regulations47 countries. Any uniformed ISAF force can carry a loaded weapon on any ISAF installation. All bases are ISAF. Even when Americans operate and control a base, it's still not an 'American base', it's an ISAF base.
Bases in the US are war zones?Now back to private property within the US, not international war zones.
Gun violence in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaPlease link to the s statistics you referred to.
Since CCW carriers are the least likely to commit any crime (and are generally better shots then LEOs) you shouldn't have any objection.
Well if so and so shows up at work and shoots everyone... Or perhaps old Hank was a little hung over and dropped his gun right out of the holster oops forgot to snap it in.***
I ask again, how are you materially damaged?
That's because hunting and fishing licenses are geographically limited, even within the states where they are issued. A hunting license in Illinois doesn't allow me to shoot deer in a Cook County forest preserve, for example.
FindLaw | Cases and Codes
Justice Thomas, concurring.
The Court today properly holds that the Brady Act violates the Tenth Amendment in that it compels state law enforcement officers to "administer or enforce a federal regulatory program." See ante, at 25. Although I join the Court's opinion in full, I write separately to emphasize that the Tenth Amendment affirms the undeniable notion that under our Constitution, the Federal Government is one of enumerated, hence limited, powers. See, e.g., McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 405 (1819) ("This government is acknowledged by all to be one of enumerated powers"). "[T]hat those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 176 (1803). Accordingly, the Federal Government may act only where the Constitution authorizes it to do so. Cf. New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144 (1992).
From your link: Because detailed information on such killings is not readily available, the VPC is forced to rely primarily on news accounts for reports of such killings and subsequent legal proceedings.Here these gun control nuts made a page for you: VPC - The Violence Policy Center - Concealed Carry Killers
Naval Base Kitsap
I am sure at this point you will again point out that statically speaking the numbers are low.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?