According to Fox News, Florida Governor Charlie Crist recently signed a bill allowing gun owners to keep their [licensed] firearms in their car– even if their employers previously banned firearms from their property. There are exemptions: schools, prisons, nuclear power plants, military facilities and buildings that store explosives. Boca Raton Democrat Ted Deutch wasn't happy with the new law. "This is an attempt to trample upon the property rights of property owners and attempt to make it more difficult to protect the workers in a workplace and those who visit our retail establishments." Columnist Neil Boortz (Somebody's Got to Say it!) rejects the notion. "I’m sorry, but the individual right to self defense trumps private property rights." Agreed? And if you're a licensed gun owner who exercises proper gun safety, is their anything inherently wrong with keeping a gun in your car?
Find Reviews by Make:
Read all comments
Let’s see… Fox News, Guns, Property Rights, Guns, Democrats, Guns, Bans, Guns, and oh yeah… cars.
Runs for cover as the standard Internet gun flame war erupts.
(Shouting from my bunker) “You guys let me know when the smoke clears and we start bantering about cars again, OK?”
(bangs the heavy steel door shut… flips on the DVD of “Le Mans”… settles into a comfy chair for the duration)
–chuck
http://chuck.goolsbee.org
An issue would be: Will the bad guys be more likely to steal cars knowing there might be a gun in there free for the taking? Also there’s the obvious issue, what happens when road rage occurs?
is their anything inherently wrong with keeping a gun in your car?
Other than the extremely high odds of it getting stolen? No.
The sad part is that even though you have it with you, you can’t use it on the moronic slowest common denominators on the road… grin…
If you’re not using your gun, it should be kept in a gun safe…
maybe there’s an opportunity for the Silverado HD or F250 gun edition, including a tamper proof safe. Large enough for your hunting party of 5
I’d say no. If you’re a licensed gun owner who exercises proper gun safety, there is nothing inherently wrong with keeping a gun in your car.
I’ve never been able to come up with a stance on gun rights. Sometime the anti-gun people make sense and sometimes the pro-guns guys make sense so who knows who is really right. Either way, though, back in the day people had guns in their cars, did they not?
Also, my older brother owns some sorta pistol that he bought in college and I know that for a while he kept it in one of his cars that he kept off base (he ‘s a military man and personal firearms are not allowed on military installations where he lived at the time). As far as I know it never got stolen and he’s never shot anything but paper targets with it.
If you’re a licensed CCW, you should be able to keep it on your person, not leave it in your car. That would eliminate the likelihood of it being stolen with your car.
I was the victim of a road rage attack. If my experience is anything to go by, drawing a gun on these people is nuts. They’re super-humanly strong, lightning fast and insensitive to external threats. Shooting them would just get them riled.
Unless you’re at some special risk (diamond courier, kidnap threat, recently divorced, etc.), I don’t see the point.
P.S. I’ve always operated under the philosophy that a knife is more effective within ten feet than a gun. It’s also easier and a LOT safer to carry.
I’ve always operated under the philosophy that a knife is more effective within ten feet than a gun.
LOL… What’s that old joke about bringing a knife to a gun fight?
With all the road rage incidents that keep cropping up, I’m inclined to say no (even as a gun owner).
Lets face it – even with all the training in the world a hot head is still a hot head and likely to pull the trigger before thinking.
Personally I’d like property rights to trump self defense in this case. Much like you can post your land not to be hunted upon I don’t see why you can’t post your parking lot not to have firearms on it. I’m not sure how having a gun in your car is a boon for self defense. Are you going to run out to your car if you’re in a life threatening situation at work?
I don’t really see the point of posting a parking lot as a gun free zone. The only way to enforce it is to have a checkpoint and a guard searching each car. In reality, a gun could be in the glovebox, in a console storage compartment, in a map pocket, under the seat……
Cars almost never shoot anybody, so who cars if there is a gun under the seat while the car is parked?
I’d like property rights to trump self defense in this case. Much like you can post your land not to be hunted upon I don’t see why you can’t post your parking lot not to have firearms on it.
Two completely different scenarios. You can post your PRIVATE land as no hunting. A PUBLIC parking lot is subject to the constitutional right to bear (i.e. cart around with you) arms.
Furthermore, I suspect that the majority of people opposed to guns in cars, are exactly the same group that is opposed to the constitutional right to own guns in the first place…
I don’t own a handgun because I’ve never felt the need, but own more than one shotgun for varmints and bumps in the night. That being said, my first visit to Miami Florida for a week visiting an ex galfriend made me realize I would buy a handgun in a heartbeat if I had to live in that area. Down there, it isn’t bad areas you should’ve know to stay out of that are dangerous, or being out past dark; danger is essentially everywhere, at any time of day. I took my brother’s 740 down, and was almost the victim of “stopping short” 2 times… maybe the outta state plates? I know it wasn’t the prestige of a 8-year-old BMW because I saw more exotics there than I had my previous life combined.
About 6 months after I visited her, she had her Katana 750 bikejacked… Miss Green Party bought a .38 within a week. I’d like to think if you could collect your nerves, you could pull a gun out of your riding jacket and at least get a few clear shots of the back of that guys head, or at least the accomplice. Probably not, but it’s nice to think the possibility might exist.
I really don’t have an issue with guns being kept in cars as long as it’s a reasonably sane person. I do have concerns with the ammunition being kept in the car all day in the south Florida sun, or anywhere hot for that matter. Tinted windows with a window cracked, go for it.
Not being a lawyer this comment fascinated me:
You can post your PRIVATE land as no hunting. A PUBLIC parking lot is subject to the constitutional right to bear (i.e. cart around with you) arms.
So, is a restricted use parking lot really a public space? If it is only for employees I would have thought it wouldn’t be.
So, is a restricted use parking lot really a public space?
Good question. By “parking lot” I was thinking more of a grocery store parking lot… i.e. made for the public. On the other hand, can an employer rule overide a constitutional right? I would argue pretty strongly that the answer is no. Of course they CAN terminate my employment… and that’s fair.
A knife being more effective at under 10 feet? I’d like some of what you’re snorting there… Just pointing a pistol at a goon will stop him cold. It’s amazing how immediately sobering having a gun barrel pointed towards you can be… more attacks are averted without a shot being fired than with.
Now about the question of stopping power in the event the trigger must be pulled. Heard of the “Judge” Taurus .45/410 Revolver? It chambers .410 shotgun shells in addition to .45 Colt cartridges. Perfect for obliterating any road rager rhino-charging towards you. Nothing can stop them?
Better to be judged by twelve than carried by six, I always say…
More about the Judge: http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?id=201&category=Revolver
I keep a gun in my car all the time. No one (except everyone on TTAC now) knows about it. My employer doesn’t allow guns on the premises, but I say he’s also not allowed to search my car. But I really don’t think it matters: Colorado treats your car as your house. I’m allowed to carry the gun concealed without a license in my car (except in Denver, somehow they get to trump state law – doesn’t make sense to me).
This is a dead horse issue.
If I were in the suburbs or the nicer parts of the city, my answer would be ‘Hell No!”
If I were in a place where the beginning of hunting season is a cause for town-wide celebration, I would say absolutely. The same would also go in a place where car jacking is a concern.
The problem I have with the pervasiveness of guns is that we’re largely in a society that doesn’t understand the basic needs for mutual respect. It’s the ‘I, Me, Mine’ society that makes this type of proposition a dangerous one… and it doesn’t need to be that way.
But that’s a subject for another rant…
wow, gun owners can carry their guns in there car, prepare to hear alot of roadway/highway shooting. The way people drive in Florida, pretty interesting to see what will happen.
Wow, Robert Farago must have pissed off superman:
I was the victim of a road rage attack. If my experience is anything to go by, drawing a gun on these people is nuts. They’re super-humanly strong, lightning fast and insensitive to external threats. Shooting them would just get them riled.
I think if you are decent human being there is nothing wrong with it. In the 35+ shall issue states it is perfectly legal to carry a firearm in your car or on your person. The number of crimes committed by legally armed citizens is negligible. The belief that this will lead to OK Corral style shootouts has been disproven since the first “shall issue” laws took effect in the ’80s. The notion that “some hothead” will shoot someone due to road rage is psychological projection.
Beetlebug-
Is a Woolworths dining counter a public place? It’s on private property.
I’ve known two people that kept (or keep) guns in their car.
One had his gun stolen from his car.
The other broke up a robbery and help the perps at gunpoint until the police showed up.
That said, I don’t see anything wrong with adults having guns. Especially as it is one of our rights.
Several times a year I go to the local firing range to check the adjustments on my varmint rifle. I’m always impressed with how level headed and friendly people at a range chock full of weapons are.
I don’t see why if a person is going deer hunting after work they shouldn’t be able to have their rifle locked in the trunk out of sight whilst they do their job.
No, I don’t think keeping a loaded handgun in the glove box is a smart idea.
BTW, the only thing “gun free” zones ensure is that the honest law abiding people will be unarmed.
One final thought: The police consider apprehending criminals after the fact to be their primary job. Stopping crimes before they happen is not really in the job description.
Employers can trump individuals constitutional rights, it happens all the time. I’m bound by contract to not say certain things about my employers, we sign non-disclosure agreements, and other such documents all of which “infringe” on free speech. I worked a company that did not hire smokers, period. You couldn’t even smoke at home, and be employed.
And the comments about using a knife within 10 feet has a lot of truth to it. I believe that most police train to treat anyone holding a knife within 20 feet to be a direct threat, as closing that gap can happen quickly.
This reminds me of the scene in “LA Story” where they are shooting it out on the freeway.
Charlie Crist just made Florida roads more exciting. What’s the use of having a gun if it’s at home when someone pisses you off on the highway?
I’m not the only one on this site who complains (from time to time) about the seeming incompetence of many people operating motor vehicles, and that the driver education leaves a lot to be desired in the good ol’ USA.
Apply the same logic to guns, and letter rip…
Oh yeah! More guns! Everywhere!
Sounds like a good solution…
There is almost no gun debate in Australia. Only the police and a few others are allowed to carry hand guns (although newspaper reports lead me to suspect that the only reason some security guards carry guns is to have them stolen by criminals).
I always thought that if law abiding citizens were not allowed to carry guns then only criminals would carry them – and you would know who the criminals are.
Resolving any sort of angry confrontation by trying to have more weapon power than the other guy seems to me like not a good idea. It seems more likely to go wrong than go right. Give them the money and ask nicely to be let go and run away whenever you can may not be good for your machismo – but I believe is likely to be safer in most cases. And hopefully everyone goes round a little less angry.
A quick check on the net gave me the following:
2005 – homicides in the USA about 5.5 per 100,000. In Australia, about 1.3 per 100,000.
But what would I know? They’re different countries with different people. I don’t live where you guys live. We don’t have all the handguns floating around already. There is no right here to bear arms… etc. etc. But you should know – other people see it differently from you and make it work.
I think everybody should take an assault rifle with them to the supermarket parking lot because if reduces the chance of someone taking that parking spot that you have been patiently waiting for.
But seriously – people are very excitable and emotional creatures and mixing guns with the inherently infuriating activity of urban driving is asking for trouble. While I agree that in some rare situations a gun may help, the chances of getting yourself killed because of it are much greater. The feeling of strength and safety that some folks get from a gun is mostly an illusion.
keep beeping-i’m reloading !!
Guns don’t kill people, people kill people.
But the Americans who do the killing usually have guns. Two-thirds of the murders committed in the US are committed with the use of firearms.
Guns clearly make it much easier for people to kill each other. The convenience factor obviously plays a role in the murder rate; we’ve got the bodies to prove it. I’m trying to figure out how this is a good thing, but so far, I’m not seeing it.
The Second Amendment was intended to ensure the ability to form a militia, not to defend some dufus’ “right” to provide suppressing fire while making a lane change (without a turn signal, of course — this is Florida that we’re talking about here.) Unless you are expecting the US to be invaded as you drive to Home Depot, you do not have a constitutional right to carry a loaded weapon in the passenger area of your car.
The new Florida law is a compromise between the rights of the employer and the rights of the worker. The employer can still prohibit carrying at work, but he can’t create conditions that make it impractical to carry legally to and from work. Of course, since it’s a compromise, hard heads on both sides of the issue will be outraged.
I could never carry a gun in my car because I would be shooting people right and left.
Car break-ins will skyrocket…
Furthermore, I suspect that the majority of people opposed to guns in cars, are exactly the same group that is opposed to the constitutional right to own guns in the first place……
I don’t agree with that statement at all. I have NO problem with gun ownership – I am an owner but I do have a problem with guns in cars for the following reasons. Road rage in populated areas is not something that can be take lightly. Maybe you won’t be shot, but tire being blown out seems likely. Parking lot arguments being decided by who pulls out their gun first? No thanks. Also, if people think there is a good chance that there is a gun in a car, break-ins are likely to increase. Also, what about vehicle fires? Fire fighters automatically know to cool a fuel tank, but bullets inside a burning car? I think the bad points of this far outweigh the instances where a firearm might be helpful.
As for constitutional rights, we could get into how many have been trampled on in the last 7 years…rights that IMHO are more important than carrying a gun in you car..you know stuff like the Bill of Rights, wire tapping, torture, illegal search and seizure…
I think it’s a good thing, my gun goes everywhere in my car with me, and not necessarily for use while I’m gone, but on the possibility that I may need it when I get home. As we live outside of city limits on some land, I’m in charge of my own safety. It’s a long 15 mile drive to the nearest sheriff’s station, and I’d hate to think of what might happen if I came home to someone in my house, so I’ve prepared for that. Although this is the case, I have drawn my gun once in self defense at a gas station. Fortunately, no shots were fired…just having it was enough.
One other thought on this matter; most states with a concealed carry law allow carry in cars. Several allow carry without a permit altogether (VT, AK), while others allow carry in vehicles without a permit (TX, CO). As far as I know, these states don’t have a bigger road rage problem than others.
Rules,laws, bans, mean nothing,squat,zip to criminals.
Here in Canada we have the toughest gun laws in North America.However we have a weak and spineless justice system.
Hand guns are almost illegal,theres some on the loony left that would have them completly banned.
Having said that,if I was to go out this afternoon and give the wrong person the finger,I risk getting my head blown off.Cause here in Canada, gangs ,drug dealers and pimps have all the hand guns.
In the USA the gun laws are completly different,but the American justice system is hell of lot tougher.Whose to say,one system is better than the other?If you get shot with a legal or illegal gun,your just as dead eh?
History has proven that bans on alcohol,gambling, and guns don’t work.
I do not own or use,or have anything to do with handguns or rifles or anything that uses bullets.
I do believe however that taking firearms from law abiding citizens and putting them in the hands of criminals,is a recipe for disaster.
Also, what about vehicle fires? Fire fighters automatically know to cool a fuel tank, but bullets inside a burning car? Cartridges obey Newton’s second law of motion. If not actually loaded in the chamber, they’re not going to pose much danger. For the one bullet possibly in the chamber, it would have to heat up enough to ignite it. I’m sure that’s a possibility given enough time, but the entire gun would have to reach that point (as it’s going to act as a heat sink).
Carguy gets my excellent logic award for this:
But seriously – people are very excitable and emotional creatures and mixing guns with the inherently infuriating activity of urban driving is asking for trouble. While I agree that in some rare situations a gun may help, the chances of getting yourself killed because of it are much greater. The feeling of strength and safety that some folks get from a gun is mostly an illusion.
I think this Florida law makes for amusing discussion fodder, but it is largely a minor detail in the overall conundrum of what role guns should have in our society.
Two interesting lenses on the issue (ironically, from Michael Moore’s “Bowling for Columbine”):
1) It’s not guns, it’s the violence. Windsor, Ontario lies a half-mile from Detriot, MI. Canada has per-capita gun ownership similar to the United States. Yet incidences of gun violence in Windsor are a small fraction of what they are in Detroit. We need to figure out that difference, not fret about people leaving guns in their cars.
2) Is owning a gun a rational response to the real threats to one’s health and safety? Moore interviewed USC professor Barry Glassner, who has written a book about what Americans fear:
http://www.amazon.com/Culture-Fear-Americans-Afraid-Things/dp/0465014909
The interview took place at the corner of Florence and Normandie, where truck driver Reginald Denny was assaulted during the Rodney King riots. As dramatic as that incident was, Glassner pointed out that statistically one was more likely to die from the ambient smog at Florence and Normandie than the ambient violent crime.
Will owning a gun save your grandmother from dying during a heat wave while the energy traders at Enron manipulate the electricity market so that she can’t afford to run her air conditioner?
As I stated in my first post, I’m a gun owner but no way in hell do I think it’s a good idea to make it legal in a vehicle except for transporting them unloaded in the trunk where they pose no immediate danger.
For all those that want to be vigilantes, what are you going to do when you start a gun fight with another armed person and the police show up and take you both out? Was it worth it then?
You want to pop someone in the back as they flee with your bike, car, etc? Well, have fun in prison. Your gun did nothing but take your life away for a number of years or more.
Cars cause problems, guns solve problems, seems like a perfect combo to me.
Wow Orian, that’s quite a leap in logic there. I suppose you believe that gun owners who want to carry are all cowboys bent on vigilante justice. Based on your assumptions on human nature, I suppose I can see where your point comes from. However, that’s just not the case in most situations. Most gun owners are normal law abiding citizens, just like you. Not rabid, violence seeking nutjobs with glowing red eyes and foam dripping from their mouths. Some people feel the need to carry for protection, maybe their situation is vastly different from yours. Why should they have to prove to you and the government that they need to if they haven’t proven to be a problem in the past?
It’s pretty hard to kill someone with a gun. You’d have to beat their head pretty hard with it.
What we need is bullet control :)
Chuck! Chuck! Open the shelter door and let me in! Everybody is lobbing the same old arguments just so TTAC can rack up page views! You gotta let me in! Chuck, stop the movie and open the door!
Carzzi said, “Heard of the “Judge” Taurus .45/410 Revolver?”
Man, that is one cool intimidating-looking handgun! No wonder the ad copy says “The “Taurus Judge® ” is so named because of the number of judges who carry it into the courtroom for their protection.” It’s what I’d want if I were on the bench. Wait–does a judge have to be a member of an organized militia to have a gun?
Do we get to take away all of the Taurus Judges from all of the Judges when the Supreme Court of the United States outlaws handguns (via the evisceration of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution) in their upcoming decision?
Oh, sorry, I forgot. The elite are SPECIAL. THEY will get to KEEP their guns.
It’s just the rest of the population they’re going to throw under the bus.
‘coz guess what? Amazingly enough, as Canada, Britain and Australia found when they more-or-less confiscated and destroyed all the guns owned by law-abiding citizens? The CRIMINALS DIDN’T OBEY THOSE LAWS, EITHER. Ain’t that just amazing?
Only loonie lefties think the criminals will turn in their guns and most of them are ex-hippy drug addicts (counting pot as a drug – which it is).
guns in general, as opposed to the issue of guns in cars, is pretty complicated. The opinion which goes with most of the other political opinions I hold is that guns should be banned. However, I know one woman who would have at least been raped and/or robbed had she not had a gun in her apartment when some guy showed up to do mischief. The guy fled when he saw the gun. And I know the pro-gun people say there are serious flaws in the studies backing up the notion of gun bans. But I haven’t delved into this one.
# menno :
April 20th, 2008 at 7:46 pm
‘coz guess what? Amazingly enough, as Canada, Britain and Australia found when they more-or-less confiscated and destroyed all the guns owned by law-abiding citizens? The CRIMINALS DIDN’T OBEY THOSE LAWS, EITHER. Ain’t that just amazing?
Well I can’t speak for Canada and Britain but here in Australia they didn’t confiscate and destroy all the guns owned by law-abiding citizens. Hand guns have always had very limited availability in Australia. In the last ten years there has been
a comprehensive gun “buy back” scheme to try and remove guns from the community that people don’t really want. There has also been increasing restrictions on gun ownership especially certain types of guns (assault rifles for example). Machine guns are completely outlawed.
There is no doubt that some criminals have guns and that the community would rather they didn’t. However, there is no evidence that I have seen which suggests that public opinion is that the citizenry should be able to be armed to protect itself against those criminals. I think that general public opinion is strongly in the other direction – that putting guns back into the community would have a substantial negative effect on the safety of the community generally (although no doubt there would be occasions when an individual could protect themselves by having a gun).
But as I said in my earlier post – here (Oz) is not there (the US).
Wow from half the comments on this post you would think that all people with permits carrying in their cars were gunning down people left and right every day. Funny I carry and riding my bike I have people running me down and trying to kill me with their 2 ton SUVs at least twice a day, yet I haven’t killed anyone or even thought to go for my gun in any of the situations, why BECAUSE IT IS ILLEGAL to even brandish your firearm in a non life threatening situation. Sure I have yelled and flipped birds.
The funny thing about the concealed carry laws is that your gun has to be concealed, meaning no one can see it and no one knows you have it. Same goes for cars, unless your an idiot leaving it on the seat, again illegal in most states, so no criminals know the car has a gun in it because no one knows that person even carries a gun. The criminals are just going to steal the cars for the cars, not because of the off chance it might have a gun in it. I wonder how many of you have met people or worked along side them for years and had not a single clue they had a gun on them, because they weren’t some stereo typical raving lunatic gun owner.
Every law abiding gun owner or permit carrier wishes to God they will never have to use their gun, they are not blood thirsty like you think. But they know if the sh*t hits the fan and they need it it’s there to protect them, their loved ones and any innocent people that may be around at the time. I guarantee everyone wishing for gun bans would change their tune when they were stuck in that classroom, restaurant, mall while some lunatic is killing people for who knows what reason, unfortunately when you can’t defend yourself you just become a target.
I bet criminals vote for “Gun Free Zones” also, they love’em, no one to shoot back.
The Second Amendment was intended to ensure the ability to form a militia…
No, it was intended to protect the individual right of people to bear arms. Read some the the founders’ other writings.
I’m with chuckgoolsbee on this one!
[Knocks on chuckgoolsbee heavy steel door: “have room for one more? I brought some pizza and beer for the movie”]
Do we get to take away all of the Taurus Judges from all of the Judges when the Supreme Court of the United States outlaws handguns (via the evisceration of the 2nd Amendment of the Constitution) in their upcoming decision?
I see no reason to think the decission in the Heller case will result in “outlawing” handguns.
But as I said in my earlier post – here (Oz) is not there (the US).
We might feel the same way if we hadn’t already let the Genie out of the bottle. There are at least 200 million guns here.
Dynamic88 :
We might feel the same way if we hadn’t already let the Genie out of the bottle. There are at least 200 million guns here.
My point exactly. The number of guns in the community and the near impossibility of very substantially reducing that number is one of the reasons why what works in Australia may not work in the USA.
The Second Amendment was intended to ensure the ability to form a militia, not to defend some dufus’ “right” to provide supressing fire during a lane change
Well, actaully, it was. As the supreme court will rule, the 2nd amendment affirms the rights of individuals (as written, “the people”) to bear arms and further states that that prexisting right “shall not be infringed.” Writings surrounding this affirmation indicate that arms were used for hunting and protection of family and property. I’m assuming that this law didn’t open exceptions to bearing arms while using modes of transportation of the day.
Certainly, the court will rule correctly, but will leave room for some states to regulate, as such florida’s law will hold. but the right to bear arms was primarly an individual right for prosperity and protection.
As with all gun laws, it’s success will depend on the people who bear the arms, and not the instruments themselves. But I see no reason to prevent law abiding citizens from exercising their pre-exisiting affirmed right to bear arms.
Can we go back to talking about cars?
Guns and cars may not mix – except in Quentin Tarantino movies – but they share something in common.
Namely, that there are people who don’t like them, and will thus propose laws and regulations designed to either ban them (guns) or make ownership much more onerous (cars and guns).
Unfortunately, such measures are usually based more on emotion than on fact.
It’s not going to affect the crime rate one way or another if people are allowed to keep guns in their vehicles while it is sitting in their employer’s parking lot. Just as it really doesn’t matter if people drive at 80 mph, as opposed to 65 mph, on a limited access highway.
Another “cars and guns” story appeared in the local paper. A local columnist wrote about an 18-year-old high school student who is facing prison time because, when he was pulled over for a traffic violation, crack cocaine and a loaded handgun were found in the car. Because of the gun violation, he is now facing a mandatory prison sentence.
The district attorney, who has been under pressure to reduce the murders of black and Hispanic males – which are always committed by OTHER black and Hispanic males – has offered to cut a deal with this young man if he tells where he got the gun and drugs. The young man has refused – with the support of his grandmother, and his mother, who is in Iraq. Grandma blames all of this on…the War in Iraq, because if only mother were here, he never would have gotten into trouble.
The local columnist is, of course, on the young man’s side, and wonders why the mean, old district attorney won’t cut him slack, and why the nasty state government put those mandatory sentences for gun violations in place.
But in other columns, she decries the high murder rate of young minority males, and wonders why anyone “needs” a gun.
Newsflash – those young men were murdered by OTHER minority males, not law-abiding suburban or rural gun owners, not NRA members, and not even renegade members of the Ku Klux Klan or Aryan Nations.
We can attempt to ban hand guns, but given that most of these homicides are connected to the trade of already banned substances – i.e., drugs – the idea that the offenders will obey gun bans is ludicrous. It’s also difficult to see how banning gun ownership among law-abidinng citizens, who want a gun for self-defense, target shooting or even a gun collection, will solve this problem.
Somehow, those in favor of either banning guns or making ownership incredibly difficult miss this part of the equation.
Their stance makes me less sympathetic to ANY attempt to regulate where people can carry guns, even though in my gut, as a person who believes in the Constitutional right for individuals to own guns, I believe that employers have the right to dictate what is carried on to their property.
After all, I believe in free speech, but, when I worked for Sprint, I believed that the company was within its rights to fire me for telling co-workers to switch to AT&T.
‘Boca Raton Democrat Ted Deutch wasn’t happy with the new law. “This is an attempt to trample upon the property rights of property owners and attempt to make it more difficult to protect the workers in a workplace and those who visit our retail establishments.” ‘
This is the only time you will see Deutch or any other democrat in the FL legislature concerned about the property rights of business owners, other than wanting to confiscate said property.
the right to bear arms was primarly an individual right for prosperity and protection.
The Second Amendment says: “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” (Some versions include commas after the words “Militia” and “Arms.”)
The purposes of the Second Amendment were to provide for a civilian army (standing armies were seen as mercenary and anti-democratic) and to give the people the ability to overthrow the government if it became tyrannical, as was advocated in the Declaration of Independence.
The expression “to bear arms,” as used at the time, was a specific reference to carrying weapons in the context of military service. Early drafts of the Second Amendment addressed other aspects of military service by including language meant to protect conscientious objectors from having to serve in the militia. (“A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.”)
If everyone can back away from their preconceptions about what they wish the Second Amendment was, then it’s pretty obvious that it would prohibit extreme forms of gun control but does permit reasonable restrictions. Just so long as the people have enough gun rights that they are able to serve as citizen soldiers if the nation is attacked and they can rise up against the government if it becomes tyrannical, the ability to pass other laws is fair game. That would clearly assert the right to keep guns suitable to combat in your home, but limits on carrying them in public would not contradict the sentiments of the constitution.
None of that is great news for either gun opponents or gun advocates. The Constitution is a living, breathing document that was designed to be used as a set of guidelines, not as absolute statute. They gave us the framework, and it is up to us to use it intelligently, fairly and without allowing our personal agendas to interfere with our interpretation.
I think most of you guys, on both sides of this issue, would be surprised about how many guns are in the cars in parking lots all over the country now.
As for the constitutionality of this, I think it’s okay. If you open your parking lot up for business use, then it is unreasonable to expect people to give up their 2nd Amendment rights, and their licensed carrying privileges, just because they use the lot. The owner of the property also has no right to search the cars in the lot anyway.
Would it be okay for them to ban other legal items? No child seats? No air fresheners? No rock and roll CD’s? No cars over 200 hp? No Bibles?
Of course, I think having trained and responsible people out there with concealed weapons is a good thing, so maybe that tilts my logic. OTOH, I never hear much logic in the anti-gun arguments. I hear statistics, and I hear presumptions, but rarely anything not based on the idea that we are somehow safer without guns as if that were even a remotely possible state of affairs.
As long as guys have machine shops available to them there will always be guns. As long as ships carry goods from other places there will always been guns.
Banning guns just decides who will have these guns. Do you want it to be sane, intelligent people or do you just want the violent loonies to have guns.
Where our energies would be better spent would be trying to figure out how to change the confrontational personaility of our modern society. You know the one where the dude warns you it is your money or your life, your car or your life, etc. etc. Why is the value of life so low? When I was a kid in the 70s and 80s around here problems might be solved with violence but it was often the kind that results in bloddy noses and bruises. Yeah there were racial tensions and yeah there was bad stuff going on downtown but it seldom came out to where the rest of us lived. Now it is everywhere. No it’s not alright to contain it so only one part of town has the misery but let’s look at what the “bad” parts of town suffered from and see why this “problem” has spread.
I never felt as safe as I did for the three years I lived in Italy. sure they have the mafia and gun control but I seldom saw much of the violence and confrontation that I see here. Their problems are also generally found in the poorer neighborhoods but there they wanted to rob you, not kill you. This was in the early 90s. Maybe things have gotten worse. Dunno.
Even if we say that the second amendment only refers to the militia – and there is considerable debate on that, with even some gun control advocates saying that it refers to an individual right, and they therefore support a repeal to clear the path for a ban on gun ownership – there are still problems with using this approach to ban or seriously restrict gun ownership among law-abiding citizens.
The “militia” referred to all able-bodied males over a certain age (which, in those days was about 16 or so). The founding fathers clearly envisioned universal gun onwership, at least among males, and, given the reality of frontier life in those days, among a fair number of females, too (although, among married couples, the property officially belonged to the husband, so many women didn’t “own” a gun, even though they were probably adept at shooting it).
The phrase, “the security of a free State” wasn’t limited to security from external threats (i.e., a foreign power attempting to invade the United States) or even a tyrannical home government. It included the ability to protect oneself from internal threats not stemming from government action (the Native American threat) and protection from criminal elements (as they threatened the security of free citizens, too).
We can say that today we have police forces to protect us from criminals, but the police are not obligated to protect anyone (there are court cases on this), and they are basically a reactive force. The crime occurs, the police investigate and arrest the offenders.
They can protect a community to some extent in the better neighborhoods of larger cities, where the department can put enough officers in a limited geographic area to deter criminals, and residents can be counted on to cooperate with police if a crime does occur.
They cannot protect individuals, and in many rural areas (including large parts of Pennsylvania), they realistically cannot protect even a community. They simply do not have enough manpower to form a pervasive presence.
Ironically, if United States Supreme Court does find that the second amendment protects an individual right in the Heller case, it would HELP the cause of gun control. The fear of gun laws is the “slippery slope” argument – that the gun banners are trying to get their nose under the door with simple rules or restrictions.
Given the comments of those in the gun-control movement, and the actions of Chicago and Washington, D.C., this is a valid fear.
Remove that fear by saying that people have an individual right to own a hand gun, but a municipality or state can pass rules or regulations covering gun ownership as long as that basic right is protected, and suddenly the resistance to all gun laws will be much weakened.
It included the ability to protect oneself…criminal elements (as they threatened the security of free citizens, too).
That’s wishful thinking and a real stretch of the intent.
Every able-bodied male belonged to the militia, but the purposes of the militia were to fight invaders and to overthrow the government if it became tyrannical. The militia was not a reference to just any guy walking down the street packing heat, but to the waging of war against enemies.
In the language of the time, a “militia” was a citizens army. This contrasted with the professional armies maintained by European monarchies that fought not because the cause was just but because they were paid to fight.
The founders did not want a substantial standing professional army, because (a) it cost too much to maintain and (b) it could become a tool for tyranny, if the government tried to use it against the people. As had been the case against the English king, the militia could defeat the tyrant’s army. If the cause was just, the militia could raise enough volunteer citizen soldiers to fight off the tyrant and preserve liberty.
Neither the absolutist positions supporting or opposing gun rights are supported by the history nor subsequent interpretations of the constitution. It is certainly debatable where the line can be drawn, but it is not debatable that a line can be drawn somewhere.
If you read the other nine amendments, you will see that the Second is the only one among them that begins with a dependent clause. Had they felt so dogmatic about it, they could have made it very simple: “The right of the People to keep and use weapons shall not be infringed.” But they didn’t.
The phrase, “right of the people” is ordinarily a right of individuals, not of the state or a collection of individuals serving the government (in this case, as militiamen).
Like the first, fourth, and ninth amendments, the second amendment refers to a “right of the people,” not a right of the states or a right of the National Guard. It’s also worthing noting that the second amendment appears in the Bill of Rights among other amendments that secure individual rights.
When the Bill of Rights was drafted, the phrase “keep arms” meant the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals. It did not refer to the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers.
Pch101: If you read the other nine amendments, you will see that the Second is the only one among them that begins with a dependent clause. Had they felt so dogmatic about it, they could have made it very simple: “The right of the People to keep and use weapons shall not be infringed.” But they didn’t.
I’ll rely on a mind far more learned on the subject matter than mine to asnwer this point. Here is an intepretation, given by a Constitutional scholar – Professor Eugene Volokh – testifying before Congress:
What about the seemingly odd two-clause construction, which some commentators have called “unusual,” “special,” and “nearly unique”?
It turns out that there’s nothing odd about it at all.
During the Framing Era, dozens of individual rights provisions in state constitutions were structured the same way, providing a justification clause explaining the right, and then an operative clause securing the right.
The 1842 Rhode Island Constitution’s Free Press Clause, for instance, reads:
“The liberty of the press being essential to the security of freedom in a state, any person may publish his sentiments of any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty . . . .”
Just as with the Second Amendment, the second clause secures a right, while the first justifies it to the public.
And the two clauses of the Amendment are entirely consistent. The second clause guarantees a “right of the people,” which is the right of each individual. The first clause explains that this right helps further a “well-regulated militia,” a legal term of art that means “the body of the people capable of bearing arms” (here I quote from the New York Ratifying Convention’s proposal that eventually became the Second Amendment) — the entire armed citizenry, not some small National Guard-type unit. The current Militia Act, enacted in 1956 and derived from the original 1792 Militia Act, defines the “militia” as including all able-bodied male citizens from 17 to 45; given the Court’s sex equality jurisprudence, I feel comfortable saying that every able-bodied citizen from age 17 to 45, male or female, is a member of the militia. This is quite consistent with the second clause’s securing an individual right to every person.
Given the realities of the day – very few, if any police forces (and even, then only in the largest cities), and constant Native American warfare along the frontier – it seems hard to believe that the Founding Fathers viewed firearms ownership as a right linked solely to militia service.
It was not realistic for people to await the militia to fend off every Native American raid, nor was it realistic to depend on a police force (which probably didn’t exist anyway) for protection against crime.
Of course, there’s the practical aspect of banning guns, or making them really difficult for law-abiding citizens to own – by and large, such restrictions or bans do not work. (I note that in Chicago, where local regulations have created a de facto gun ban, 32 people were shot recently in various crimes. And in Washington, D.C., where the gun ban is being challenged in the Heller case, crime is rampant.)
Ironically, as I said before, if the court determines that there is an individual right to own a gun, it will make it easier to enact safety or training standards for all gun owners. The “slippery slope” argument basically goes out the window.
The phrase, “right of the people” is ordinarily a right of individuals, not of the state or a collection of individuals serving the government (in this case, as militiamen).
That’s consistent with the position that I’ve outlined above. Individuals have the right to form militias to both defend the country from invaders and to wage war against the government itself if it becomes tyrannical. They can form them on their own volition, without the government organizing them.
When the Bill of Rights was drafted, the phrase “keep arms” meant the private ownership and retention of arms by individuals as individuals. It did not refer to the stockpiling of arms by a government or its soldiers.
Again, consistent with what I’ve outlined above. The founders clearly intended to protect the right to keep a weapon ready in the event that it became necessary to form or join the militia.
Here is an intepretation, given by a Constitutional scholar – Professor Eugene Volokh – testifying before Congress
This, too, does not contradict my prior statements. Individuals have a right to “bear arms” in the context of the militia, The militia can be formed by the people, and is not necessarily limited to a government entity.
The constitution delineates and protects our rights. But it does not presume that rights are absolute and cannot be curbed when justified.
Again, it is clear that lines can be drawn. What is debatable is where exactly they can be drawn, as there are constitutional limits on how much can be restricted. An outright ban on all weapons under all circumstances would clearly be unconstitutional, but it is also apparent that reasonable laws regulating weapons are permitted by the constitution.
Geeber,
From that last post I would venture to say you know more about the Constitution than the Three Stooges running for president. Kudos.
windswords:
And if they soley served in executive branch positions (like governor or mayor) that wouldn’t be too bad. But, no, they’re all legislators!
windswords,
Thank you, but, in all fairness, they aren’t as bad as they seem. Working in the legislative arena, I hate to say it, but lots of the “pandering” by members of both parties is because the public just doesn’t want to hear the truth about a lot of things.
Pch101,
I’m sure that we can both find reputable constitutional scholars to support our interpretations. And, given your intelligence and ability to draft succint, on-the-point posts, I’m sure that you can draft rebuttals to whatever I post.
We could be at this the rest of the day.
I’ll leave this discussion by repeating an earlier point. If the Supreme Court, in the Heller case, finds that the second amendment confers an individual right to own a firearm, it will open the door for a rational discussion on regulations and rules designed to improve gun safety, as the “slippery slope” argument against said regulations will be gone. They can be discussed without fear of their proponents moving on to a total gun ban.
Which would probably be the best thing that could happen for those who are really interested in improving gun safety.
Now, back to cars…