Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
Posted: 10/21/2004 5:31:23 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/21/2004 5:31:44 AM EST by SHIVAN]
Is there ANY law on the books, state or federal, that has a redeeming quality? Is there ANY law that actually does something, not just make up stupid "rules" that mean nothing??

You pick.......don't feel limited.

The only ones I can think of are the laws that outline the right to carry.....

But my question is more on the negative side, like is there any redeeming quality to 922(r) or the previous Clinton Ban, or any other local, state, or federal law you have knowledge of......

You might want to be ready to quote the law with links if you are going to join this topic.....
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 5:34:49 AM EST
Nope, there are none. Being able to carry concealed should not require a law that allows you to do so.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 5:35:06 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 5:39:11 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:
Is there ANY law on the books, state or federal, that has a redeeming quality? Is there ANY law that actually does something, not just make up stupid "rules" that mean nothing??

You might want to be ready to quote the law with links if you are going to join this topic.....



The second amendment to the Constitution. Need a link?
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 5:40:02 AM EST
Discharging a firearm within xxx feet of a residence (although that might be more of a public safety issue than a firearms one).
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 5:40:46 AM EST
Think of it like a hammer or any other tool and see what you come up with.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 5:43:34 AM EST
There was a town in Georgia (?) that passed a law that everyone had to own a shootin' iron.

That seemed to make sense.

Doc @ M&A Parts
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 5:46:01 AM EST
The only good firearms laws are those that pertain to criminals. I see the metro busses here in KC that have billboards on them that warns felons: If they're caught with possession of a gun they get an automatic 5 years, no parole.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 5:49:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By Doktor:
There was a town in Georgia (?) that passed a law that everyone had to own a shootin' iron.

That seemed to make sense.

Doc @ M&A Parts



They were afraid W.T. Sherman might show up again.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 5:49:49 AM EST
To paraphrase what Mr. Pat Buchanan said in New Hampshire in '92 -- "they asked me what my position on gun control was. And I said:"

"The only gun controL I support are for those that are self-propelled or you need a trailer hitch for."
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 6:08:27 AM EST

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
Think of it like a hammer or any other tool and see what you come up with.



No, you see, I asked YOU to come up with any law that had redeeming value. I know what I think...

Link Posted: 10/21/2004 6:10:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By michaelj1978:
The only good firearms laws are those that pertain to criminals. I see the metro busses here in KC that have billboards on them that warns felons: If they're caught with possession of a gun they get an automatic 5 years, no parole.



That's a good one.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 6:19:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By Aimless:
There's that federal law that lets you transport guns across state lines without being charged under the laws of a state you pass through, though Reagan "gave" us that when he banned machinegun manufacture.



The '86 FOPA also allowed import of lots of surplus arms and ammunition, and mail order of ammunition, etc. On balance it was a good law. In fact, it was completly good until the Democrats stuck on the MG ban, but the NRA continued to support it even with the ban, and Reagan signed it based upon continued NRA support.

And the NRA was correct to support FOPA; the value of low cost quality surplus arms and ammunition is way more to the American people than the value of a few MGs to a few hobbyists, particularly since the MGs would have been registered weapons that would have been owned only with the permission of the government.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 6:28:06 AM EST
I kind of thought that Assault Weapon Ban thingee was working pretty well until the morons in Washington let it die this year...




On a more serious note: I know I'll get flamed for this here (have before), but I like the fact that felons are barred from lawful ownership of firearms unless they jump through the hoops to have their rights restored. (FWIW I don't want them voting, either.) I don't like "Lautenberg," however - no misdemeanor should have that effect IMO.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:07:10 AM EST
I think there could be a good law or two.

I heard a saying once that went something like this: If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were in a Pub having a drink and writing the Second Amendment and a drunk was running around the Pub with a loaded weapon then they would probably put down their pens and go take the weapon away from the drunk and then go back to guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

I personally don't think that mind altering drugs and firearms mix. I think a good law is to keep firearms out of bars.

I also like the carry laws here in Florida. They are reasonable except for the extensive background check. You can carry a gun with you but that doesn't give you the right to shoot someone just because they piss you off. You can only shoot someone that threatens your life with a deadly weapon like another gun or a knife. I think it would be bad news if the law allowed you to shoot some guy just because he punched you in the nose because you insulted his girlfriend.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:12:28 AM EST
Shooting into an occupied dwelling or vehicle is a serious felony in Florida. That's a good one.

Handling guns when you're drunk is a misdemeanor here, unless you are engaged in an act of slef-defense. A bit nannyish, but OK by me.

Before the relatively recent increase inthe number of trivial offenses designated as felonies (in Fla., there's now a "Felony Driving With Licanse Suspended or Revoked," which can be and often is predicated on nothing more than an accumulation of tickets - no wrecks required), I though banning felons from possessing firearms was a good idea.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:13:43 AM EST

Originally Posted By Flash66:
I think it would be bad news if the law allowed you to shoot some guy just because he punched you in the nose because you insulted his girlfriend.



That's what knives and saps are for.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:14:27 AM EST
No. "Shall not be infringed" and "Supreme Law of the Land" should pretty much have answered that question long ago. Those claiming otherwise have an agenda to keep certain classes of firearms illegal. Either because of their job in government, or because they are on the "other side" of the issue.

The Constitution defines our government. In a Republic, it is the be-all and end-all for our Laws. At least, it is supposed to be. This has been ignored repeatedly by Congress, our Judiciary, and more recently... our Presidents. We don't actually live in a Constitutional Republic anymore, but a loosely Republican Democracy. Not a good thing if you've studied the issue at all...

Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:15:40 AM EST
"The second amendment to the Constitution"

The best law there is. +1
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:17:00 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:17:03 AM EST

Originally Posted By Flash66:
I think a good law is to keep firearms out of bars.



Where else are you willing to forfeit your rights? I don't drink, but Virginia says I can't carry CONCEALED in restaurants that serve alcohol {paraphrased}....I think it is a horrible law.

I can open carry in the same establishments.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:24:23 AM EST

Originally Posted By Flash66:
I personally don't think that mind altering drugs and firearms mix. I think a good law is to keep firearms out of bars.



The answer is simple...ban booze...
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:25:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By thebeekeeper1:
Buried in the 1994 AWB ("Omnibus Crime Bill") was a minor provision I strongly agree with--it requires an adult signature in order for packages containing firearms to be delivered by shippers to FFL holders. Prior to that, packages with firearms had been left in plain sight on my front porch, on a busy street.

I never had one stolen, but assumed it would happen sooner or later.



Yeah, now Fed Ex just leaves them with teenagers...happened to my friend once...
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:32:16 AM EST

Originally Posted By squeezecockerp7m8:

Originally Posted By Flash66:
I personally don't think that mind altering drugs and firearms mix. I think a good law is to keep firearms out of bars.



The answer is simple...ban booze...



You can have my bottle of Glenfiddich when you pry it from my cold dead fingers....

Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:34:46 AM EST
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:37:42 AM EST
A section of the '86 FOPA scaled back some of the Byzantine paperwork that FFL's were dealing with. Of course, that was instituded with the '68 GCA and shuldn't havae been there in the first place.

The law should deal with what a person does, not so much with the inanimate object itself.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:39:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By Doktor:
There was a town in Georgia (?) that passed a law that everyone had to own a shootin' iron.

That seemed to make sense.

Doc @ M&A Parts



Forsyth, IIRC. Last I heard, also had one of the lowest crime rates in the state.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:41:13 AM EST

Originally Posted By rxdawg:

Originally Posted By Doktor:
There was a town in Georgia (?) that passed a law that everyone had to own a shootin' iron.

That seemed to make sense.

Doc @ M&A Parts



Forsyth, IIRC. Last I heard, also had one of the lowest crime rates in the state.



Kennesaw.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:48:47 AM EST
[Last Edit: 10/21/2004 7:49:18 AM EST by DK-Prof]
Laws designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally insane and retarded are good laws.


People who have paranoid schizophrenia, and hear voices in their heads telling them to kill people - should probably not be able to buy a gun, or people who have such mental disorders that they literally cannot tell right from wrong, or suffer from severe hallucinations or delusions. Likewise someone who might biologically be 21, but mentally six years old (and cannot be responsible for their own actions like an adult) should probably not be allowed to buy a gun.

Everything else can quickly become a grey area - but for some serious mental disorders, I think everyone can agree.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:50:45 AM EST
Laws of Physics?

F=MA
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:53:52 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Laws designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally insane and retarded are good laws.



I agree. It's one thing for a guy who's insane or retarded to pack heat, but I don't want to deal with gun-toting retarded lunatics.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 7:57:34 AM EST
the instant background check system to make sure you're not a felon is probably a good thing...
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 8:02:24 AM EST

Originally Posted By michaelj1978:
The only good firearms laws are those that pertain to criminals. I see the metro busses here in KC that have billboards on them that warns felons: If they're caught with possession of a gun they get an automatic 5 years, no parole.



Yeah, except that an awful lot of things are felonies these days.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 8:06:56 AM EST

Originally Posted By Flash66:
I think there could be a good law or two.

I heard a saying once that went something like this: If George Washington and Thomas Jefferson were in a Pub having a drink and writing the Second Amendment and a drunk was running around the Pub with a loaded weapon then they would probably put down their pens and go take the weapon away from the drunk and then go back to guaranteeing the right to keep and bear arms in the Bill of Rights.

I personally don't think that mind altering drugs and firearms mix. I think a good law is to keep firearms out of bars.

I also like the carry laws here in Florida. They are reasonable except for the extensive background check. You can carry a gun with you but that doesn't give you the right to shoot someone just because they piss you off. You can only shoot someone that threatens your life with a deadly weapon like another gun or a knife. I think it would be bad news if the law allowed you to shoot some guy just because he punched you in the nose because you insulted his girlfriend.



You don't need a law that specific about bars. All you need are bar owners with strong property rights.

I don't see how CHL laws are reasonable when they treat all gun owners like crooks from the get-go.

Self-defense was clear cut long before it was codified into law. Petty squabbles that result in killings are immoral and always have been, but if someone punches you, that is an assault. How do you know if they are just going to bloody your nose or break your neck or what?

Link Posted: 10/21/2004 8:10:38 AM EST

Originally Posted By DK-Prof:
Laws designed to keep firearms out of the hands of the mentally insane and retarded are good laws.


People who have paranoid schizophrenia, and hear voices in their heads telling them to kill people - should probably not be able to buy a gun, or people who have such mental disorders that they literally cannot tell right from wrong, or suffer from severe hallucinations or delusions. Likewise someone who might biologically be 21, but mentally six years old (and cannot be responsible for their own actions like an adult) should probably not be allowed to buy a gun.

Everything else can quickly become a grey area - but for some serious mental disorders, I think everyone can agree.



Yes, with the mental midgets. The trouble is, the only way to know is to have background checks delve into medical histories. That is such a bad idea that most states do not allow it even now!
There are other ways of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of the feeble-minded.

Even with all the restrictions, Buford Furrow managed to get his hands on a lot of weaponry. The schizoid kid who killed those students in Chapel Hill also had no problems obtaining a Garand. You won't know until it's too late in most cases, and those who go to seek help are not a danger to anyone 99.999% of the time. So I disagree with this one, too.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 11:29:14 AM EST

Originally Posted By thelibertarian:

You don't need a law that specific about bars. All you need are bar owners with strong property rights.



So you think it is a good thing that an idiot, drunk out of his mind, should have access to a firearm? I believe in personal responsibility, and some goddamn drunk, who is pissed off because his boss told him he is worthless, sure has hell has NO personal responsibility.


I don't see how CHL laws are reasonable when they treat all gun owners like crooks from the get-go.


I very clearly said that I don't support the massive background checks that you have to get. I think everybody should have the right to carry, without getting the government's permission.


Self-defense was clear cut long before it was codified into law. Petty squabbles that result in killings are immoral and always have been, but if someone punches you, that is an assault. How do you know if they are just going to bloody your nose or break your neck or what?



So, some sorry asshole has the right to legal right to kill me just because I punched him in the nose? I don't think so. The asshole can get over a nosebleed but it is hard to get over being six feet under. Be careful about supporting killing for any goddamn reason whatsoever because you may be the victim of an irate neighbor who is pissed at you for being noisy when you take the garbage out. He comes over and starts screaming at you and you punch his sorry ass for being in your face and being a first rate prick. He then pulls out his 1911 and blows you away. I think the Florida law is just about right. You have a legal right to defend yourself against the use of deadly force but not the right to kill somebody (unless he has a gun or knife) if you can flee. You can always defend yourself in a like manner or you can charge the sonofabitch with assault.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 11:38:36 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By Flash66:
I think a good law is to keep firearms out of bars.



Where else are you willing to forfeit your rights? I don't drink, but Virginia says I can't carry CONCEALED in restaurants that serve alcohol {paraphrased}....I think it is a horrible law.

I can open carry in the same establishments.



I agree. You should have to go out to the truck to get the 3030 like in most states.
Link Posted: 10/21/2004 11:57:51 AM EST

Originally Posted By jimb100:
I agree. You should have to go out to the truck to get the 3030 like in most states.



WTF?

Do not drink and post.

Link Posted: 10/22/2004 9:53:01 AM EST

Originally Posted By SHIVAN:

Originally Posted By nightstalker:
Think of it like a hammer or any other tool and see what you come up with.



No, you see, I asked YOU to come up with any law that had redeeming value. I know what I think...




I thought the implication was clear...there are no laws specifically regarding hammers.
Top Top