Ace of Spades HQ

February 13, 2014

What's Next in the Right to Keep and Bear Arms Matter?
— Ace

Volokh looks ahead to the near-term, which, as Gabe said, involves an almost certain decision from the Supreme Court. Likely, this will be resolved in favor of shall-issue, but we don't know that.

The next step is: Well, what comes after that? I was asking John Ekdahl and Charles C.W. Cooke about their opinion as to whether the Second Amendment's protections would forbid, for example, a state law banning any guns from being carried into a nightclub or any establishment that serves liquor. I ask not because I favor such a law, but because this would be the natural next step of the gun restrictivists, should shall-issue be the rule of the land: The gun restrictionists will begin passing laws that say you can't have a gun in many, many places: Churches, schools, and hospitals, first of all, citing safety; then they'd add "malls" to the list, citing the special danger guns in malls pose, as malls represent a target-rich environment for a crazed shooter. (They will ignore the fact that an armed citizen in the mall could stop a crazed shooter, of course.)

Then they'd say "nightclubs" because of the possibility that a drunken argument turns into a shooting.

Of course they wouldn't stop there; they'd keep on adding new venues where guns were illegal. They would attempt to eat at the ruling that people are permitted to carry guns in public by finding new exceptions to that rule, new venues excluded from what "public" means, with an eye to making the exceptions swamp the rule.

So their campaign would be to prohibit guns from this place, and then next, until the law's guarantee that citizens can carry guns in public was limited, pretty much, to "your home, and the woods."

Cooke says his research tells him that New Hampshire has a law forbidding guns at polling places, and he imagines that would be found constitutional.

Anyway, that's what I see the next battles as being about, at least if the Supreme Court endorses the Ninth Circuit opinion.

Posted by: Ace at 03:01 PM | Comments (185)
Post contains 363 words, total size 2 kb.

1 Ugh. Thanks for harshing my mellow on this ace

Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 13, 2014 03:03 PM (yz6yg)

2 doesn't mean they'll win.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:04 PM (/FnUH)

3 Well not the woods. You seem to have forgotten their prohibition of carrying in national (or State, in PA at least) parks.

Posted by: wildbill41 at February 13, 2014 03:04 PM (uwLlG)

4 I know. But it never ends. Does it? ::: cue Benjamin Franklin quote :::

Posted by: Sean Bannion at February 13, 2014 03:05 PM (yz6yg)

5 Doesn't mean a gun grabbie state or municipality would even listen to a court ruling. Nulification is the new rage, isn't it?

Posted by: phil at February 13, 2014 03:05 PM (QzdcC)

6 up next from Slate: Why Not A King?

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 03:06 PM (ACqDT)

7 The democrats have pushed for and passed a lot of gun laws that ended up strengthening the right to bear/carry/conceal. Chalk this one up to unintended consequences from the party of the "living document" and words only mean what they say they mean.

Posted by: Tocquevillian at February 13, 2014 03:07 PM (iuY0Y)

". . . shall not be infringed."

I wonder what these words mean?

Posted by: Count de Monet at February 13, 2014 03:07 PM (BAS5M)

9 speaking of guns, do you think Art will get Col. Blaked at the end of the season? I do.

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 03:08 PM (ACqDT)

10 "... Cooke says his research tells him that New Hampshire has a law forbidding laws at polling places,..." loose shit??

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 03:09 PM (ACqDT)

11 I thought the ruling today was positive for gun rights. Was there some hidden bad juju?

Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 13, 2014 03:09 PM (ZZPs4)

12 >>>do you think Art will get Col. Blaked at the end of the season? I do. no. why do you think this? BTW I haven't seen this week's episode yet, I don't think, so if it involves the last episode, don't say.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:10 PM (/FnUH)

13 California already has many location restrictions. They get challenged and even overturned on occasion. Freedom isn't something you *have*, it's something you *do*. And it's exhausting and you can never stop, not ever, or you lose it. And as I said before, yes, California and counties and cities will have to be sued over and over to enforce the ruling, as they have been before.

Posted by: Merovign, Dark Lord of the Sith[/i] [/b] [/s] [/u] at February 13, 2014 03:10 PM (qyfb5)

14 >>>I thought the ruling today was positive for gun rights. Was there some hidden bad juju? yes it was positive for gun rights, VERY positive. However, you don't think they're going to stop, do you? There will be new bans. This is how I think they will do it, assuming the SC uphods the 9th circuit.

Posted by: ace at February 13, 2014 03:10 PM (/FnUH)

15 Same thing happened with smoking. First it was illegal in a few places, and then a few places more. Someday I'll have to hide under my bed covers to puff on my electronic cigarette.

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 03:11 PM (080XV)

16 I thought the ruling today was positive for gun rights. Was there some hidden bad juju?
Posted by: Bevel Lemelisk at February 13, 2014 07:09 PM (ZZPs4)

It was, I think Ace and crew are trying to predict the gun-grabbers next attempted work-around of this thorny 'constitutional' issue they keep bumping up against

Posted by: phreshone at February 13, 2014 03:11 PM (Q6pxP)

17 15 Dennis Leary called it.

Posted by: Aetius451AD at February 13, 2014 03:13 PM (TGgNi)

18 I'm a week behind on episodes too. But it seems like theyre setting us up for tragedy. Art just made a big bust...right before his retirement..everything is just perfect...you know

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 03:14 PM (ACqDT)

19 Well not the woods. You seem to have forgotten their prohibition of carrying in national (or State, in PA at least) parks.

As of 2010, you can carry in national parks is accordance with the laws of the surrounding state.

Posted by: Chief Justice Ron Burgundy at February 13, 2014 03:14 PM (+lsX1)

20 All you have to do is look at the restrictions Illinois and Chicago now impose on CCW carriers.

Posted by: d_fitz at February 13, 2014 03:14 PM (tgXMD)

21 Seriously, loose shit in your second to last para.

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 03:15 PM (ACqDT)

I have nightmares about what happens if this goes to the Supreme Court. The scenario I fear is that an anti-gun fanatic kills one or more of the 5 justices from the Heller majority. Dear Leader Obama would then be able to appoint an anti-gun replacement(s). They overturn Heller, and try to overreach, just like President Obama, in banning concealed carry or confiscating firearms nationwide, despite state laws that allow it.

And then it all hits the fan.

Posted by: rd at February 13, 2014 03:15 PM (D+lxs)

23 >>>speaking of guns,
do you think Art will get Col. Blaked at the end of the season? I do.

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 07:08 PM (ACqDT)<<<

He'll be fine. He just need to get to the range.

Posted by: Raylan Givens at February 13, 2014 03:15 PM (ZBqFB)

24 Concealed means concealed.

Posted by: Gristle Encased Head at February 13, 2014 03:16 PM (+lsX1)

25 Daily reminder: Pretty soon the 2nd amendment will be the only one we have left. And then it will be time to utilize it, as the founding fathers envisioned.

Posted by: Daily Reminder Guy at February 13, 2014 03:16 PM (6j8ke)

26 Lotta people shot in inner cities where black people live...let them carry their idea to its conclusion.

Posted by: model_1066 at February 13, 2014 03:16 PM (LIQGY)

27 typo alert: "New Hampshire has a law forbidding laws at polling places"

Posted by: Daily Reminder Guy at February 13, 2014 03:17 PM (6j8ke)

28 But I like grabbin' guns almost as much as donuts

Posted by: Chris Christie at February 13, 2014 03:18 PM (Q6pxP)

29 I carry a nice pre-printed doc that states "I am a lawful holder of a CWP and your prohibition against my lawful carry inyour establishment just cost you - the owner $______________"

I've used in theaters, restaurants, flower shops, bakeries, etc. And it always elicits a response. Sometimes "we're really sorry, you're more than welcome" to "we don't need your _____ business". But if more of us did that to bring attention to the economic cost, the business owners would be confronted with a loss of revenue they can't ignore.

"Follow the cash" is the saying I constantly hear from my accountant.

Posted by: Gman79 at February 13, 2014 03:18 PM (EAB+R)

30 That Court opinion was like a judge declaring water is wet, and sometimes it's a solid or a liquid...but never both. In other words, a judge stayed the obvious (and sadly we take that as a step forward for our gun rights), but thrn set arbitrary limitations on the obvious as if on a whim.

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 03:18 PM (ACqDT)

31 Ace, I'm a gun owner in the Democratic People's Republic of Illinois. The state's tactic here is to throw up as many obstacles as possible. Intricate filings, concealed carry classes (for a nifty fee, of course) and a plethora of restrictions on where you can pack, as mentioned in your post. Also, ammunition for firearms is extremely scarce, in certain calipers. The overall effect here is to curtail gun usage.

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 03:19 PM (YEQ2h)

32 There is no law, there is only what we are told the law is, and that changes depending on who is speaking. (and where, and when, and why)

Posted by: Gustoph Muelluer at February 13, 2014 03:19 PM (Sa/hj)

33 ~~typo alert:~~ loose shit learn how to speak AoSese

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 03:20 PM (ACqDT)

34 Calipers, for God's sake, not calipers. IPad illiteracy.

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 03:20 PM (YEQ2h)

35 Wasn't there recently some movement on whether you could carry at Post Offices?

As far as their next moves, I'm thinking they'll continue pushing the different convictions that prevent a person from having a CCW. Right now a non-felony domestic violence charge means you can't have a CCW. They'll probably continue on that line, maybe if you've had a restraining order against you.

Of course they'd sell it by pointing out all the awful people who have had a restraining order against them and gone on to kill. Ignoring that anyone can get a restraining order against almost anyone if they shop around.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 03:21 PM (2hTlI)

36 "Cooke says his research tells him that New Hampshire has a law forbidding laws at polling places, and he imagines that would be found constitutional."

Maybe not a typo. Perhaps they just stumbled on a copy of Teh One's "Chicago Style Manual for Politics".

Posted by: dissent555 at February 13, 2014 03:21 PM (yR6A1)

37 Calipers, for God's sake, not calipers. IPad illiteracy. Heh.

Posted by: Grey Fox at February 13, 2014 03:21 PM (fP3se)

38 Caliibers. Fuck you auto fill.

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (YEQ2h)

39 Why do you peasants need guns? I building a civilian force as well funded as the military

Posted by: Barack O'Stalin at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (Q6pxP)

40 Another way they could go is to try to finesse the meaning of "good moral fiber" (or whatever the precise phrase is) so that no one could possibly qualify, or only the "right people" (read: "Left people") could.

Posted by: Otis Criblecoblis at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (IlZPo)

Calipers, for God's sake, not calipers. IPad illiteracy.

you were saying?

Posted by: rd at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (D+lxs)

42 >>>Calipers, for God's sake, not calipers. IPad illiteracy.

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 07:20 PM (YEQ2h)<<<

Forget it Jake, it's Apple Town.

Posted by: Zombie Steve Jobs at February 13, 2014 03:22 PM (ZBqFB)

43 Set it up as a "time, place, and manner" restriction, like valid speech restrictions, and the courts will uphold it.

Posted by: wooga at February 13, 2014 03:23 PM (+YACC)

44 The mall of America forbids firearms. I assume it's because the management has imposed that rule, rather than some law.

Posted by: AmishDude at February 13, 2014 03:23 PM (T0NGe)

45 Repeal the NFA.

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 03:23 PM (QupBk)

46 >>Calipers, for God's sake, not calipers. IPad illiteracy.

you were saying?

Posted by: rd

Ah, the iPhone, making people look like idiots since 2007.

Posted by: weft cut-loop[/i] [/b] at February 13, 2014 03:24 PM (aHw7C)

47 Best most positive interpretation of that Court's opinion goes thusly: Yes, citizens have a right to carry arms as stated in the Second Amendment...but only because we say so. In other words, it seemed like a strong hint that it is not really a right at all but a governrment issued privilege. And that's Not kosher.

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 03:24 PM (ACqDT)

48 Ahhh.... so they will try to do with Guns, with they did with Cigarettes? First a ban in Resteraunts... then Bars.... and now in some places, in your own Home? (if you are in a condo or apartment...). I actually think they will use 'Public Health'... and use the Mental Health system to start... as they already are with Veterans and PTSD... then households with Kids..... and use their control of Health insurance to coerce you into approved behavior. Look into the background of the soon to be approved Surgeon General.

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 13, 2014 03:24 PM (84gbM)

49 >>a law forbidding laws Laws forbidding laws are the luuuuuckiest lawwwwssss. I wouldn't be surprised if they started banning smoking guns because of third hand smoke issues. Science!

Posted by: Brian D. at February 13, 2014 03:24 PM (SUKHu)

50
Actually, I'm thinking that the next area they'll go into is the intersection of background checks and "public health". You really don't want the mentally ill to have access to guns, do you?

The fact that for decades leftists have been agitating to classify conservatism, political dissent and a desire to own a firearm as mental illnesses is totes not related, dood.

Not to mention, the periodic attempts to get medical professionals to pry into family affairs by interrogating kids about whether their parents own guns. I can easily see them looking at the possibility of designating gun ownership as an indicator of unsuitability for good parenting, necessitating the intervention of Child Services.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 13, 2014 03:24 PM (TIIx5)

51 39 Why do you peasants need guns? I building a civilian force as well funded as the military

see Venezuela...

Posted by: E.T. at February 13, 2014 03:24 PM (uGlk8)

52 I'm very nervous about the "we have to keep guns out of crazy people's hands" that some conservatives have embraced.

Sluggish schizophrenia was the popular diagnosis the USSR used against "dissidents". I can see something similar being employed to strip vast swathes of USA residents of the CCW.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 03:25 PM (2hTlI)

53 Sweet if it is a law forbidding laws then that means there are no laws!

Posted by: ParanoidGirlinSeattle at February 13, 2014 03:25 PM (RZ8pf)

54 If I decide to carry concealed, I pay no attention to signs telling me I may not carry on the premises unless I see a magnetometerÂ…. like the county court house, otherwise I'll carry wherever I wish to carry. That said, I rarely carry in Iowa, but do carry when I visit metro areas in other states. I feel free wherever I go.

Posted by: Angel with a sword at February 13, 2014 03:25 PM (hpgw1)

55 In philly they allow black panthers with billy clubs at polling places.

Posted by: redenzo at February 13, 2014 03:26 PM (WCnJW)

56 and all of a sudden it was like BOOM anarchy everywhere!

Posted by: Soothsayer says, at February 13, 2014 03:26 PM (ACqDT)

57 OT but nice Teen stomps out huge message in the snow for his mom to see who's in the hospital having chemotherapy: http://tinyurl.com/kyeztdd

Posted by: FenelonSpoke at February 13, 2014 03:26 PM (XyM/Y)

58

"Cooke says his research tells him that New Hampshire has a law forbidding laws at polling places, and he imagines that would be found constitutional."

Well, this is where we are headed, after all.

Posted by: Rev Dr E Buzz Commissar at February 13, 2014 03:26 PM (HQml1)

59 So I was walking down the street in Chicago and saw a sign on an art gallery that said no firearms allowed. Why is that restriction any different from a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Isn't it discriminating against me if I have a firearm and want to enter? Or does the establishment have the right to refuse service based on the owner's individual beliefs?

Posted by: chicagolurker at February 13, 2014 03:26 PM (c96ms)

60 "A law forbidding Laws"... Isn't that the old Document called... the US Constitution?

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 13, 2014 03:28 PM (84gbM)

61
Posted by: Romeo13 at February 13, 2014 07:24 PM (84gbM)

The best indicator of genius is the extent that they agree with you.

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 13, 2014 03:28 PM (TIIx5)

62 The bar/nightclub limitation is just another useless law. In Ga and I'm assuming most states, it's illegal to be carrying a gun while drunk in public. So why make it illegal for the DD to carry concealed?

Posted by: Adam at February 13, 2014 03:29 PM (Aif/5)

63 meh, I am inclineda go concealed, however, if I hadda go open carry I would have to go with something gunslinger-like. where do I find a six-shooter holster for a 226?

Posted by: yankeefifth at February 13, 2014 03:29 PM (rDidD)

64 # 60. They're probably using a fucking iPad......

Posted by: tubal at February 13, 2014 03:29 PM (YEQ2h)

65 So I was walking down the street in Chicago and saw a sign on an art gallery that said no firearms allowed. Why is that restriction any different from a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding? Isn't it discriminating against me if I have a firearm and want to enter? Or does the establishment have the right to refuse service based on the owner's individual beliefs?

Posted by: chicagolurker at February 13, 2014 07:26 PM (c96ms)

Interesting observation

Posted by: The Jackhole at February 13, 2014 03:29 PM (nTgAI)

66 This reminds me that I have to renew my ccw next month.

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 03:29 PM (QupBk)

67 Isn't it discriminating against me if I have a firearm and want to enter?

Discrimination is not a winning argument. They would say that a gay person has no choice, they're born that way. Same with skin color.

Boycott em.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 03:30 PM (J79eW)

68 Banks would seem to be an easy target.
Also government buildings.
Post offices.
And on military bases.

Of course, those laws already exist...

Posted by: Nom de Blog at February 13, 2014 03:30 PM (JSmUP)

69 So I was walking down the street in Chicago and saw a sign on an art gallery that said no firearms allowed. Why is that restriction any different from a bakery refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding?

Ooooh. The answer will probably be you have a choice not to carry, but gay people don't have a choice to order a cake from a different baker.

Wait.

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 03:30 PM (ZKzrr)

70 59 That's private property. It's the gov that cannot restrict you in public. See also 9th amendment

Posted by: Dept. Of Acuracy at February 13, 2014 03:30 PM (MhA4j)

71 Posted by: bonhomme at February 13, 2014 07:25 PM (2hTlI) Dear Veteran... have you EVER had a Nightmare, or bad memory, of your time in combat? (if you have not, you probably are NOT sane... or were never in combat...). PTSD... no guns for you....

Posted by: Romeo13 at February 13, 2014 03:30 PM (84gbM)

72 So this doesn't take some master prediction. This is happening right now. And has in the past in states where the gun laws are less restrictive. The battle was joined in Virginia a while ago. Hell, I live here, I don't know what the answer is because it is all muddied. South Carolina, where I grew up, just passed a law affirming the right of CCW folks to carry in places that serve alcohol. The shrieks of horror and gunfight at the saloon from people in South Carolina have already begun. The law is in place, but I suspect it is not yet settled. To get to this point (to the good on 2d A court cases ) has taken decades. The libs believe the ratchet only goes one way. They will not give up.

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2014 03:31 PM (4+AaH)

73 This reminds me that I have to renew my ccw next month. Herbert! Herbert! Herbert! /makes sign of The One with hands

Posted by: Soothsayer in Ten Forward at February 13, 2014 03:31 PM (ACqDT)

74 The shrieks of horror and gunfight at the saloon from people in South Carolina have already begun.

And if it's like the fight over smoking in bars, most of the people shrieking don't go into bars anyway, and won't start after the ban. Ho-hum.

Posted by: HR at February 13, 2014 03:32 PM (ZKzrr)

75 >>Ooooh. The answer will probably be you have a choice not to carry, but gay people don't have a choice to order a cake from a different baker. >>Wait. *snort*

Posted by: Mama AJ at February 13, 2014 03:32 PM (SUKHu)

76 63 meh, I am inclineda go concealed, however, if I hadda go open carry I would have to go with something gunslinger-like. where do I find a six-shooter holster for a 226? If you carry open why not go with something that sends a message like a Ruger GP100 with a six inch barrel?

Posted by: Angel with a sword at February 13, 2014 03:32 PM (hpgw1)

77 Dear Veteran... have you EVER had a Nightmare, or bad memory, of your time in combat? (if you have not, you probably are NOT sane... or were never in combat...).

PTSD... no guns for you....

Have you ever felt sad, lonely, blue, down, lacking pep, etc? You're depressed, no CCW for you.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 03:33 PM (WhJf8)

Strategy

The anti-gunners have given up on pistols.

"Hand Gun Control Inc" changed their name.

They are now going after "scary-looking" guns, AKA "assault weapons". And their lackeys in the media are abetting them. Even though AR rifles are the biggest sellers, and made be damned near every gun manufacturer, and quite a few that do not do anything but ARs and AR accessories.

This is where we need to beat them.

The younger gun crowd loves ARs. And the older folks too. They are sort of like the LEGO of firearms. Put them together however you want, change them, or even paint them pretty colors and use different colored accessories.

Home defense, Target shoot, hunt varmints, or change calibre and go after big game. Keep it at home to defend yourself. You can even make a shotgun or crossbow out of one. Sorry, no longbows yet!!!

Posted by: rd at February 13, 2014 03:33 PM (D+lxs)

79 67
Don't worry, I don't plan on stepping foot in their establishment. I just found the sign curious.

69
My thoughts exactly.

Posted by: chicagolurker at February 13, 2014 03:33 PM (c96ms)

80 Here in AZ, they began with much the same approach, and frankly some of it made sense, and some of it didn't. As an example of the latter, the law initially said you couldn't carry in any place that served alcohol, but that you were perfectly legal in carrying in some place that sold alcohol (No on carrying in a restaurant; Yes on carrying into a grocery or liquor store). If Mrs. Azlib and I went out to dinner at Olive Garden, and it was possible for her to have a glass of wine, then I couldn't carry. That never made sense to me, and they finally got rid of that. And yes--the hoplophobes predicted all sorts of alcohol-induced shootouts, none of which happened.

However, there are restrictions that seem to make sense to me: Hospitals, courthouses, polling places (which I think may be a federal law...dunno). We all thought that Black Panthers standing outside the Philadelphia polling place with clubs amounted to clear voter intimidation. Now imagine them with AR-15s or something on their hips. Hospitals are places where life and death decisions are made, and mixing that with guns just isn't a good idea. The same applies to courthouses. Even considering that you could physically separate the criminal cases (where people might go to jail) from the civil cases (where they don't)....and in most cases, you can't....the civil cases involve people going bankrupt, divorcing, losing custody of their kids. In other words, places where it is common for emotions to run deep seem to me to be places where guns ought to be limited.

Posted by: azlibertarian at February 13, 2014 03:33 PM (ruk14)

81 Any law or set of laws that would effectively null our 2nd amendment rights would be slapped down by the supreme court. See heller. Of course john roberts could rule it to be a tax.

Posted by: Kreplach at February 13, 2014 03:33 PM (icMTF)

82 Would a Federal Excise Tax of 300% on ammunition be Constitutional?

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 03:35 PM (QupBk)

83 Ah, the iPhone, making people look like idiots since 2007. Posted by: weft cut-loop at February 13, 2014 07:24 PM (aHw7C) Auto correct can be turned off.

Posted by: JFK Jr. at February 13, 2014 03:35 PM (36Rjy)

84 Finally, a fan!!!!!!

Posted by: Calipers at February 13, 2014 03:36 PM (/FnUH)

85 Would a Federal Excise Tax of 300% on ammunition be Constitutional?

Probably.

*grumbles*

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 03:36 PM (WhJf8)

86 Fish food sock off.

Posted by: baldilocks at February 13, 2014 03:37 PM (36Rjy)

87 Have you ever felt sad, lonely, blue, down, lacking pep, etc? You're depressed, no CCW for you. Posted by: bonhomme Ever been prescribed an anti-depressant? We already know the answer to that question. We can see your records. No nothin' for you.

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 03:37 PM (080XV)

88 Presumably, Roberts will allow it as long as they say "good cause or a tax." The tax being some exorbitant sum.

Posted by: gm at February 13, 2014 03:37 PM (/kBoL)

89 What about 1000%? Is there a point in Constitutional Law at which a tax becomes a prohibition?

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 03:38 PM (QupBk)

90 Is it too early in the thread to express my deep disappointment in my congressman, Trey Gowdy? That Ann Coulter sidebar link...it hurts. He started making the case for illegals a while ago, and it looks like he still is. It's my deal breaker. Why, Trey, why?

Posted by: Lady in Black, thinks 4' Vermont Teddy Bears suck at February 13, 2014 03:39 PM (Oa7B2)

51 39 Why do you peasants need guns? I building a civilian force as well funded as the military

see Venezuela...

Gun Free Zone . net blog

http://tinyurl.com/kz4bl5t

Posted by: rd at February 13, 2014 03:39 PM (D+lxs)

92 87 Have you ever felt sad, lonely, blue, down, lacking pep, etc? You're depressed, no CCW for you. Posted by: bonhomme Ever been prescribed an anti-depressant? We already know the answer to that question. We can see your records. No nothin' for you. Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 07:37 PM (080XV) Next logical step: On welfare? No gun for you!

Posted by: model_1066 at February 13, 2014 03:39 PM (LIQGY)

93 I see binders full of vaginas in our future.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 03:39 PM (38LLM)

94 93 I see binders full of vaginas in our future. Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 07:39 PM (38LLM) Is that in Ed Gein's Library or something?

Posted by: model_1066 at February 13, 2014 03:40 PM (LIQGY)

95 Lady, that's why Im way past having heroes in the R party. At the end of the day, they're all politicians.

Posted by: Soothsayer in Ten Forward at February 13, 2014 03:41 PM (ACqDT)

96 Have you ever felt sad, lonely, blue, down, lacking pep, etc? You're depressed, no CCW for you.
Posted by: bonhomme

A lack of pep would depress anyone.

Posted by: pep at February 13, 2014 03:42 PM (6TB1Z)

97 45 Repeal the NFA. Posted by: toby928Â© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 07:23 PM (QupBk) Yes and amen; it should be winnable on the same grounds as ammo limits: if someone, somewhere in law enforcement thinks a higher rate of fire is helpful in stopping bad guys, civilians should be afforded the same option. But the real next battle is going to be over the ability to create our own firearms. We can already, of course, but doing so invites a dance with the BATFE. But 3D printing has already pushed the issue out there, and there's legislation in the works to block printed guns. It's going to take the courts to settle it all out.

Posted by: TexasDan at February 13, 2014 03:42 PM (Fa3Hi)

98 Angel @ 54 If I decide to carry concealed, I pay no attention to signs telling me I may not carry on the premises unless I see a magnetometerÂ…. like the county court house, otherwise I'll carry wherever I wish to carry.

You know, Angel, while I understand the sentiment, that really isn't a good idea. I can disagree with a gun-banning property owner all day long (and I do), but that property owner has the right to decide whether to allow weapons on his property. Also, if you ever are involved in a shooting on such a property, don't be surprised if you've placed yourself in some extra legal jeopardy.

Posted by: azlibertarian at February 13, 2014 03:42 PM (ruk14)

99 The one I'd go for is parkinglots. Regardless of location, exempting only places that have on-site gun checks/lockups.

Having a gun locked in a car in a school parkinglot.
Having a gun locked in a car at a hospital parkinglot.

This is a -defacto- "Most Everywhere" exemption. It takes the hassle out of being able to be protected.

Another one that's on a different front would be public transportation.

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2014 03:43 PM (9ynpo)

100 In Ga and I'm assuming most states, it's illegal to be carrying a gun while drunk in public. So why make it illegal for the DD to carry concealed?

Posted by: Adam at February 13, 2014 07:29 PM (Aif/5)

Actually, that's not true. In GA, it is illegal to discharge a gun while intoxicated, except in self defense. You can carry it all you want. And you can carry in a bar as long as you have the owner's permission.

Posted by: Country Singer at February 13, 2014 03:43 PM (oxjIj)

101 Posted by: Kreplach at February 13, 2014 07:33 PM (icMTF)

Is your handle a reference to the matchstick man? I remember that story from grade school.

Posted by: StPatrick_TN at February 13, 2014 03:44 PM (AaZLR)

102 Is "hoplophobe" an effective word? Hoplophobia and oikaphobia are two words that some activists on the right use that I doubt are very effective since nobody but activist types have any idea what they mean.

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 13, 2014 03:44 PM (ZPrif)

103 Am I the only in awe of the success of the Lego Movie and other Lego stuff? It's pure marketing. It's a manufactured 'fad' created by the geniuses on Madison Avenue. It's crap. It's very well packaged and hyped crap.

Posted by: Soothsayer in Ten Forward at February 13, 2014 03:45 PM (ACqDT)

104 Is that in Ed Gein's Library or something? Posted by: model_1066

It's Hillary's! campaign strategy.

Posted by: Dr Spank at February 13, 2014 03:45 PM (38LLM)

105 Hoplophobia? Fear of beer?

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 03:45 PM (080XV)

106 gun-grabber, anti-gun, anti-gunner, gun-hater, etc all seem more effective as communication terms than "hoplophobe".

Posted by: Flatbush Joe at February 13, 2014 03:46 PM (ZPrif)

107 Hoplophobia? Fear of beer? Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 07:45 PM (080XV) I thought that was urinateophobia?

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 03:46 PM (nzKvP)

108 Lego: Cheap plastic that sells for $100 a pound.

Posted by: A Balrog of Morgoth at February 13, 2014 03:46 PM (Q9qpj)

109 Hoplophobia and oikaphobia are two words that some activists on the right use that I doubt are very effective since nobody but activist types have any idea what they mean.

Cisheterohoploid!

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 03:46 PM (WhJf8)

110 If they don't already pat you down at the door its not really a nightclub.

Posted by: Animal-S at February 13, 2014 03:47 PM (LHgfw)

111 I remember when I first started driving trucks over the road. I was sitting in a little truck stop north of Phoenix when these two guys come walking in with firearms on their hips. At first I was a little taken aback, but then I just thought it was pretty cool.

Posted by: LFW - Honorary Pointy Eared Vulcan at February 13, 2014 03:47 PM (vVSOO)

112 Hobbitopoly - to sell Hobbits.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 03:48 PM (WhJf8)

113 Anyone who ever took a psychoactive med of any kind will be their next target. Anxiety, depression, PTSD, pain, whatever. Any large category amounting to a gun ban will be tried.

Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2014 03:48 PM (sOtz/)

114 It's crap. It's very well packaged and hyped crap.

--

You just described 95% of the celebrity world.

Posted by: Lady in Black, thinks 4' Vermont Teddy Bears suck at February 13, 2014 03:48 PM (Oa7B2)

115 103 Am I the only in awe of the success of the Lego Movie and other Lego stuff? It's pure marketing. It's a manufactured 'fad' created by the geniuses on Madison Avenue. It's crap. It's very well packaged and hyped crap. Posted by: Soothsayer in Ten Forward at February 13, 2014 07:45 PM (ACqDT) I would disagree with the crap assessment. Legos are great toys for hand-eye coordination as well as imagination and general construction. My son loves Legos. Builds the neatest stuff with them and you can really see how creative he is when he brings me something he's designed himself. As far as the movie and the games, well I like them generally. They're pretty well done. I'm a big fan of the Lego Harry Potter games. They're fun, you can play them with and in front of the kids with no worries, and they are actually very well-designed games.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 13, 2014 03:49 PM (qFpRI)

116 Gun grabbing is, of course, a tax.

Posted by: Benedict John Roberts at February 13, 2014 03:49 PM (5ikDv)

117 >>>Hoplophobia? Fear of beer? <<<

Evil, evil bunnehs.

Posted by: James Earl Carter at February 13, 2014 03:49 PM (ZBqFB)

118 Then they'd say "nightclubs" because of the possibility that a drunken argument turns into a shooting. Even as pro-gun as I am, I agree with that. Watch some of the stupid arguments that ignite bar brawls and then .....imagine.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 03:49 PM (X8dOg)

119 We had our "guns in bars will result in blood in the streets!!!!" battle here in TN a few years ago. The streets are still blood-free. The current contested issue is the ability of cities to choose whether or not to declare parks "gun-free zones" vs. a state-level prevention of such, which has been proposed. State and national parks are already firearm-friendly.

Posted by: StPatrick_TN at February 13, 2014 03:49 PM (AaZLR)

120
And people wonder why I am such a purist on the 2A.

related in a way: http://tinyurl.com/meuvl8e

Posted by: Guy Mohawk at February 13, 2014 03:50 PM (n0DEs)

121 Posted by: Lady in Black, thinks 4' Vermont Teddy Bears suck

Thank you. I loathe those commercials with women looking absolutely orgasmic at the prospect of receiving an expensive, 4' dust magnet meant for small children.

Posted by: pep at February 13, 2014 03:51 PM (6TB1Z)

122 Actually, I'm thinking that the next area they'll go into is the intersection of background checks and "public health". You really don't want the mentally ill to have access to guns, do you? The fact that for decades leftists have been agitating to classify conservatism, political dissent and a desire to own a firearm as mental illnesses is totes not related, dood. Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 13, 2014 07:24 PM (TIIx5) Yup. As goes China and Russia, so goes the USSA. My wife warns me about traveling in China: "Don't say the bad things about the government, they will take you to the crazy people's place"

Posted by: Animal-S at February 13, 2014 03:51 PM (LHgfw)

123

I would disagree with the crap assessment. Legos are great toys for hand-eye coordination as well as imagination and general construction. My son loves Legos. Builds the neatest stuff with them and you can really see how creative he is when he brings me something he's designed himself.

As far as the movie and the games, well I like them generally. They're pretty well done. I'm a big fan of the Lego Harry Potter games. They're fun, you can play them with and in front of the kids with no worries, and they are actually very well-designed games.

When they are old enough, buy them an AR rifle. It is like the Lego of rifles.

Posted by: rd at February 13, 2014 03:51 PM (D+lxs)

124 prediction: In the next 3 years, federal forms (perhaps gun background forms) will ask Do You Listen To Talk Radio? and If Yes, Who Do You Listen To And How Often?

Posted by: Soothsayer in Ten Forward at February 13, 2014 03:51 PM (ACqDT)

125 Egypt Arrests U.S. Embassy Staffer For Having Ties To Muslim Brotherhood, Helped Arrange Meetings Between GroupÂ’s Leader And American OfficialsÂ… Weasel Zippers: The Ruskies are moving on on Egypt and the rest of the Middle East as we abdicate responsibility and side with he enemy. Another Foreign Policy Victory for obama

Posted by: Nevergiveup at February 13, 2014 03:52 PM (nzKvP)

126 The Lego Movie is hilarious from start to finish. It has cult midnight movie potential. Everything Is Awesome!

Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2014 03:53 PM (sOtz/)

127 Within the next 10-20 years, if things continue one their current trajectory suppressors will no longer be NFA items. In most European countries they're referred to as "gun mufflers" and are considered a courtesy to others (as there's no such thing as a silenced gun - suppressors only have the ability to make a firearm safe for unprotected ears - safety first!). Hell, Finland declared that making gun mufflers is a right of its people.

Posted by: StPatrick_TN at February 13, 2014 03:54 PM (AaZLR)

128 I would disagree with the crap assessment. Legos are great toys for hand-eye coordination as well as imagination and general construction. My son loves Legos. Builds the neatest stuff with them and you can really see how creative he is when he brings me something he's designed himself. As far as the movie and the games, well I like them generally. They're pretty well done. I'm a big fan of the Lego Harry Potter games. They're fun, you can play them with and in front of the kids with no worries, and they are actually very well-designed games. Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 13, 2014 07:49 PM (qFpRI) I agree with your disagreement. They are great toys that stimulate the imagination. And they've certainly stood the test of time...generations of kids have loved and played with them for hours on end.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 13, 2014 03:54 PM (bCEmE)

129 prediction: In the next 3 years, federal forms (perhaps gun background forms) will ask Do You Listen To Talk Radio? and If Yes, Who Do You Listen To And How Often?

Obama will have you sign a no-gun oath in exchange for an Obamacare Platinum package. $500 out of pocket max.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 03:55 PM (WhJf8)

130 Posted by: rd at February 13, 2014 07:51 PM (D+lxs) We actually plan on letting them take the NRA gun safety courses for kids as soon as they're old enough. The last I checked the classes started at age 8 or 9 and my oldest turns 7 in two weeks. So we've got a year or two. But I absolutely want to leave them learn about how to be safe around guns and even how to handle them for themselves. I wish my parents had let me learn to shoot when I was a kid. Because they acted terrified of us even seeing the guns in the house I grew up borderline unhealthily afraid of them and it took me until last year to go to the range and learn how to shoot.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 13, 2014 03:55 PM (qFpRI)

131 Within the next 10-20 years, if things continue one their current trajectory suppressors will no longer be NFA items. To God's ears. I'm much more interested in having a legal suppressor than an full auto weapon.

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 03:56 PM (QupBk)

132 Legos are fantastic. I have no idea how many hours we spent with them as kids pre- or post-Nintendo. The only drawback is stepping on one.

Posted by: StPatrick_TN at February 13, 2014 03:56 PM (AaZLR)

133 "generations of kids have loved and played with them for hours on end. Posted by: Tami" I STILL have to talk myself out of buying Lego sets for myself when I go to the store. They're so cool, but pretty damn pricey.

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 03:56 PM (080XV)

134 "Is it too early in the thread to express my deep disappointment in my congressman, Trey Gowdy? That Ann Coulter sidebar link...it hurts. He started making the case for illegals a while ago, and it looks like he still is. It's my deal breaker. Why, Trey, why?" At this point, I have no problem canceling my membership in the Trey Gowdy fan club. The GOP re-confirms to me daily that they don't want me back.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 13, 2014 03:56 PM (rCOda)

135 You don't have to guess, this happening here in IL right now. The 7th Circuit orders the state to enact CCW, it did - but with so many restrictions the real question to ask is "Where CAN we carry?" Every example you use is in there - including all university property. The Ds wanted to add all property adjacent to any university property which, in a community like Champaign-Urbana home of the U of I, population 100k,, would mean as a practical matter you could not carry anywhere. We're looking forward to lots more litigation. Assholes.

Posted by: Strelnikov at February 13, 2014 03:56 PM (9sT6X)

136 Within the next 10-20 years, if things continue one their current trajectory suppressors will no longer be NFA items.

Used to be in WA that you could buy one, but it was illegal to fire a suppressed weapon.

Now it's legal to use one, but you have to do some weird "my personal corporation is the owner, not me" thing to buy one.

Posted by: bonhomme[/i][/b][/i][/b][/s][/s] at February 13, 2014 03:57 PM (J79eW)

137 --btw the Ninth Circuit Court of Opinion that came out today-- it was decided by three judges. One Reagan appointee, one George W. Bush appointee, and one Clinton appointee. The decision was 2 to 1. Guess which judge had the dissenting opinion?

Posted by: tasker at February 13, 2014 03:57 PM (RJMhd)

138 To God's ears. I'm much more interested in having a legal suppressor than an full auto weapon. Posted by: toby928Â© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 07:56 PM (QupBk) Me too, but they're only worth using on a .22.

Posted by: Animal-S at February 13, 2014 03:57 PM (LHgfw)

139 We're looking forward to lots more litigation. And paying for both side's lawyers.

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 03:57 PM (QupBk)

140 Me too, but they're only worth using on a .22. .45acp carbine is subsonic.

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 03:58 PM (QupBk)

141 133 "generations of kids have loved and played with them for hours on end. Posted by: Tami" I STILL have to talk myself out of buying Lego sets for myself when I go to the store. They're so cool, but pretty damn pricey. Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 07:56 PM (080XV) My son's favorites right are the Hero Factory ones. They're about $10-12 for a package. Each package comes with one complete robot-looking hero or villain thingy. But all the pieces are interchangeable, so if you have several packages you can make a really unique Hero/robot thing. My son probably has seven or eight of them and the things he makes from them gets pretty cool.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 13, 2014 03:58 PM (qFpRI)

142 BTW you can buy a suppressor, but you have to register and pay the $200 license. Don't even think about making one.

Posted by: Animal-S at February 13, 2014 03:59 PM (LHgfw)

143 oikaphobia : fear of bacon?

Posted by: Bertram Cabot Jr. at February 13, 2014 03:59 PM (kVfSG)

144 Herbert! Herbert! Herbert! /makes sign of The One with hands Posted by: Soothsayer in Ten Forward at February 13, 2014 07:31 PM (ACqDT) Heh......space hippies.

Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 04:00 PM (X8dOg)

145

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 13, 2014 07:55 PM (qFpRI)

Ditto for me. Mom was a holplophobe. I am going to get my carry permit this year.

FYI --- The NRA has a gun safety program for really young children. (Eddie Eagle?) Basically telling kids, "If you see a gun, Go find an adult."

Posted by: rd at February 13, 2014 04:01 PM (D+lxs)

146

When dealing with gun control advocates and advocacy groups, it's best to keep in mind why their controllers (for lack of a better word) oppose private ownership of guns, and--surprise!--that opposition has nothing to do with public safety or differences of opinion regarding the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

The only thing preventing these would-be tyrants of the Left from going for all the marbles are millions of bitterly clinging, Bible-thumping flyover country yahoos they despise with every fiber of their being. Many of those yahoos are gun owners and--even worse from the perspective of the Left--gun-owning veterans. But, you say, guns aren't the only thing. There's the vote. Yeah, well, keep thinking those happy thoughts, you idealists you.

Guns are not a symbol of power. Guns are power. Ask Mao.

Posted by: troyriser at February 13, 2014 04:01 PM (gNlvW)

147 Posted by: rd at February 13, 2014 08:01 PM (D+lxs) I'll have to check that out. We keep all our stuff locked in the gun safe, but I would like them to learn gun safety as early as possible.

Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 13, 2014 04:02 PM (qFpRI)

148 I STILL have to talk myself out of buying Lego sets for myself when I go to the store. They're so cool, but pretty damn pricey. Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 07:56 PM (080XV) My son's favorites right are the Hero Factory ones. They're about $10-12 for a package. Each package comes with one complete robot-looking hero or villain thingy. But all the pieces are interchangeable, so if you have several packages you can make a really unique Hero/robot thing. My son probably has seven or eight of them and the things he makes from them gets pretty cool. Posted by: Mandy P., lurking lurker who lurks at February 13, 2014 07:58 PM (qFpRI) My son is almost 28 and he loved them when he was little. My nephew, who is 40, played with them when he was young and his son, who is 10, is so quick at putting the sets together it's amazing. They have bins and bins of legos.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 13, 2014 04:03 PM (bCEmE)

149 I see that Big Lego has gotten to some of you too..

Posted by: Soothsayer in Ten Forward at February 13, 2014 04:04 PM (ACqDT)

150 I had Lincoln Logs. Not quite so versatile.

Posted by: toby928© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 04:04 PM (QupBk)

151 They are great toys that stimulate the imagination. And they've certainly stood the test of time...generations of kids have loved and played with them for hours on end.

Posted by: Tami at February 13, 2014 07:54 PM (bCEmE)

----------------

Obviously, you've never stepped on one in the middle of the night, barefoot, half asleep and in a hurry. And they multiply in the dark. Evil, wicked little things. Worse than tribbles. At least tribbles are soft and cuddly.

Posted by: LFW - Honorary Pointy Eared Vulcan at February 13, 2014 04:05 PM (vVSOO)

152 142 BTW you can buy a suppressor, but you have to register and pay the $200 license. Don't even think about making one.

Posted by: Animal-S at February 13, 2014 07:59 PM (LHgfw)

You can make your own on a Form 4 (I think that's the number) after paying for the stamp. Not a big deal except for the whole "being a skilled machinist" part. My original point was that momentum is building for chipping away at the NFA and suppressors will likely be the first item to test the waters, as selective-fire, SBR / SBS, and AOW are harder to argue in terms of practicality.

Posted by: StPatrick_TN at February 13, 2014 04:05 PM (AaZLR)

153 I played with matchsticks and playing cards. And daddy's empty bottles and bottle caps.

Posted by: Soothsayer in Ten Forward at February 13, 2014 04:06 PM (ACqDT)

154

147 Good policy.

My nephew and a BIL bought handguns this year for Christmas. I bought them pistol safes. Neither have little kids, but their friends do. They installed the safes in the upper shelves of closets.

Posted by: rd at February 13, 2014 04:06 PM (D+lxs)

155 My youngest loved the Star Wars Lego sets. We used to babysit e-Bay auctions of bulk assorted Lego pieces. It was a sad day when I realized he outgrew them. I'm going to have to wait a few more years until he leaves the house before I can go dump the Legos out on the floor of his room.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 13, 2014 04:07 PM (rCOda)

156 If you're serious and you can write C you get Lego Mindstorms.

Posted by: Animal-S at February 13, 2014 04:10 PM (LHgfw)

157 ----------------Obviously, you've never stepped on one in the middle of the night, barefoot, half asleep and in a hurry. And they multiply in the dark. Evil, wicked little things. Worse than tribbles. At least tribbles are soft and cuddly. Posted by: LFW - Honorary Pointy Eared Vulcan at February 13, 2014 08:05 PM (vVSOO) OMG...I SO have! It's the worst! I ran out of swear words several times.

Posted by: [/i][/b][/u][/s] Tami at February 13, 2014 04:11 PM (bCEmE)

158 118 Then they'd say "nightclubs" because of the possibility that a drunken argument turns into a shooting. Even as pro-gun as I am, I agree with that. Watch some of the stupid arguments that ignite bar brawls and then .....imagine. Posted by: 98ZJUSMC Rounding Error Extraordinaire at February 13, 2014 07:49 PM (X8dOg) Yes, because those of us who have gone through a carry permit process that includes local police and Federal FBI investigation, finger printing, CCW classes, and hefty fees, and carry at least several hundred dollars if not a thousand are jonesing to go into "nightclubs" and shoot up some loud mouth rapper. In fact, all the rapper shootings I've heard about were done by legal permit guns carried by licensed body guards who just got pissed. Especially the ones that occur in intersections outside of Las Vegas nightclubs at 5 am. So let's not allow carry in nightclubs (we'll just lock it up in the car, hope the valet is honest) because those CCW permit holders can go off at a moment's notice. Same with hospitals. CCW holders can become so enraged at that night nurse that talks too loud at the nurse's desk and they will just click off a few rounds to shut her up. Never mind how friggin dangerous hospital parking lots/garages are, especially when you are a female or a frail elderly male. I escorted a friend for a schedule MRI last summer(scheduled on a Fri. night at 10pm-not her choice) and the two of us finally got out of there at 12:30 am and had to walk out to a dark parking lot without an escort-he was off duty at midnight. And carrying was a no no. I was seriously uncomfortable. Once you have gone through the anal exam to get a permit to conceal carry, I believe you should be able to carry anywhere, including courthouses, jails, etc. if you are there on civilian, non-litigation type business. Why is one place deemed safer and less in need of protection than others....criminals don't discern.

Posted by: Jen at February 13, 2014 04:12 PM (o985y)

159 This is like the fourth time I've seen this blog turn into a discussion of Legos.

Posted by: Animal-S at February 13, 2014 04:12 PM (LHgfw)

160 I'm going to have to wait a few more years until he leaves the house before I can go dump the Legos out on the floor of his room.

Posted by: Burn the Witch at February 13, 2014 08:07 PM (rCOda)

2 possible solutions: either A) build an AR-15 from scratch, which isn't difficult at all and is ultimately grownup legos, or B) buy a copy of Minecraft, which is an open-world computer game in which you can build whatever you like - look it up on the Youtubes if not familiar, or ask the progeny about it.

Posted by: StPatrick_TN at February 13, 2014 04:13 PM (AaZLR)

161 criminals don't discern. Posted by: Jen Hell, if I were a criminal, I'd gravitate towards places where people couldn't carry. Seems like the odds would be more in my favor.

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 04:13 PM (080XV)

162 I'd expect the "sawed off shotgun" to be uniformly legal prior to the suppressors.

The affirmation of the right to self-defense disconnected the whole "Something you might give to a militiaman" aspect. And the short shotgun is pretty uniformly regarded as one of the top 'inside a house' weapons.

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2014 04:17 PM (9ynpo)

163 Years ago my Mom used to work at Samsonite luggage. Legos were one of their side products. She used to be able to get bags of a thousand for just a couple of bucks. We had enough legos to build a full size Death Star, and had enough left over to build the Millennium Falcon.

Posted by: LFW - Honorary Pointy Eared Vulcan at February 13, 2014 04:19 PM (vVSOO)

164 @162 "Militia" just meant any able-bodied (white) (male) (doh, the Founders were not perfect) citizen old enough to serve in the military. The age requirement was more flexible back then. Militia did not mean an organized fighting force.

Posted by: Beagle at February 13, 2014 04:24 PM (sOtz/)

165 My youngest is a Lego addict. She has a dream house she keeps creating & remodeling. Her favorite thing to do is go to the lego store and hand pick bricks to put in a tub ($8 / small tub)

Posted by: votermom at February 13, 2014 04:24 PM (N06TF)

166 Most of the restrictions Ace lists were already in the Texas CHL law that passed in 1995. The tide, however, has worked against them, and most places where firearms are forbidden now must display an enormous, ugly sign with state-specified wording on it. Otherwise, their claim to exemption doesn't hold. I think we're more likely to see lawmakers eat away at WHO can carry. They'll cite (possibly false) claims of beatings in divorce court records to show a history of violence even if no arrest was ever made. People who take antidepressants - you're not carrying anymore. Maybe even when a doctor ticks the "yes" box for someone who drinks more than a government-specified level, that record will go into a database, and the poor schlep's CHL gets pulled.

Posted by: Michael Rittenhouse at February 13, 2014 04:26 PM (Z2DlB)

167 166 --- Yes. Not only will those who take antidepressants or drink "too much" be denied their rights, so too will anyone who lives with them.

Posted by: Margarita DeVille at February 13, 2014 04:29 PM (dfYL9)

168 I had a CCW but I let it lapse. A few years ago I pulled over for speeding by a town cop and he came to the rear of my vehicle and shouted "Sir do you have your weapon with you?" I guess he didn't hear about the terrible canoe incident.

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2014 04:31 PM (4+AaH)

169 @166 I think this is exactly right. The place restrictions seem to be swinging our way, too. And the "who can carry" argument would be easy for the banners to go to, since even the NRA supports some "who" restrictions. And as they spread it out to more and more people, you get guilt by association for defending the rights of wife beaters or whatever.

Posted by: blaster at February 13, 2014 04:34 PM (4+AaH)

170 In PA (and some other states) the state constitution limits who can make laws about firearms. In PA it's only the state legislature and the city of Philly. So the best thing would to do a Kelo style amendment to a bunch of state constitutions preventing local municipalities from passing their own gun control laws. Cities and townships shouldn't be allowed to mess with your constitutional rights. Anyways, I think this is where the preemptive legal battle is mainly being fought right now.

Posted by: Ed Anger at February 13, 2014 04:35 PM (tOkJB)

171 Soothsayer-

So, you don't like the notion that "... New Hampshire has a law forbidding laws at polling places" ?

I dunno.... maybe we could get a "thing" started. There's a whole bunch of laws that I'd like to start restricting.... and if we could do it piecemeal, location-by-location, -- what the heck, give it a shot !!!!

Posted by: A_Nonny_Mouse at February 13, 2014 04:37 PM (0Fsy1)

172 A gun in possession should be a requirement to vote.

If you are a disarmed sheep, I do not want you voting.

Posted by: Kristophr at February 13, 2014 04:39 PM (c6N69)

173
Hoplophobia?

Fear of beer?

Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 07:45 PM (080XV)

*snort*

If memory serves, it's "fear of tools".

Posted by: IllTemperedCur at February 13, 2014 04:41 PM (aYjRw)

174 Requiring arms to vote would also deal with crap like New Black Panther intimidation at the polls.

Wear a pistol. Fear no one.

Posted by: Kristophr at February 13, 2014 04:41 PM (c6N69)

175 I STILL have to talk myself out of buying Lego sets for myself when I go to the store. They're so cool, but pretty damn pricey. Posted by: Hobbitopoly at February 13, 2014 07:56 PM (080XV) Legos weren't around when I was a kid. I had Meccano, the Brit/Canadian counterpart to Erector sets. Whole bunch of different-sized steel strips and plates, plus brackets and such, all punched with equally-spaced holes so you could assemble them with the small screws and nuts provided (and the thread size on those screws matched no thread standard in the known universe). But it was great fun, wheels, motors, gears, and pulleys were part of it, too.

Posted by: Alberta Oil Peon at February 13, 2014 04:42 PM (yDmQD)

176 @166
Yes. But a fair number of the -specifics- of control laws on the books were based on the premise "Well, a milita man would not be issued that."

The thinking was: A silencer isn't issued to a random militaman even if you're calling everyone a militiaman, therefore there's no reason to consider that covered under the 2nd.

I'm absolutely not saying I agree. I'm saying "Ok, there's a ruling on the books explicitly revoking the reasoning now, so ... short shotguns (and silencers, and a variety of other non-militia-issue items) should be permissible."

Posted by: Al at February 13, 2014 04:46 PM (9ynpo)

177

What's coming next is that the gungrabbers are going to turn their attention to putting limits on ammunition.

That means big sin taxes, for instance, and limits on how much you can buy at one time. Also various kinds of limits on what ammo can be made of and how it can be manufactured.

It's already happening: in California you soon won't be able to buy any ammunition that contains lead.

Posted by: Steven Den Beste at February 13, 2014 04:50 PM (+rSRq)

178 Would a Federal Excise Tax of 300% on ammunition be Constitutional? Posted by: toby928Â© mangler of metaphors at February 13, 2014 07:35 PM (QupBk) Do I really have to say it?

Posted by: John Roberts at February 13, 2014 04:56 PM (AymDN)

179 Wear a pistol. Fear no one.

Posted by: Kristophr at February 13, 2014 08:41 PM (c6N69)

I wear a pistol. It is not a magic ward against bad people. Fear is healthy in small doses, before it becomes paranoia. Fear bad people - they don't value you life any more than they value theirs - that is, little; avoid them when you can. The old saw "don't be in stupid places with stupid people doing stupid things" holds true 99% of the time. When it doesn't, be glad you have that pistol. Good decision making and situational awareness are as if not more important than the pistol on your hip.

Posted by: StPatrick_TN at February 13, 2014 04:59 PM (AaZLR)

180 Each pellet in a shotgun shell shall have a unique, non-sequential serial number microstamped on it. The owner is required to go online to register each pellet. Owners of shotgun shells purchased prior to this law going into effect are required to turn those into local law enforcement, or alternately, submit them for microstamping by a locally constituted authority to be microstamped at the cost of $1.00 per pellet plus a $20 per shell charge.

Posted by: OCBill at February 13, 2014 05:52 PM (VCCXE)

181 Anyone say "A armed society is a polite society" yet?

Posted by: Darth Randall at February 13, 2014 06:12 PM (KlVdw)

182 The article is certainly correct, in many states for which getting a permit has been difficult there are very few restrictions on carry. In states which passed shall issue the laws came with bunches of restrictions. However, over time the pro carry movement has been able to peel back many of the restrictions in many states. Interestingly in VA one of the toughest restrictions is carrying in the woods, particular state and federal forests, due to hunting regulations. Permit holders can carry handguns, but no one can carry rifles or shotguns outside of hunting season and with a hunting license. Open carry which is legal in the state is not allowed in the forests even with a permit. So you can carry a AR-15 downtown Arlington, with a 20 round magazine, but not in the state forrest.

Posted by: Fredlike at February 14, 2014 03:18 AM (rF/yy)

183 With respect to concealed carry in establishments that serve liquor, I would be in favour of mandating this sign to be placed at the door: "ADVISORY NOTICE: Concealed and Open Carry Permit Holders entering this bar are invited to consider what their drinking will do to their marksmanship and judgement. Please be considerate of your fellow customers; tonight may be the night they depend on you." If the shit went down and a drunk CCW first-responder drew, fucked it up, and killed innocent people, let him or her face civil suit if s/he manages to dodge the negligent homicide charge that would (and IMO should) invariably follow. With the right to carry comes the responsibility to pay for your mistakes.

Posted by: perturbed at February 14, 2014 03:40 AM (TXq4O)

184 In deciding that places are not public such as theaters, taverns and other places of business then, though I don't smoke, I would gone in and light up a fat tasty cigar. The premise of many of the anti smoking laws was that they were public places and there was a many and large uproar about making a tavern or restaurant a public not private business. the blade cuts both ways.

Posted by: fishaddict at February 14, 2014 04:10 AM (GGoHH)

185 as to whether the Second Amendment's protections would forbid, for example, a state law banning any guns from being carried into a nightclub or any establishment that serves liquor. I ask not because I favor such a law, but because this would be the natural next step of the gun restrictivists Probably not. But that's not the amendment you need to cite. It's the 14th amendment. I dug this up for the affirmative action post, and I'll quote it again (emphasis mine, of course): No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States;

Posted by: I R A Darth Aggie © at February 14, 2014 05:41 AM (1hM1d)

Hide Comments | Add Comment | Refresh | Top

Comments are disabled. Post is locked.

173kb generated in CPU 0.0723, elapsed 0.2889 seconds.
64 queries taking 0.2343 seconds, 313 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.