Gun Laws

[chaos1551]

Can anyone think of a personal situation where they thought maybe their local gun regulation was a good thing?

Living in Montana, you can get any gun for a very modest price if you are not a criminal. If you're under 14, you have to have an adult with you (in a public firing area). You can not be disallowed a concealed carry permit unless you are a criminal or cannot prove competency (wording crucial). No firing in city limits or near houses. My favorite is that local laws can make no regulations regarding firearms; regulation lies in the sole jurisdicition of the state.

I like our regulation. We have all we need. It makes sense, and guns are everywhere. I rarely hear of gun crime.

Of course, I live in one of the most gun-friendly states of the Union.

Have you ever thought about good regulation? What are some of the most stupid regulations in your state/country/province?

 

[Grenadier]

Most of the regulations that restrict / hinder firearms ownership / use are already enacted at the federal level.

There's simply no need for localities to get involved with any more restrictions, since law-abiding folks pretty much use common sense (and courtesy) and avoid committing crimes in the first place.

I see no need for localities enacting more restrictions, since everything's pretty much already covered.

 

[Carol]

No firing in city limits or near houses.

That sounds quite restrictive.

 

[zDom]

What are some of the most stupid regulations in your state/country/province?

Here's one that has been sand in my shorts lately:

One of the few times I am a pedestrian away from my vehicle


(where, in Missouri, we can ALWAYS keep our firearm concealed, even without a special license, if we can lawfully possess a firearm)

for a walk in an iffy-environment, that is to say, the ONLY place I really feel I should be exercising my license to carry concealed on a regular basis, I am not permitted to have it because ...

we can't carry concealed on college campus.

Every time I sit in that classroom, I think: wouldn't it be such a damned shame if someone here, at my college, went beserk and went roaming down the hall shooting folk? And there I sit, unarmed, when I could defend not only myself, but my fellow students.

Because those intent on doing others harm are NOT going to stop and think, "OH, but I'm not ALLOWED to have a firearm on campus ...!"

Or when I walk back to my truck in the dark (grad school; all my classes are night classes), I think: yep, not a great situation.

But at least I am a pretty good sized, somewhat athletic male with roughly 20 years of martial art training.

I really feel sorry for all the ladies in the same position.



Every time I see a sign that says "Concealed Weapons Prohibited" on a building, I comply. I am a law abiding citizen. I go in unarmed. But I go in thinking, "Fools: I hope you know you prohibited yourselves out of a potential defender, not a potential murderer — a murderer won't disarm him or herself because of your silly, misguided sign ..."

(shrug)

 

[Darksoul]

That sounds quite restrictive.

-I would assume he means 'firing' as in practice shooting, not defending oneself. Although I could be wrong.

Andrew

 

[Darksoul]

Every time I see a sign that says "Concealed Weapons Prohibited" on a building, I comply. I am a law abiding citizen. I go in unarmed. But I go in thinking, "Fools: I hope you know you prohibited yourselves out of a potential defender, not a potential murderer — a murderer won't disarm him or herself because of your silly, misguided sign ..."

(shrug)

-Thats the one thing I find odd about the constant call for new gun laws. It punishes the law abiding by assuming that if they have a gun, they will somehow turn into a criminal down the line. Having a gun doesn't make someone a criminal. What you do with it might. Do these anti-gun clowns see into the future? Can they say having more law abiding with concealed carry will cause chaos? Just seems very strange to me.

Andrew

 

[Carol]

-I would assume he means 'firing' as in practice shooting, not defending oneself. Although I could be wrong.

Andrew

Ahh...after a second look...I think you are exactly right, Andrew. :asian:

The citation says "firing" and not "shooting"...I'm not a lawyer, but there must be some way to show the difference in intent.

 

[chaos1551]

Ahh...after a second look...I think you are exactly right, Andrew. :asian:

The citation says "firing" and not "shooting"...I'm not a lawyer, but there must be some way to show the difference in intent.

Even if it were against regulation to fire within city limits in self-defense, I doubt anyone here would actually cite for it. I've never heard of it happening anywhere, actually. As far as I know, all places I've lived disallow discharging a firearm in city limits. I think that's just to keep people from just going off in the backyard with a rifle. Considering some of the dumb things people do, I wouldn't trust anyone firing a rifle in their backyard when my backyard borders theirs.

zDom, I feel the same as you. Good people don't need the law and bad people don't obey them anyway, so what use are they?

I wonder how you feel about having firearms in government buildings. I can understand not letting folks take guns into the courtroom, but other than that I'm a little unclear as to the reasoning. Anyone?

 

[Deaf Smith]

I prefer just one regulation about firearms. It is:

Do anything stupid with that gun and you will be punished.

I don't mind people packing guns as long as they don't wave them around (like that guy did in an Arizona Wal-Mart and had the gun go off.) So that means no shooting inside the city limits would be common sense.

To me you can pack it on the street, pack it in church, pack it on the bus, but do something stupid like fire it without a real good reason, well you should end up like that guy in Wal-Mart (he has six charges of felony endangering laid on him right now.)

Yes I know insane people should not have guns, but insane people should be in insane asylums! Drug users should be in re-hab. People who get felony convictions really should serve the sentence that defines a felony conviction (yes if it’s a 10 yr sentence, they should serve TEN YEARS.) If you are gonna give them only 6 months, then don’t make the crime a felony!

Anyway, the less laws we have the better it is. Far easier to obey 10 laws than 10,000 (like we have now.)

Deaf