A Land Without Guns

[KoTeMoRe]

Funny. I'm pretty sure you were the one who made the call that we shouldn't be comparing firearms laws in the US to that of other countries, as they're an "apples to oranges" comparison. Considering we have different laws and legal traditions with regards to property, the ability to use it, and where you can own such property, perhaps you shouldn't compare your country's laws to our own.

I don't have to register a car unless I want to drive it on public roads (drive, not tow). An easy example of a car that travels all over the country without registration or a license: a race/sports car. Local dirt track stuff stays... there. If a competition is somewhere else, the vehicle is simply towed. No license, registration or insurance required.

Furthermore, I cannot use a firearm on private property without restriction. If I'm in most cities' limits, I cannot legally discharge it unless in self defense. I have to comply with any and all local, state, and federal laws on the weapon, regardless of where I use it. I am prohibited from owning certain types of weapons, even if those guns never leave my property. Your comparison, like your knowledge of US law, is ignorant.

Driving a car means, the vehicle moving under its own power. Try that with kindergarteners. My idea on licensing still stands.

Furthermore, I would offer you an advice, do not try to out play your hand. There are very few competitions that do NOT REQUIRE AN INSURANCE for the the sports car involved. Furthermore, I would add that a sports car by nature is a multi-controlled item. All the components of your car are tracable...starting by your Chasis and Engine.

What you are pushing forward to ridicule me, only shows the inherent control already existing, in that sense, my ignorance might be complete regarding gun and car legislation and regulation in the US, but at no moment I hinted at a control idea. I was not comparing, I thought car registration was a given...and basically it is.

My comparison? Which one? Cars kill more than guns, they are controlled in many levels. I do not see the issue. If you can accept a control over your means of travel, why does control over guns seems so difficult.

I read your post on the other thread...tracing and registration first step to confication...iI think I have my answer ultimately. As I thought Americans have a very atavic relationship with politics. Therefore they are better left to their own debates.

[Ought Six]

ah, I forgot to mention that I was talking about handguns.
I know people carrying long gun even around major cities as protest, there was one outside SFO two months ago.

I am talking about both handguns and rifles. Open carry of loaded handguns on rural public lands in generally legal in California. There are some exceptions, but the rule holds true.

http://californiaopencarry.org/faq.html

Where can I legally Open Carry?

*Loaded* Open Carry is legal in your home, temporary residence or campsite (unless otherwise prohibited), place of business, private property, and in areas of unicorporated territiry where shooting is not prohibited, including most areas within National Forest and BLM lands. With AB 144 becoming law, *Unloaded* Open Carry of handguns is now illegal except where loaded open carry is legal, and also in public lands (National Forests, BLM, etc.) where firearms are permitted.

*Unloaded* Open Carry is still legal for long guns (rifles and shotguns) anywhere except the following places:

• schools and "school zones" (within 1000 feet of a K-12 school)
• California State Parks
  
• "federal facilities" within the National Parks (details)
  
• US Post Offices and other federal buildings
  
• any state or local public building or at any legislative meeting required to be open to the public
  
• the State Capitol, legislative offices, office of the Governor, Governor’s residence, etc.
  
• “sterile areas” (areas where access is controlled by security screening) of airports
  
• areas restricted by local city or county ordinance, often including regional parks

[Geezah]

You can buy guns for hunting, and guns for sport shooting at the range, however the question that perhaps you Americans should be asking is, why do I need to buy guns for my protection? That is what's wrong with the picture. Why has the country gone down a path that having a gun for self-defense is almost a necessity.Every other developed country allows people to have guns for hunting and sport shooting, what they limit/control access to is the type of weapons that are used by cops and the military, which is something that the US is very liberal with.

People have not changed over the years, peoples intent has not changed only technology, so the Founding Fathers fully understood the evil in mens hearts to realize that the common people must be able to protect themselvse from said evil.

"Firearms stand next in importance to the constitution itself. They are the American people's liberty teeth and keystone under independence . from the hour the Pilgrims landed to the present day, events, occurrences and tendencies prove that to ensure peace security and happiness, the rifle and pistol are equally indispensable . the very atmosphere of firearms anywhere restrains evil interference - they deserve a place of honor with all that's good."
George Washington
First President of the United States

The 2nd has fcuk all to do with hunting or sport, it is a way that the law abiding do not need rely on others for protection. The Supreme Court weighed in this and ruled that there is nothing in the Constitution that States that Law Enforcement must be at our beck and call 24/7, and the responsbility of protecting oneself and loved ones falls on the individual.

It's really not that hard to understand, and it does not take a rocket scientict to work it out. Now if you know if a Utopia where everyone is nice to everyone, let me know where it is, as I would to buy a ticket for me and my family to move there....

[Lugiahua]

I am talking about both handguns and rifles. Open carry of loaded handguns on rural public lands in generally legal in California. There are some exceptions, but the rule holds true.

That's also true, but I won't risk it, unless I am familiar with local PD/Sheriff policy
as a lot of police officers here in CA don't understand current version of law (which is very complicate anyway), and possible to arrest you even carried legally.

-----------
BTW, a number of states have their constitution stating that weapon (disregard if a firearm) could be use for self-defense or defense of the state

Here are some examples:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." --- State Constitution of Washington

"The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power." --- State Constitution of Oregon
"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes." --- State Constitution of Nevada

and California is one of very few state that doesn't have similar statement

[Ought Six]

Driving a car means, the vehicle moving under its own power. Try that with kindergarteners. My idea on licensing still stands.

Furthermore, I would offer you an advice, do not try to out play your hand. There are very few competitions that do NOT REQUIRE AN INSURANCE for the the sports car involved. Furthermore, I would add that a sports car by nature is a multi-controlled item. All the components of your car are tracable...starting by your Chasis and Engine.

What you are pushing forward to ridicule me, only shows the inherent control already existing, in that sense, my ignorance might be complete regarding gun and car legislation and regulation in the US, but at no moment I hinted at a control idea. I was not comparing, I thought car registration was a given...and basically it is.

My comparison? Which one? Cars kill more than guns, they are controlled in many levels. I do not see the issue. If you can accept a control over your means of travel, why does control over guns seems so difficult.

I read your post on the other thread...tracing and registration first step to confication...iI think I have my answer ultimately. As I thought Americans have a very atavic relationship with politics. Therefore they are better left to their own debates.

Fortunately, Americans have soundly rejected national gun licensing and registration. Such schemes in other nations (like Australia and Britain) were precursors to confiscation. Once they passed licensing and registration, they knew who had guns and where they were, making them easy to take away when the ban was finally passed.

BTW, there is a gun licensing scheme in America. The state of Illinois requires a firearm owner's identification (FOID) card. The Chicago metropolitan area has among the highest violent crime rates in America, especially murders committed with guns. Take a look at all the news articles about the obscene number of shootings in Chicago.

[BlackFlag]

That's also true, but I won't risk it, unless I am familiar with local PD/Sheriff policy
as a lot of police officers here in CA don't understand current version of law (which is very complicate anyway), and possible to arrest you even carried legally.

Get familiar with the laws, a cop doesn't have to understand for you to still be in the right. If they violate your rights, you can sue. There are plenty of videos on youtube of such situations.

[Odd]

My comparison? Which one? Cars kill more than guns, they are controlled in many levels. I do not see the issue. If you can accept a control over your means of travel, why does control over guns seems so difficult.

I read your post on the other thread...tracing and registration first step to confication...iI think I have my answer ultimately. As I thought Americans have a very atavic relationship with politics. Therefore they are better left to their own debates.

Cars are more complex, take longer to master and require specialized skills to operate safely. While someone can learn to safely use a firearm in a few minutes, learning to drive a car is a life long process. In comparison the basic rules of handling a gun can be stripped down to: Point in a safe direction and keep finger off the trigger.

[NeedsABetterName]

Driving a car means, the vehicle moving under its own power. Try that with kindergarteners. My idea on licensing still stands.

So if I don't drive the vehicle, I can do whatever I want to it? Funny, because that's pretty far removed from US firearms law. When I put together an AK in my garage, if I cut a piece of metal a quarter-inch too short while threading the barrel, I am looking at ten years in federal prison, a $250,000 fine, or both, not to mention the loss of all future ability to own a firearm. So long as I don't drive my heavily-modified vehicle on public roads in the United States, I can quite literally do whatever I want to that vehicle. Licensing is only required if I choose to drive on public roads, and I also have to meet certain emissions and safety standards. Ownership, regardless of my intent, is not restricted. Your idea does not stand.

Furthermore, I would offer you an advice, do not try to out play your hand. There are very few competitions that do NOT REQUIRE AN INSURANCE for the the sports car involved. Furthermore, I would add that a sports car by nature is a multi-controlled item. All the components of your car are tracable...starting by your Chasis and Engine.

In some major competitions, yes. In many local ones, including one that my college sponsors annually, nothing is required. You and I are dealing with two different ideas: action and possession. Possession alone is enough to become criminal in the United States for firearms. With motor vehicles, it is not.

What you are pushing forward to ridicule me, only shows the inherent control already existing, in that sense, my ignorance might be complete regarding gun and car legislation and regulation in the US, but at no moment I hinted at a control idea. I was not comparing, I thought car registration was a given...and basically it is.

No, it is not. This has been amply demonstrated by many members. You attempt to equivocate the licensing of driving with firearms ownership. The two are vastly different concepts in US legal tradition. You fail to understand this and despite numerous attempts by multiple forum members to enhance your understanding, you continue posting the same thing. You post little more than blanket assumptions of "this is the way it is," with little knowledge on the matter. When challenged, you simply move the goalposts of your argument. I would suggest you educate yourself on the matter before commenting further.

My comparison? Which one? Cars kill more than guns, they are controlled in many levels. I do not see the issue. If you can accept a control over your means of travel, why does control over guns seems so difficult.

To use your own words, "apples to oranges." One is an enumerated right, backed by both a Constitutional amendment and US Supreme Court precedent. The other is a privilege when done in public, again backed by court precedent. Again, car crimes (DUI, vehicular manslaughter, etc.) are decided by action. In the US, gun crimes are possession issues in the context we're speaking of. There is a distinction.

I read your post on the other thread...tracing and registration first step to confication...iI think I have my answer ultimately. As I thought Americans have a very atavic relationship with politics. Therefore they are better left to their own debates.

Mine in bold.

[Ought Six]

That's also true, but I won't risk it, unless I am familiar with local PD/Sheriff policy
as a lot of police officers here in CA don't understand current version of law (which is very complicate anyway), and possible to arrest you even carried legally.

If they did so, you would then have legitimate grounds for a false arrest suit. If you allow the government to intimidate you into giving up your rights voluntarily, then you are aiding tyranny and enslaving yourself.
-----------

BTW, a number of states have their constitution stating that weapon (disregard if a firearm) could be use for self-defense or defense of the state

Here are some examples:

"The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men." --- State Constitution of Washington
"The people shall have the right to bear arms for the defense of themselves, and the State, but the Military shall be kept in strict subordination to the civil power." --- State Constitution of Oregon
"Every citizen has the right to keep and bear arms for security and defense, for lawful hunting and recreational use and for other lawful purposes." --- State Constitution of Nevada

As does mine.

SECTION 24 RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS. The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.
-- Washington State Constitution --

[KoTeMoRe]

Well, you're asserting that driving is a right in the United States. The burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that. Hard facts, please, as opposed to your usual straw man/red herring fallacies. Tip: start with the US Constitution. If you don't find it there, move to Supreme Court precedent.

Nope, I am saying that it is not a privilege...if it was, one could loose his capacity to drive. Yet...while a felon looses his right to bear arms, he does not the capacity to drive...so which is what?

[NeedsABetterName]

Nope, I am saying that it is not a privilege...if it was, one could loose his capacity to drive. Yet...while a felon looses his right to bear arms, he does not the capacity to drive...so which is what?

You can lose your ability to drive for any number of reasons. Reckless driving, driving while intoxicated, and various other criminal offenses are all grounds for revocation of driving privileges.

Unlike firearms rights (as well as voting rights and certain other restrictions), a convicted felon does not automatically forfeit his drivers license. That forfeiture is contingent on specific driving related offenses.

[Lugiahua]

BTW, a common argument you heard is
"only cops should own XXX (AR-15, AK, or whatever) because they were trained"
actually, you already see them in this thread

Well, there are a few problem with argument:
1. Contrary to common belief, many police are not well trained with their weapons. A number of academy only offers handgun trainings but not rifles.
My last carbine class had a few local officers, because they had no rifle training in neither academy nor agency. So they have to get their own outside to learn how to deploy AR-15s.

2. If this argument is true, I shouldn't be restrict to certain weapon as long as having same or better training with police, right?
If I took enough AR-15 classes (and I did), government should not prohibit me from owning same AR-15 as police then.

[Corrupt]

Why is a weapon that is common for a police officer to use for his personal protection, not suitable for me, a law-abiding citizen, to own?

Out of interest, would you opinion change if you lived in the UK, where the police (outside specialist firearms units) do not carry guns?

You can lose your ability to drive for any number of reasons. Reckless driving, driving while intoxicated, and various other criminal offenses are all grounds for revocation of driving privileges.

Bit off topic, but entertaining. In the UK driving without a license/while banned is often punished by a driving ban.

[Lugiahua]

Would your opinion change on that if you lived in the UK, where the police (outside specialist firearms units) do not carry guns?

If I lived in UK, I probably wouldn't mind just have double barrel for hunting.
But matter of fact, I don't live in UK.

[Bro Jangles]

Out of interest, would you opinion change if you lived in the UK, where the police (outside specialist firearms units) do not carry guns?



Bit off topic, but entertaining. In the UK driving without a license/while banned is often punished by a driving ban.

Let me flip that, why is a weapon that criminals are guaranteed to use against me not ok for me to own?