Page 41 of 42

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:36 pm
by -Maximus-
Night Strike wrote: Both the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado and Sandy Hook Elementary were "gun free zones".


FALSE! I live in Colorado and actually it was not a "gun free zone". If you were being sarcastic because of the quotations you do not need to read the rest of what I posted.

If that was a statement:
The CO state regs do not have any language that a conceal carry permit holder cannot conceal carry in that Aurora theater. A gun buster sign is not enough to keep a law abiding citizen from carrying into a business in Colorado. It is merely a rule that the business owner implies. It is not against the law to break a rule because a rule is not law. Now if the business ghosts your firearm and they ask you to leave, you are subject to trespassing by not leaving.

The same applies for the Denver International Airport, as long as a concealed weapons permit holder does not pass through security, that same person can be anywhere in baggage claim, check in, etc. Yes they have gun buster signs entering the airport, these do not meet state requirements to keep a conceal weapon holder from entering (unless they want to pass through security, have fun with that!)
http://www.handgunlaw.us/states/colorado.pdf (Page 5) But we cannot just assume some website posted correct language, so on to the next URL I have added.
http://www.rmgo.org/firearms/concealed-carry/313-colorado-s-concealed-carry-law (download Colorado SENATE BILL 03-024, look at 18-12-214)

Please don't post false statements about when and where concealed carry permit holders can carry in this or that state unless you know the law for that state.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:47 pm
by Woodruff
Night Strike wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
Night Strike wrote:As for background checks, I already stated that forcing every private individual to call up the FBI and wait for a background check is quite onerous.


Tough shit. Price of doing business.


Most aren't interstate commerce, so the federal government doesn't hold jurisdiction.


It's certainly not unusual for individuals to travel to another state to purchase firearms, Night Strike. I have students who have gone to gun shows in Iowa and Kansas.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:48 pm
by Woodruff
PLAYER57832 wrote:Basically, they proposed having people who want to buy guns from a private person, anyone NOT a licensed dealer, would get a card to prove that they can buy guns. The onus would be on the purchaser, not the seller to do it. ALONG with that, they proposed simplifying the system.


This is not a bad idea, but then we have to worry about counterfeit proof.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:50 pm
by Woodruff
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
patches70 wrote:Suicide is not against the law. You won't find anyone in prison for attempted suicide. .

That's not true, though the exact laws vary by state. Jail may be less common than a psychiatric institution, but it definitely is illegal to commit suicide in most areas, mostly because it involves extra use of emergency services.. particularly things like jumping off a bridge.


There's typically a difference seen between attempted suicide and successful suicide. I know that it used to be illegal in Florida (I'm not sure if the law has changed since I moved out of the state) to commit suicide (yeah, I know), but it was not illegal to attempt suicide. I'm not sure WHY there's a distinction, to be honest.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 2:54 pm
by Woodruff
-Maximus- wrote:Now if the business ghosts your firearm


I've never heard this particular term - what does it mean?

I presume it has something to do with being able to tell you're carrying in some fashion?

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:15 pm
by -Maximus-
Woodruff wrote:
-Maximus- wrote:Now if the business ghosts your firearm


I've never heard this particular term - what does it mean?

I presume it has something to do with being able to tell you're carrying in some fashion?


Yes, for example, you bend over and the firearm "prints." It was actually illegal to print in Oklahoma a few years ago but they passed open carry and fixed it. Printing would be different from brandishing. Brandishing would be taking it out of holster and waving around or showing someone to scare. Brandishing is not good and usually illegal, although sometimes tough to prove in an open carry state.

I tell people all the time I can see them carrying. They either adjust so it hides easier or they don't care anyway.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

PostPosted: Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:17 pm
by Woodruff
-Maximus- wrote:
Woodruff wrote:
-Maximus- wrote:Now if the business ghosts your firearm


I've never heard this particular term - what does it mean?

I presume it has something to do with being able to tell you're carrying in some fashion?


Yes, for example, you bend over and the firearm "prints." It was actually illegal to print in Oklahoma a few years ago but they passed open carry and fixed it. Printing would be different from brandishing. Brandishing would be taking it out of holster and waving around or showing someone to scare. Brandishing is not good and usually illegal, although sometimes tough to prove in an open carry state.

I tell people all the time I can see them carrying. They either adjust so it hides easier or they don't care anyway.


Thanks.

Re: Why Stiffer Gun Control/Bannings Are In Order

PostPosted: Wed Apr 24, 2013 6:16 pm
by PLAYER57832
Woodruff wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
Metsfanmax wrote:
patches70 wrote:Suicide is not against the law. You won't find anyone in prison for attempted suicide. .

That's not true, though the exact laws vary by state. Jail may be less common than a psychiatric institution, but it definitely is illegal to commit suicide in most areas, mostly because it involves extra use of emergency services.. particularly things like jumping off a bridge.


There's typically a difference seen between attempted suicide and successful suicide. I know that it used to be illegal in Florida (I'm not sure if the law has changed since I moved out of the state) to commit suicide (yeah, I know), but it was not illegal to attempt suicide. I'm not sure WHY there's a distinction, to be honest.

It varies greatly by state. My knowledge is mostly as a first responder/volunteer. In some cases it is the action, such as jumping off a bridge that is illegal, because of the public safety/risk of emergency personnel, etc. In other cases, it is the act itself -- mostly to give law enforcement a way to hold people who are a threat to themselves or others. A big reason is the "or others" bit, because too often suicides are not just private situations. When they are -- those are generally not the ones you see on the news, they are the ones the family deals with on their own, mostly.