If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Some Gun Nutjobs)   A group of gun enthusiasts plans on protesting a long-standing agreement between the city and an arts & crafts festival that forbids the presence of firearms. Now...why would you need a gun at a craft fair in the first place?   (candgnews.com) divider line 407
    More: Stupid, Royal Oak, carrying a firearm, Oakland County, city commission, firearms, city halls, festivals, arts  
•       •       •

3876 clicks; posted to Main » on 08 Aug 2010 at 4:31 PM (3 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



407 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
2010-08-08 08:51:47 PM
no sway in the 2nd amendment, but these same right wing nuts gladly give up their first amendment rights like it was going out of style.
 
2010-08-08 08:52:45 PM
thamike: It doesn't matter what someone could do. What matters is that they don't want guns there. If some maniac shoots up the place, well, that's what they were going to do. They would have shot the guy who would have asked you to please not bring any firearms inside before he got a chance to ask. What's your point, Choose-Your-Own-Adventure?

So you acknowledge that your original reason used to justify the ban is irrelevant and unfounded? That's all I can assume from your failure to actually defend the point.

But, the next argument you bring up is whether or not their need is sufficient to ban firearms. Simply put, someone's desire, fear, or what have you simply doesn't qualify as a reason to restrict a citizen's rights. They have provide overwhelming proof of why they need to do so.

Remember - public event on public property.
 
2010-08-08 08:53:01 PM
thamike: ronaprhys: Show me any meaningful statistics where legal CCW owners (or those legal up until the crime) are randomly shooting people at public events, private events, etc. Be sure to post statistics showing how many people (approximate will be okay) have a CCW and how many have illegally shot someone.

Seriously - this isn't even a relevant argument. Plain and simple - it doesn't happen with enough frequency to even warrant mentioning.

None of that matters. Somebody running a function doesn't want guns there, they can tell you to stow it. Turning it into a big legal deal is a detriment to your own cause. Be an asshole if you want, but own it.


That's the thing - just as no one has the right to question WHY someone would wish to carry, provided they do so lawfully, no one has the right to question WHY anyone would wish to exclude guns from their presence if they can lawfully do so.
 
2010-08-08 08:53:48 PM
Noticeably F.A.T.: Yes, they are within their legal rights to ban guns. That doesn't make it right for them to do so, and it doesn't make the folks fighting it assholes. If someone wants to open a public event, them ban certain members of the public for BS reasons, they need to be called out on it.

Eh. I really can't say more than I have on the matter. Own guns. Store guns. Horde guns. Carry guns. I'm all for it. But I am of the opinion that gun owners aren't retarded and discourteous by nature. Some people need to learn some manners. They know this. It's probably why they flash their pieces all over the place. No class.
 
2010-08-08 08:55:07 PM
thamike: Can you do us a favor and stop cheapening our rights?

So, restricting rights for no good reason doesn't cheapen them, but fighting said restrictions does?

mikemc3: Got news for you rednecks...the organizers can make whatever f-ing rule they want while in their event. Including keeping your stupid pointless firearms off their property!!!!

I've got some news for you retards, we can fight whatever farking rule you want to come up with, including your asinine ones about banning inanimate objects for no good reason.
 
2010-08-08 08:55:15 PM
Noticeably F.A.T.:
Yes, they are within their legal rights to ban guns. That doesn't make it right for them to do so, and it doesn't make the folks fighting it assholes. If someone wants to open a public event, them ban certain members of the public for BS reasons, they need to be called out on it.


Actually, this is still open to debate. The city has openly stated that they aren't sure if it's legal as this event is being held on public property and is open to anyone who buys a ticket. Really, the question here actually is whether or not they have the right to ban firearms.
 
2010-08-08 08:55:36 PM
jso2897: That's the thing - just as no one has the right to question WHY someone would wish to carry, provided they do so lawfully, no one has the right to question WHY anyone would wish to exclude guns from their presence if they can lawfully do so.

There you go. Thanks.
 
2010-08-08 08:56:25 PM
mikemc3: Got news for you rednecks...the organizers can make whatever f-ing rule they want while in their event. Including keeping your stupid pointless firearms off their property!!!!


Dumbass!!


You know how I know you didn't read the article?
 
2010-08-08 08:56:30 PM
Noticeably F.A.T. [TotalFark] Quote 2010-08-08 08:55:07 PM

restricting rights for no good reason

>>>>

it isn't for no good reason and who are you to decide what is a good and not good one?
 
2010-08-08 08:57:47 PM
jso2897: That's the thing - just as no one has the right to question WHY someone would wish to carry, provided they do so lawfully, no one has the right to question WHY anyone would wish to exclude guns from their presence if they can lawfully do so.

That's the key word. It's unknown if this is a legal ban or not. If it's not legal, we sure as shiat get to question why.
 
2010-08-08 08:58:30 PM
Jakevol2: John Buck 41: Guairdean: Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: Criminals are always safe when honest people have been disarmed. You panicky hoplophobes (Look it up) (new window) always seem to miss this simple fact.

Wow, I'm so impressed you read an NRA newsletter. Why are gun nuts always panicky hicks whose knowledge of criminals comes primarily from 80's action movies and Law & Order reruns?

My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing. As for reading NRA pamphlets, I've read articles on both sides of the argument. That's one reason I've been a life member of the NRA since (quite probably) before you were born. I've taught two daughters and two grandsons how to safely handle firearms, how to use them properly, and the consequences of using them. You've been taught to fear a tool, I was taught to learn it's proper use and to respect it.

Nice comeback.

when all you have is a hammer all you see are nails.


And there are none so blind as those who will not see.
 
2010-08-08 08:58:45 PM
Big Al: it isn't for no good reason and who are you to decide what is a good and not good one?

What good reason? Provide stats and data to provide your point.
 
2010-08-08 08:58:47 PM
You just sneak one into the festival in your waist band. Cholo style.

Holsters are for honest people.
 
2010-08-08 08:59:02 PM
It is not a public event

It is an event open to the Public

The Sponsor is the "lessee" of the property it does not matter if it is City property.

The event sponsor, when they sign the agreement to use the property is given certain aspects of ownership for the duration of the Contract

It is within their legal right to ban firearms, outside liquids, cameras, recording devices and attire and anything else based not Based on Race Sex or Religion.

If this offends you, you have the right not to patronize the event!

If it really offends you, you have the right to redress your grievance with your elected officials and encourage them not to allow the lease of City property to people who set these conditions

The Guys bringing this issue up need to learn not only the Constitution, but common property law as well.

All this shiat does is harm Second Amendment Advocacy and makes us all look like Palin Americans.

Is it any wonder are Nation is Farked?
 
2010-08-08 09:00:04 PM
Big Al: it isn't for no good reason

Oh? Then what is the reason?

and who are you to decide what is a good and not good one?

I can decide whatever the hell I want. That's just my opinion though. That's why it's being taken to a court.
 
2010-08-08 09:02:23 PM
thamike: I retract my previous statement. Apparently you are one of those guys. Can you do us a favor and stop cheapening our rights?

I'm not cheapening them at all. If it's legal to carry concealed at a public event on public property, then the organizer cannot be permitted to ban them. That's no different than them banning free speech or any other right when there's no over-riding need.

You've not proven, in any way, shape, or form, that there's a need to prevent legal CCW permit-holders from carrying legally at an event like this. You've shown that they want to, that's for sure. But not that there's a need or that their want to ban them should matter.
 
2010-08-08 09:03:09 PM
Well, why would you need a craft at a gun fair?
 
2010-08-08 09:05:29 PM
ronaprhys: Actually, this is still open to debate. The city has openly stated that they aren't sure if it's legal as this event is being held on public property and is open to anyone who buys a ticket. Really, the question here actually is whether or not they have the right to ban firearms.

They are doing this to appease the screamers, or they need to fire the City Attorney! There is massive rulings concerning Property and Contract law establishes the right of the lessee to be able to do this.

The key issue is that the City is not the sponsor,and the sponsor is granting admission in exchange for an entry fee and agreement to their terms and conditions. This makes it an event open to the public not a public event.
 
2010-08-08 09:06:30 PM
Azlefty: It is not a public event

It is an event open to the Public

The Sponsor is the "lessee" of the property it does not matter if it is City property.

The event sponsor, when they sign the agreement to use the property is given certain aspects of ownership for the duration of the Contract

It is within their legal right to ban firearms, outside liquids, cameras, recording devices and attire and anything else based not Based on Race Sex or Religion.

If this offends you, you have the right not to patronize the event!

If it really offends you, you have the right to redress your grievance with your elected officials and encourage them not to allow the lease of City property to people who set these conditions

The Guys bringing this issue up need to learn not only the Constitution, but common property law as well.

All this shiat does is harm Second Amendment Advocacy and makes us all look like Palin Americans.

Is it any wonder are Nation is Farked?


Actually, while some of your interpretation is correct (an event open to the public vs a public event, though I'd argue the distinction is not particularly meaningful here), you fail to realize that even leasing the land for this period of time cannot trump or arbitrarily restrict a citizen's rights.

To be fair, the city acknowledges that they're not sure whether or not they can ban firearms for legal carriers.

My personal feeling is that you can't do this on public land. On private land, that's another story. Honestly, that's the key distinction here. Public vs private land.
 
2010-08-08 09:06:45 PM
ronaprhys: jso2897: That's the thing - just as no one has the right to question WHY someone would wish to carry, provided they do so lawfully, no one has the right to question WHY anyone would wish to exclude guns from their presence if they can lawfully do so.

That's the key word. It's unknown if this is a legal ban or not. If it's not legal, we sure as shiat get to question why.


Exactly - this is dependent upon a number of factors, some of which vary from one place to another. At any rate, since the carry advocates have stated that they don't intend to take it to court, it probably hinges upon the way the local government decides to designate the event - but I don't know the laws in that state. The law is often complex and ambiguous on "gray area" issues like this.
 
2010-08-08 09:06:51 PM
Noticeably F.A.T.: thamike: None of that matters. Somebody running a function doesn't want guns there, they can tell you to stow it. Turning it into a big legal deal is a detriment to your own cause. Be an asshole if you want, but own it.

Yes, they are within their legal rights to ban guns. That doesn't make it right for them to do so, and it doesn't make the folks fighting it assholes. If someone wants to open a public event, them ban certain members of the public for BS reasons, they need to be called out on it.


People don't get banned, guns get banned.
 
2010-08-08 09:08:20 PM
Seriously, gun people, what the fark?
 
2010-08-08 09:09:07 PM
Azlefty: They are doing this to appease the screamers, or they need to fire the City Attorney! There is massive rulings concerning Property and Contract law establishes the right of the lessee to be able to do this.

The key issue is that the City is not the sponsor,and the sponsor is granting admission in exchange for an entry fee and agreement to their terms and conditions. This makes it an event open to the public not a public event.


I believe you're correct for private property, but not public property. I may be proven wrong when or if there ends up being a court case on this. Until then, the point is open.

Note that someone here provided some insight into Nebraska law which would specifically prohibit the ban.
 
2010-08-08 09:12:01 PM
jso2897: Exactly - this is dependent upon a number of factors, some of which vary from one place to another. At any rate, since the carry advocates have stated that they don't intend to take it to court, it probably hinges upon the way the local government decides to designate the event - but I don't know the laws in that state. The law is often complex and ambiguous on "gray area" issues like this.

Yep - it'll be interesting if a follow-up article comes up. I probably won't follow it (the state up north generally shall not be acknowledged), but it's difficult for me to see how they could decide so without opening themselves up for legal action and potentially another SCOTUS case.

Of course, for that to happen, someone would really, really need to want to push this.
 
2010-08-08 09:12:55 PM
Noticeably F.A.T.: Big Al: it isn't for no good reason

Oh? Then what is the reason?

and who are you to decide what is a good and not good one?

I can decide whatever the hell I want. That's just my opinion though. That's why it's being taken to a court.


I don't mean to be argumentative, but based on TFA, it does not appear that this is headed for court at this time, actually.
 
2010-08-08 09:16:33 PM
Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing.

Uh huh. In the grand internet tradition, next you're going to tell me how that ankle holster was the only thing that saved you from those violent criminal masterminds in Middle-of-Nowhere, Texas.



No, my closer contacts with the criminal element have been limited to meetings on somewhat neutral ground. By the way, you might want to check out some NRA pamphlets. They'll explain why you shouldn't use an ankle holster for your primary defense weapon.
 
2010-08-08 09:17:10 PM
ronaprhys Quote 2010-08-08 08:58:45 PM

What good reason? Provide stats and data to provide your point.

>>>>

a business can decide not to allow weapons. The end
 
2010-08-08 09:17:31 PM
ronaprhys: jso2897: Exactly - this is dependent upon a number of factors, some of which vary from one place to another. At any rate, since the carry advocates have stated that they don't intend to take it to court, it probably hinges upon the way the local government decides to designate the event - but I don't know the laws in that state. The law is often complex and ambiguous on "gray area" issues like this.

Yep - it'll be interesting if a follow-up article comes up. I probably won't follow it (the state up north generally shall not be acknowledged), but it's difficult for me to see how they could decide so without opening themselves up for legal action and potentially another SCOTUS case.

Of course, for that to happen, someone would really, really need to want to push this.


I agree - this might be an issue that stops at the state level, depending on how that states laws are written. The 2nd alone doesn't answer to this, because their are dual issues involved - and I don't really think Heller speaks to this - but there might be other case law that does. IANAL, and I dunno.
 
2010-08-08 09:17:41 PM
I'll keep my guns away from the craft fairs when the craft people keep their crafts away from the gun shows.

/crafts
 
2010-08-08 09:17:55 PM
jso2897: I don't mean to be argumentative, but based on TFA, it does not appear that this is headed for court at this time, actually.

Doesn't seem that way. I'm wondering if it's worth it to fight this particular one. I'm pretty happy with the current trend in SCOTUS rulings right now but I don't want to see the issue lose momentum. If folks are going to try and challenge rulings and unConstitutional laws or decrees like this, they need to do so where they're clear-cut violations and further reverse the tide of private firearm ownership and carry rules.
 
2010-08-08 09:19:23 PM
I went to a gun show a couple of weeks ago and did see some people with crafts. I don't think anyone raised a complaint about them.

Seriously, I didn't know what to expect, but found the people there were friendly, helpful, and very knowledgeable. I found a good deal on a my first handgun and am now just waiting for my CCW to arrive in the mail next week. Georgia has pretty streamlined rules.
 
2010-08-08 09:20:21 PM
Big Al: a business can decide not to allow weapons. The end

On their property? Absolutely. On public property? Absolutely not. This is somewhere in the middle and the ruling has yet to be made. In order to argue that they should be able to ban firearms on public property that's been leased for a temporary event like this you have to prove need.

Now, prove need.
 
2010-08-08 09:22:45 PM
Guairdean: Dr. Nick Riviera: Guairdean: My knowledge of criminals comes from a far more definitive source than movies and TV. It comes from contact with the real thing.

Uh huh. In the grand internet tradition, next you're going to tell me how that ankle holster was the only thing that saved you from those violent criminal masterminds in Middle-of-Nowhere, Texas.



No, my closer contacts with the criminal element have been limited to meetings on somewhat neutral ground. By the way, you might want to check out some NRA pamphlets. They'll explain why you shouldn't use an ankle holster for your primary defense weapon.


I have some literature of my own that you might want to check out.
 
2010-08-08 09:22:57 PM
ronaprhys: I believe you're correct for private property, but not public property.

My point is when a person enters into an agreement to use property it in many ways becomes "their" property allowing them many of the rights given to other property owners and among those are the ability to restrict things as long as they are not based on, race religion or sex if it is an event open to the public. When you rent an apartment, subject to the terms of the agreement, you "own" that apartment the landlord cannot tell you who or what can be allowed in your apartment, it works the same when a person enters intro an agreement to use publicly owned property. The title holder is not the decider, the decider is who has the legal right to use the property, in this case the agreement holder since for the time of the agreement the city has granted them exclusive use of the property- temporary ownership. If it is as you say it is they would not be able to charge admission since it is a public event and it is illegal to base participation in a public event on the ability to pay.
 
2010-08-08 09:25:46 PM
ronaprhys: Big Al: a business can decide not to allow weapons. The end

On their property? Absolutely. On public property? Absolutely not. This is somewhere in the middle and the ruling has yet to be made. In order to argue that they should be able to ban firearms on public property that's been leased for a temporary event like this you have to prove need.

Now, prove need.


I've been reading the law here in Georgia because I just applied for a CCW. The new law, SB308, states:


Part 1, Section 1-3(c)"... private property owners or persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such property shall have the right to forbid possession of a weapon or long gun on their property, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135. A violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not create or give rise to a civil action for damages."

So, in Georgia at least, the crafts fair could ban weapons if they had a lease or rental agreement that gave them control of access to the property specifically in the signed contract.
 
2010-08-08 09:26:50 PM
ronaprhys: jso2897: I don't mean to be argumentative, but based on TFA, it does not appear that this is headed for court at this time, actually.

Doesn't seem that way. I'm wondering if it's worth it to fight this particular one. I'm pretty happy with the current trend in SCOTUS rulings right now but I don't want to see the issue lose momentum. If folks are going to try and challenge rulings and unConstitutional laws or decrees like this, they need to do so where they're clear-cut violations and further reverse the tide of private firearm ownership and carry rules.


I think the most dubious issue here is the degree to which property rights are (or may be) conferred upon a temporary user - and that can depend upon local, state, and even some federal law - a lot of it decision based case law. It would probably take a legal specialist in the matter to know all the ins and outs - it's a complicated body of law.
If it were me,I would tend toward not wanting to bring something to a venue of this nature where it was not wanted, even if I were legally able to do so - but that's purely a personal view, and not any kind of legal or ethical imperative.
 
2010-08-08 09:27:38 PM
Azlefty: My point is when a person enters into an agreement to use property it in many ways becomes "their" property allowing them many of the rights given to other property owners and among those are the ability to restrict things as long as they are not based on, race religion or sex if it is an event open to the public. When you rent an apartment, subject to the terms of the agreement, you "own" that apartment the landlord cannot tell you who or what can be allowed in your apartment, it works the same when a person enters intro an agreement to use publicly owned property. The title holder is not the decider, the decider is who has the legal right to use the property, in this case the agreement holder since for the time of the agreement the city has granted them exclusive use of the property- temporary ownership. If it is as you say it is they would not be able to charge admission since it is a public event and it is illegal to base participation in a public event on the ability to pay.

Your points work well for private property, not necessarily for public property. There are definite differences between the two. Charging admission, however, is a different point as there can be a clear-cut need to do so in order for the event to actually be held. It's in the city's best interest to allow this as it brings in additional revenue all around.

In terms of banning firearms, near as I can tell, there's no real need whatsoever. It won't prevent crime, won't make anything safer, won't create a disturbance, etc.
 
2010-08-08 09:29:24 PM
ronaprhys Quote 2010-08-08 09:20:21 PM

On their property? Absolutely. On public property? Absolutely not. This is somewhere in the middle and the ruling has yet to be made. In order to argue that they should be able to ban firearms on public property that's been leased for a temporary event like this you have to prove need.

Now, prove need.

>>>

the law, learn it.
 
2010-08-08 09:34:17 PM
NuttierThanEver: you have a very small penis and are compensating?

SO MUCH THIS!!!!!
 
2010-08-08 09:35:14 PM
jso2897: I think the most dubious issue here is the degree to which property rights are (or may be) conferred upon a temporary user - and that can depend upon local, state, and even some federal law - a lot of it decision based case law. It would probably take a legal specialist in the matter to know all the ins and outs - it's a complicated body of law.
If it were me,I would tend toward not wanting to bring something to a venue of this nature where it was not wanted, even if I were legally able to do so - but that's purely a personal view, and not any kind of legal or ethical imperative.


I agree with you in that it's a very complicated case, especially considering that this is a very temporary lease. For a long term lease at a place of business, that's one thing. For a very short term lease like this where it's not a business owner, but an organizer and a bunch business owners.

As for my personal action, I agree with not carrying a firearm where it's not wanted. At least, I'd certainly not open carry. That's being dickish. However, in my personal view, the organizers are being dickish with the prohibition. There's simply no good reason for it. To me, concealed carry splits the difference.

remus: I've been reading the law here in Georgia because I just applied for a CCW. The new law, SB308, states:


Part 1, Section 1-3(c)"... private property owners or persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such property shall have the right to forbid possession of a weapon or long gun on their property, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135. A violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not create or give rise to a civil action for damages."

So, in Georgia at least, the crafts fair could ban weapons if they had a lease or rental agreement that gave them control of access to the property specifically in the signed contract.


I'd be interested in Code Section 16-11-135. It'd also be interesting to see if this qualifies as an actual lease or a temporary use permit.
 
2010-08-08 09:36:04 PM
Big Al: the law, learn it.

Unfortunately for you, the law hasn't been clearly determined here. Try again.
 
2010-08-08 09:38:31 PM
I just saw this thread. I haven't read any of it. don't think I even care to really.. I think I can FEEL the stupidity hovering over this comment window.

I'm just hopping to write that in the year 2010. the state of Virginia has banned smoking in all restaurants/bars and has allowed any one with a concealed permit to bring their firearm into said bar/restaurant.

so... there ya go.. have fun kids
 
2010-08-08 09:49:58 PM
ronaprhys: jso2897: I think the most dubious issue here is the degree to which property rights are (or may be) conferred upon a temporary user - and that can depend upon local, state, and even some federal law - a lot of it decision based case law. It would probably take a legal specialist in the matter to know all the ins and outs - it's a complicated body of law.
If it were me,I would tend toward not wanting to bring something to a venue of this nature where it was not wanted, even if I were legally able to do so - but that's purely a personal view, and not any kind of legal or ethical imperative.

I agree with you in that it's a very complicated case, especially considering that this is a very temporary lease. For a long term lease at a place of business, that's one thing. For a very short term lease like this where it's not a business owner, but an organizer and a bunch business owners.

As for my personal action, I agree with not carrying a firearm where it's not wanted. At least, I'd certainly not open carry. That's being dickish. However, in my personal view, the organizers are being dickish with the prohibition. There's simply no good reason for it. To me, concealed carry splits the difference.

remus: I've been reading the law here in Georgia because I just applied for a CCW. The new law, SB308, states:


Part 1, Section 1-3(c)"... private property owners or persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such property shall have the right to forbid possession of a weapon or long gun on their property, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135. A violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not create or give rise to a civil action for damages."

So, in Georgia at least, the crafts fair could ban weapons if they had a lease or rental agreement that gave them control of access to the property specifically in the signed contract.

I'd be interested in Code Section 16-11-135. It'd also be interesting to see if this qualifies as an actual lease or a temporary use permit.


I hope we get a follow up on that. And I super-agree with you about open-carry. My motto regarding firearms has always been: Keep it hidden, keep it safe, and keep it secret.
Open carry makes you a target - for one thing, guns are worth a lot of money - and I've been plenty of places where walking around with a gun on display would be the equivalent of walking around with a big gold Rolex on display. Plus, cops don't like it much either - and while I have nothing against cops, I do try to stay off their radar - they can be a real pain when annoyed.
 
2010-08-08 09:50:29 PM
CruiserTwelve: Jakevol2: sounds like delusions of grandeur to me. Every numbskull who owns a gun thinks they are the greatest marksman on the farking planet.

And they think hitting a paper bad guy is the same has hitting a real bad guy.


Some civilian CHP holders have had far more training than many of you doughnut eaters. And few of us have shot people in handcuffs, or killed people in their beds because we had the wrong address. And unlike cops, we actually are held accountable when we make mistakes. No "thin blue line" or "qualified immunity" for us. From what I have seen in my more than 30 years of shooting, most cops also think that hitting a real bad guy is like hitting paper targets, and they tend not to be very proficient at either. My experience has shown that the more proficient the policeman is in his duties, the less problem he has with civilians arming themselves and participating in their own defense. Some even take the time to work with us and help us become more proficient.

As an aside, there is data (available on the web) that states that civilians tend to have a higher hit ratio when shooting at bad guys than cops. Most data that I have seen puts cops at about 25 - 35% hits, with civilians at over 50%. One source said the civilian hit ratio was three times higher than the police, with far fewer "questionable shoots" (up to 25% for cops). A good source, and very cop friendly, is a report put out by Thomas Aveni and available on the web. The numbers show police in a bit better light than some reports that I have read, but Mr. Aveni (a former policeman) also seems to have done a bit better job of gathering his data.

/ not anti-cop, just not in awe of the profession
// trained by VERY proficient cops who, surprisingly, feel the same way that I do.
 
B A [TotalFark]
2010-08-08 09:55:36 PM
tirob: ronaprhys: tirob: The organizers of this event require people entering the grounds to buy tickets at $3.00 per.

If that's the amount, okay. It has no bearing on the issue at hand, though. It's a public event, not a private event. As such, it's open to anyone who pays admission.

According to the First Amendment, I have the right to stand on a soap box and call Barack Obama every name in the book, but if I buy a ticket--which is a contract, if you think about it--to an event, on which it is printed that I am not allowed to talk politics there, the organizers have every right to throw me out if I start to do so, because by buying the ticket I have implicitly agreed to all the terms printed on it.

And here's where you've got it wrong. Bringing out the soap box is a disruption. You do not have the right to disrupt an organized event, public or private. Carrying concealed in no way causes any disruption. The two are not equivalent.

I think that organizers would therefore legally have a right to require me temporarily to give up my second amendment rights at an event, too, if they they made it clear beforehand that by buying a ticket I implicitly agreed to do so.

You may think that - but in many states you'd be wrong. Michigan may, in fact, be one of those states. It's a public event on public property. Banning a right that causes no disruption? On what grounds? Why do they need to ban those who are legally licensed to carry firearms from having them? Or what need exists to prohibit legal carrying?

For the purposes of contract law, if I print "no firearms allowed" on a ticket to an event that I organize, and you buy my ticket, you have agreed not to bring firearms to my event. Your agreement is with me, not with the property owner whose land I am leasing for the purposes of the event. Different result, probably, if this were a free event.

I don't think a public policy argument is relevant to the issue here. You can agree temporarily to give up a Constitutional right in exchange for the right to enter a paid event whether that right be disruptive or not.


Actually, at least in texas, you'd be wrong. Here there are cery specific forms that must be posted for a weapons ban to apply to specific property. Link (new window)
 
2010-08-08 09:56:50 PM
jso2897: I hope we get a follow up on that. And I super-agree with you about open-carry. My motto regarding firearms has always been: Keep it hidden, keep it safe, and keep it secret.
Open carry makes you a target - for one thing, guns are worth a lot of money - and I've been plenty of places where walking around with a gun on display would be the equivalent of walking around with a big gold Rolex on display. Plus, cops don't like it much either - and while I have nothing against cops, I do try to stay off their radar - they can be a real pain when annoyed.


Definitely some good points there. I've not talked to my local officers about it (we've got a small township and honestly, they seem to be very reasonable - unless you're speeding. That's one thing they LOVE to get you for.), but I think I might do so if I decided to open carry (which, for the points you mention, would be very, very dependent on the situation. If I were to be in a situation where the extra speed provided by open carry were needed, that's one thing. However, that's pretty rare and likely reserved for hunting.)
 
2010-08-08 09:59:50 PM
CruiserTwelve: Why should anyone fear a guy that wears military fatigues and openly carries a gun to a city council meeting? Sounds like a perfectly sane person to me.

Actually, you might be surprised. My late father had a penchant for fatigues (ALWAYS wore them when not in uniform or dressed up for work, church, etc), was a reserve deputy with the local Sheriff, and carried his sidearm regularly. I can assure you he was quite sane. (and was a lifetime NRA member)

not saying the guy in question wasnt a crackpot, but strictly based on the attire,you cant say for sure.

/with that out of the way, yeah he prolly is a freak with a bus buried in his backyard full of guns and MREs.
 
2010-08-08 10:02:15 PM
CameraMonkey: Actually, you might be surprised. My late father had a penchant for fatigues (ALWAYS wore them when not in uniform or dressed up for work, church, etc), was a reserve deputy with the local Sheriff, and carried his sidearm regularly. I can assure you he was quite sane. (and was a lifetime NRA member)

not saying the guy in question wasnt a crackpot, but strictly based on the attire,you cant say for sure.

/with that out of the way, yeah he prolly is a freak with a bus buried in his backyard full of guns and MREs.


Burying a bus is a very good idea. Thanks!


That's probably cheaper than trying to get some sort of cylinder or other structure put up. However, it might be more traceable. A cheap cinderblock structure might work better if I water proof it well, make sure I've got plenty of disguised sources of fresh air and water.
 
2010-08-08 10:02:58 PM
Ya know the owner of the clay pigeon booth is going to be nervous.
 
2010-08-08 10:09:20 PM
jso2897: ronaprhys: jso2897: I think the most dubious issue here is the degree to which property rights are (or may be) conferred upon a temporary user - and that can depend upon local, state, and even some federal law - a lot of it decision based case law. It would probably take a legal specialist in the matter to know all the ins and outs - it's a complicated body of law.
If it were me,I would tend toward not wanting to bring something to a venue of this nature where it was not wanted, even if I were legally able to do so - but that's purely a personal view, and not any kind of legal or ethical imperative.

I agree with you in that it's a very complicated case, especially considering that this is a very temporary lease. For a long term lease at a place of business, that's one thing. For a very short term lease like this where it's not a business owner, but an organizer and a bunch business owners.

As for my personal action, I agree with not carrying a firearm where it's not wanted. At least, I'd certainly not open carry. That's being dickish. However, in my personal view, the organizers are being dickish with the prohibition. There's simply no good reason for it. To me, concealed carry splits the difference.

remus: I've been reading the law here in Georgia because I just applied for a CCW. The new law, SB308, states:


Part 1, Section 1-3(c)"... private property owners or persons in legal control of property through a lease, rental agreement, licensing agreement, contract, or any other agreement to control access to such property shall have the right to forbid possession of a weapon or long gun on their property, except as provided in Code Section 16-11-135. A violation of subsection (b) of this Code section shall not create or give rise to a civil action for damages."

So, in Georgia at least, the crafts fair could ban weapons if they had a lease or rental agreement that gave them control of access to the property specifically in the signed contract.

I'd be interested in Code Section 16-11-135. It'd also be interesting to see if this qualifies as an actual lease or a temporary use permit.

I hope we get a follow up on that. And I super-agree with you about open-carry. My motto regarding firearms has always been: Keep it hidden, keep it safe, and keep it secret.
Open carry makes you a target - for one thing, guns are worth a lot of money - and I've been plenty of places where walking around with a gun on display would be the equivalent of walking around with a big gold Rolex on display. Plus, cops don't like it much either - and while I have nothing against cops, I do try to stay off their radar - they can be a real pain when annoyed.


Sorry for the delay, I was away from the keyboard.

Here's the followup: In lieu of a long post, here is the original section 16-11-135 at: Link (note you can follow their link to lexis-nexis to view the original if you wish, they just have it cut out to make it easier to read. (new window) And here is the amendments as posted in the new SB 308: Link (new window)
 
Displayed 50 of 407 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report