View Full Version : List of places no one should be allowed to possess a firearm:
I would like this thread to be a discussion about places that: law abiding, citizens, who are legal to own and possess firearms, should not be allowed to have access to a firearm.
I have worked in many places where possession and access to firearms is severely restricted. I disagree with those restrictions and today, I cannot think of a single place in this country where good citizens should be prohibited from having their firearm.
What say you.
Bailey Guns
03-10-2013, 14:54
My extensive list of places where carrying of firearms should be prohibited follows:
I would allow private property owners to prohibit carry on their non-public private property. Any private property where the public has access excepted.
Zundfolge
03-10-2013, 14:56
Prisons and jails.
Other than those they should be allowed (and in fact encouraged) EVERYWHERE (especially airplanes).
my wife works at the nut hut here in pueblo, believe me they have no place in there.[Flower]
HBARleatherneck
03-10-2013, 14:57
I cant think of anywhere. by limiting places, you only limit law abiding Citizens. As we know non law abiding persons can carry anywhere.
and obviously carrying in jail and prison would be off limits to residents.
Byte Stryke
03-10-2013, 14:58
Please see below my suggested list of prohibited or restricted carry locations for free (wo)men.
Thank you.
Sharpienads
03-10-2013, 15:02
My extensive list of places where carrying of firearms should be prohibited follows:
I would allow private property owners to prohibit carry on their non-public private property. Any private property where the public has access excepted.
That's about it.
Prisons and jails.
Other than those they should be allowed (and in fact encouraged) EVERYWHERE (especially airplanes).
With a couple of exceptions.....I'm pretty much gonna say that's a horrible idea.
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 15:04
It's actually against CRS for non-LE to carry inside any detention facility. That includes the entire facility. Front desk and all.
Some people, bounty hunters, think it doesn't apply to them. They quickly learn otherwise.
I hate those fuckers.
SA Friday
03-10-2013, 15:19
Courts
prisons and jails
Mental institutes, controlled facilities and alcohol/drug rehabs
Commercial aircraft for passengers
nuclear facilities
explosive production facilities
PL-1 assets
Goodburbon
03-10-2013, 15:30
Private property, anywhere in close contact with prohibited persons (mental hospital, Detention centers beyond a certain point.)
It's actually against CRS for non-LE to carry inside any detention facility. That includes the entire facility. Front desk and all.
Some people, bounty hunters, think it doesn't apply to them. They quickly learn otherwise.
I hate those fuckers.
Ever run across 'Dog' and his crew?
Courts
prisons and jails
Mental institutes, controlled facilities and alcohol/drug rehabs
Commercial aircraft for passengers
nuclear facilities
explosive production facilities
PL-1 assets
Sounds like a reasonable list to me.
68Charger
03-10-2013, 15:39
near an induction furnace, or other induction heating elements, for obvious safety reasons. (no metal jewelry or fillings, either)
Inside of MRI machines
Anywhere within the magnetic field of a rail gun
Courtrooms and planes as well.. Jails are obvious, even the people that work there aren't armed in some areas.
Goodburbon
03-10-2013, 15:46
I should absolutely be allowed to carry on a plane
I should absolutely be allowed to carry on a planeAnd what happens when the guy who wants to end it decides to blow a hole in the fuselage and kills 300+ other passengers?
HBARleatherneck
03-10-2013, 16:07
And what happens when the guy who wants to end it decides to blow a hole in the fuselage and kills 300+ other passengers? you must watch alot of tv. a bullet will cause a leak, but a bullet isnt goin to rip a giant hole in the plane that will kill 300 people. i am pretty sure this has been disproved everywhere but hollywood.
I'd be more worried about somebody hitting a fuel tank, hydraulic line, or control wire.
ChunkyMonkey
03-10-2013, 16:13
In the ocean..because salt water is not good for my babies.
you must watch alot of tv. a bullet will cause a leak, but a bullet isnt goin to rip a giant hole in the plane that will kill 300 people. i am pretty sure this has been disproved everywhere but hollywood.My bad. Should read "blows a hole in a fuel tank located in the fuselage." Or a window which would cause the whole cabin to depressurize and possibly cause severe problems. I guess catastrophy may not be gauranteed , but I still am ok with airplane prohibitions.
Sharpienads
03-10-2013, 16:22
My bad. Should read "blows a hole in a fuel tank located in the fuselage." Or a window which would cause the whole cabin to depressurize and possibly cause severe problems. I guess catastrophy may not be gauranteed , but I still am ok with airplane prohibitions.
I would be ok with an airline having a no firearms policy. I'm not ok with the federal government overstepping its bounds.
Byte Stryke
03-10-2013, 16:25
I would be ok with an airline having a no firearms policy. I'm not ok with the federal government overstepping its bounds.
yeah... because no one can sneak anything onto a plane...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/8/tsa-fails-undercover-inspector-sneaks-mock-bomb-ne/
DireWolf
03-10-2013, 16:30
solution - only frangible ammo allowed on plane :)
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 16:31
Ever run across 'Dog' and his crew?
Sounds like a reasonable list to me.
Oh yeah.... Mary Ellen's is only 3-4 blocks down the road. I've seen her a lot too. She's actually really cool.
SA Friday
03-10-2013, 16:33
yeah... because no one can sneak anything onto a plane...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/mar/8/tsa-fails-undercover-inspector-sneaks-mock-bomb-ne/
Seriously? Your fucked if anyone does catastrophic shit on an aircraft, period. You can carry a belt fed machine gun on the bitch if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the acceleration of gravity is 9.81 meters per second. Any of you guys inking of going all hero on a plane, the only thing you can do is prevent it from being used as a guided missile.
Too much TV is right...
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 16:41
Seriously? Your fucked if anyone does catastrophic shit on an aircraft, period. You can carry a belt fed machine gun on the bitch if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the acceleration of gravity is 9.81 meters per second. Any of you guys inking of going all hero on a plane, the only thing you can do is prevent it from being used as a guided missile.
Too much TV is right...
You're*
:D
dwalker460
03-10-2013, 16:44
Once upon a time, you could carry right on a plane. Never a single incident. Then some wise ass decided to restrict firearms to checked bacggage. Shocker, the airlines became targets for terrorists and hostage takers.
NOWHERE the public is not allowed to carry firearms is safe, not even Military bases or police stations, or jails. Therefore, there should be nowhere a law-abiding citizen should have to surrender thier weapon.
SA Friday
03-10-2013, 16:46
You're*
:D
I'm on the iPad. It makes weird spelling changes sometimes and I type 80+ words a minute so it can't always keep up.
Bailey Guns
03-10-2013, 16:49
solution - only frangible ammo allowed on plane :)
No...the obvious solution is to make hijacking illegal. Problem solved.
DireWolf
03-10-2013, 16:53
No...the obvious solution is to make hijacking illegal. Problem solved.
Touché!
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 16:53
Once upon a time, you could carry right on a plane. Never a single incident. Then some wise ass decided to restrict firearms to checked bacggage. Shocker, the airlines became targets for terrorists and hostage takers.
NOWHERE the public is not allowed to carry firearms is safe, not even Military bases or police stations, or jails. Therefore, there should be nowhere a law-abiding citizen should have to surrender thier weapon.
I'm going to disagree with you only because you put "jails" in there.
Come to my jail with a gun and you'll gain a very pretty set of silver bracelets.
Also, police stations are very safe. Just so ya know...
dwalker460
03-10-2013, 17:00
I'm going to disagree with you only because you put "jails" in there.
Come to my jail with a gun and you'll gain a very pretty set of silver bracelets.
Also, police stations are very safe. Just so ya know...
People die in jails and police stations, so not really sure of your definition of "safe".
SA Friday
03-10-2013, 17:02
People die in jails and police stations, so not really sure of your definition of "safe".
Bet more people die in their beds than in jails. Just saying, bad logic.
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 17:05
People die in jails and police stations, so not really sure of your definition of "safe".
I'd take the 28+ cops at the jail with guns over one normal guy with a gun any day of the week.
The people that die in jails don't die in the front lobby.
You're making an argument you can't win with me. You've probably never spent a significant amount of time in a jail or police station. That's cool. I understand.
But don't try to fake that you know what you're talking about. Because you don't.
ChunkyMonkey
03-10-2013, 17:05
I'm going to disagree with you only because you put "jails" in there.
Come to my jail with a gun and you'll gain a very pretty set of silver bracelets.
Also, police stations are very safe. Just so ya know...
Illusion my friend...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at2LfqrYbhw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec2yfx80T1g
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 17:09
Illusion my friend...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=at2LfqrYbhw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ec2yfx80T1g
I've seen both of those. The first one would have happened anywhere. No matter who had a gun.
No one could have stopped that guy before he killed people. No one.
The second one is... Well, let's just say there were mistakes made that day.
I actually use the second video at work as a training aid.
The second video is also a horrible example to use in this discussion as there are no firearms allowed in the secure areas of the jail. No matter who you are.
ChunkyMonkey
03-10-2013, 17:12
I've seen both of those. The first one would have happened anywhere. No matter who had a gun.
The second one is... Well, let's just say there were mistakes made that day.
I actually use the second video at work as a training aid.
The second video is also a horrible example to use in this discussion as there are no firearms allowed in the secure areas of the jail. No matter who you are.
Yes, you answered it yourself... it can happen anywhere including a police station, and mistake do happen even within highly trained and secured area -- Hence the quoted 'unsafe' despite being within Jail and Police station. Attack happened within fort hood for crying outloud. As long as there is other human being, you should always be on alert. Stay safe!
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 17:15
Yes, you answered it yourself... it can happen anywhere including a police station, and mistake do happen even within highly trained and secured area -- Hence the quoted 'unsafe' despite being within Jail and Police station. Attack happened within fort hood for crying outloud. As long as there is other human being, you should always be on alert. Stay safe!
Exactly. Fort Hood is a bad example too. That was more a friendly fire type incident. But that's a different discussion.
The fact that none of the people in the first video died is pretty amazing. But still. Nothing would have stopped that guy.
I would agree to a prohibition against firearms in any detention facility, including mental hospitals. As was mentioned, even the guards don't routinely carry. We always locked up our weapons when dropping off or picking up.
I apologize for not adding the caveat about private property. Property owners have the right to restrict access to people and things they do not consent to on their property. I was thinking more about publicly accessible areas and government controlled property. Government owned property belongs to the citizens and as a citizen, I consent to everyone who is legal to carry not be prohibited from carrying.
I think I have carried in just about all of the other places listed above. I feel special [Flower] but it didn't actually make me any safer. In my previous life, we treated everyone as if they were armed and a potential threat. We often traveled with magnetometers and maintained cleared areas for approved access. We still considered everyone as a potential threat and possibly armed.
Let's just say I trust everyone right up till I have a reason not to, and I don't need much of a reason. You bring your gun, because I will have mine [Beer]
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 17:22
I would agree to a prohibition against firearms in any detention facility, including mental hospitals. As was mentioned, even the guards don't routinely carry. We always locked up our weapons when dropping off or picking up.
I apologize for not adding the caveat about private property. Property owners have the right to restrict access to people and things they do not consent to on their property. I was thinking more about publicly accessible areas and government controlled property. Government owned property belongs to the citizens and as a citizen, I consent to everyone who is legal to carry not be prohibited from carrying.
I think I have carried in just about all of the other places listed above. I feel special [Flower] but it didn't actually make me any safer. In my previous life, we treated everyone as if they were armed and a potential threat. We often traveled with magnetometers and maintained cleared areas for approved access. We still considered everyone as a potential threat and possibly armed.
Let's just say I trust everyone right up till I have a reason not to, and I don't need much of a reason. You bring your gun, because I will have mine [Beer]
I've kicked cops out the back door when they forgot to take their gun off.
I made one little punk wait outside for 45 minutes once.
"I don't take off my gun."
The Fuck you don't. Get out.
He sat in his little transport van for 45 minutes to think about what he'd done wrong.
Exactly. Fort Hood is a bad example too. That was more a friendly fire type incident. But that's a different discussion.
The fact that none of the people in the first video died is pretty amazing. But still. Nothing would have stopped that guy.
I believe in the first video, the attacker died of gun shot wounds inflicted by the officers shooting back. Something did stop that guy... armed good guys. The lesson I take from that video is that if others have a gun, I want one too.
Be safe.
I've kicked cops out the back door when they forgot to take their gun off.
I made one little punk wait outside for 45 minutes once.
"I don't take off my gun."
The Fuck you don't. Get out.
He sat in his little transport van for 45 minutes to think about what he'd done wrong.
Did you call his supervisor? I believe most officers are trained to secure their weapon before entering a lockup facility. Prolonging the booking time, to prove your point is a potential liability.
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 17:29
I believe in the first video, the attacker died of gun shot wounds inflicted by the officers shooting back. Something did stop that guy... armed good guys. The lesson I take from that video is that if others have a gun, I want one too.
Be safe.
Right right. I meant that no one could have stopped him before he was able to hurt someone else.
Yes. He did get stopped and did die. But only after he hurt others.
dwalker460
03-10-2013, 17:31
Right right. I meant that no one could have stopped him before he was able to hurt someone else.
Yes. He did get stopped and did die. But only after he hurt others.
Which is why anywhere others could even POSSIBLY be armed I want to be armed. You are proving out my point.
Bailey Guns
03-10-2013, 17:31
I had to laugh watching the skinny black dude get choked the fuck out. And I knew his ass was gonna get dragged over the counter and re-beat as soon as I saw the other cops round the corner. Bet it's a while before he tries that shit again.
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 17:32
Which is why anywhere others could even POSSIBLY be armed I want to be armed. You are proving out my point.
And I'm telling you that carrying a gun in a jail or a police station is a bad idea.
I'm not talking about anywhere other than a jail or police station.
Had you been in that station for some reason when that all happened and you pulled your gun, I can almost guarantee you would be dead. Not from the crazy guy. From the cop that thought you were with the crazy guy.
Don't argue with which you have no experience. You're not going to win, sir.
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 17:35
I had to laugh watching the skinny black dude get choked the fuck out. And I knew his ass was gonna get dragged over the counter and re-beat as soon as I saw the other cops round the corner. Bet it's a while before he tries that shit again.
I love that video... But, there were mistakes made.
Don't argue with which you have no experience. You're not going to win, sir.
This is the Internet. Nobody wins.
I would pull out my gun, depending on where I was and what my options are at the time.
As for people making mistakes... that happens every time people are involved. We watch the videos to improve the mistakes we will make the next time we are in that situation.
Post Office
Why shouldn't citizens be allowed to carry in a post office?
I'd be more worried about somebody hitting a fuel tank, hydraulic line, or control wire.
Can't believe nobody replied to this, or maybe I missed it?
Modern aircraft have backups in duplicate or triplicate on most systems. Don't think a couple of bullets will be able to take them out.
Can't believe nobody replied to this, or maybe I missed it?
Modern aircraft have backups in duplicate or triplicate on most systems. Don't think a couple of bullets will be able to take them out.
I thought about that, but I'm not in the mood for a pissing match today so I kept it to myself.
HoneyBadger
03-10-2013, 18:49
Fort Hood is a bad example too. That was more a friendly fire type incident. But that's a different discussion.
Fort Hood was friendly fire?? WTF are you smoking? It was REAL domestic terrorism - murder, plain and simple. He was allowed to continue on his murdering spree for 10 minutes because no one on the installation was allowed to carry firearm.
HoneyBadger
03-10-2013, 18:52
Can't believe nobody replied to this, or maybe I missed it?
Modern aircraft have backups in duplicate or triplicate on most systems. Don't think a couple of bullets will be able to take them out.
Yeah, several bullet holes in the fuselage of a modern commercial airliner would not cause any serious problems. Cabin would depressurize, O2 masks would drop, and the plane would keep on flying. This has been tested again and again: A single, or even multiple bullet holes in a pressurized aircraft are not going to cause it to explode or tear in half like in the movies.
SA Friday
03-10-2013, 18:54
Why shouldn't citizens be allowed to carry in a post office?
Guns... Going postal... [Roll1] [Coffee]
The fact that JM Ver 2.0 argues for something usually makes me think it is a bad idea just on principle. But for the most part, prisons and jails are probably better left to SORT and less lethal weapons than firearms.
Allergy clinic where they treat anyone with copper, powder,and/or metal allergy.
Why shouldn't citizens be allowed to carry in a post office?
I saw one time in a USPS Mail Office in PR a printed paper in the door that say that is ilegal carry guns inside the post office with a gun with the prohibited sign.
Maybe is just another gun control in PR but comes from the Post Master. Good to investigate if here is the same.
It is definitely illegal to carry in the post office here. In all of the US it is.
The question is where "SHOULD" it be illegal, not where is it illegal.
Allergy clinic where they treat anyone with copper, powder,and/or metal allergy.
That is funny [LOL]
I assume that most clinics and Dr's offices are private property and they would establish their own rules for what is and isn't allowed. I would imagine that people with copper or other metal allergies would probably need to live in a plastic bubble [Flower]
As for commercial aircraft, there are already plenty of people who are permitted to carry firearms on board. If bullets were soooo dangerous to commercial aircraft, I would like to think that list would be much more selective.[Coffee]
It is definitely illegal to carry in the post office here. In all of the US it is.
Actually, that is debateable. It is not Federal Property and technically is the same as Private property if you read deep enough.
centrarchidae
03-10-2013, 19:44
Jails, mental hospitals, and any private property where the owner doesn't want it.
Jails, courts, and commercial airplanes with a few exceptions.
Actually, that is debateable. It is not Federal Property and technically is the same as Private property if you read deep enough.
Dangerous thought.
Most post offices are federal property. Owned by the GSA leased to the PO. Still federal property. My FIL was the head of the regional GSA office.
Some are leased private, but not that many. The few that way get hairy, but not most.
Jails, courts, and commercial airplanes with a few exceptions.
If I had a dollar for every gun carried by judges into courtrooms around the country and carried by the special people onto commercial aircraft, I would retire a wealthy man.
Despite my title at work, I do not believe I am any more special than any other law abiding citizen. IMO, if I get to have a gun, then they should get to have a gun too. If the SHTF, I like my odds knowing that there are a whole lot more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns. Besides, the Giffords shooting in AZ is a great study in how few people will actually pull the trigger even when they have the opportunity.
I don't believe the average citizen is as stupid as the media would have you believe.
Can't believe nobody replied to this, or maybe I missed it?
Modern aircraft have backups in duplicate or triplicate on most systems. Don't think a couple of bullets will be able to take them out.
Go back and read the context of my statement, which was based on other people's posts before it. I'm not worried about a bullet taking out a plane by depressurization. I was merely stating that bullets would probably do more damage to other systems than they would in depressurizing the cabin.
And tell me how that fuel tank with triple redundancy is going to hold up with a dozen bullet holes in it. I'm sure some defense contractors would love to know more about this technology. How about armor piercing bullets? Or how about incendiary ammunition? Aluminum sure as hell won't stop either of them.
Who's going to check everybody's ammo before they board? So lets keep talking about letting guns on a plane [Flower]
I thought about that, but I'm not in the mood for a pissing match today so I kept it to myself.
So instead you wait until you have strength in numbers?
JM Ver. 2.0
03-10-2013, 22:23
Fort Hood was friendly fire?? WTF are you smoking? It was REAL domestic terrorism - murder, plain and simple. He was allowed to continue on his murdering spree for 10 minutes because no one on the installation was allowed to carry firearm.
I should have explained.... I'm sure,given his rank, no one was second guessing his being there. A guy walking into a police station out of uniform is suspicious. A solider on base with a gun is less of a WTF situation.
Does that make sense?
dwalker460
03-10-2013, 22:27
Fuel tanks on airplanes are self-sealing bladders, pistol rounds would have little effect. Pilots cabins are armored.
Again, even BEFORE they had such luxuries, firearms were allowed on planes, and there was no terrorists attacks, hostage taking, etc. because the criminals never knew if the guy sitting next to him had a .38 in his back pocket, a Browning in his satchel, or a goose gun in the trunk behind him.
SAFE ZONES are anything but. TSA is a joke. If you feel safe on a commercial flight I pity you.
HoneyBadger
03-10-2013, 22:28
I should have explained.... I'm sure,given his rank, no one was second guessing his being there. A guy walking into a police station out of uniform is suspicious. A solider on base with a gun is less of a WTF situation.
Does that make sense?
No not really. As someone who works on a military base every day... Despite being in a "very secure" area (inside of a secure area, which is in another secure area, which is inside of a military installation), I do not feel safe at all. I seriously feel like a sheep. "Oh something bad must've happened, I better go back to my office and hide!" [facepalm]
dwalker460
03-10-2013, 22:29
I should have explained.... I'm sure,given his rank, no one was second guessing his being there.
No, ANYONE except an MP on post with a weapon of ANY KIND is immediately suspect, and a handgun even more so.
A guy walking into a police station out of uniform is suspicious. A solider on base with a gun is less of a WTF situation.
Does that make sense?
No.
HoneyBadger
03-10-2013, 22:29
SAFE ZONES are anything but. TSA is a joke. If you feel safe on a commercial flight I pity you.
^Summary of this entire thread^
Fuel tanks on airplanes are self-sealing bladders, pistol rounds would have little effect. Pilots cabins are armored.
You've got more faith in technology than I do.
^Summary of this entire thread^
Agreed.
dwalker460
03-10-2013, 22:50
YOU have more faith in security and human nature than I do. Tell you what, YOU can count on the guys who cant even get jobs as private security guards, I will count on myself to keep myself safe. Hows that?
Bottom line, it borders on insanity to place so much trust in anyone or anything. I dont trust the guy next to me at a stoplight not to be completely drunk, I dont trust the guy at the bank to correctly count the money he hands me, I dont trust the credit card company to charge me the correct fees and credit me the correct interest, I dont trust the waiter not to bring me a Medium when I ordered medium rare. I check, double check, and take precautions. So why in Gods name would I trust ANYONE with my health and safety? Especially when they have proven over and over again to be inept, complacent, and generically ineffective?
Its just insane man.
YOU have more faith in security and human nature than I do. Tell you what, YOU can count on the guys who cant even get jobs as private security guards, I will count on myself to keep myself safe. Hows that?
Bottom line, it borders on insanity to place so much trust in anyone or anything. I dont trust the guy next to me at a stoplight not to be completely drunk, I dont trust the guy at the bank to correctly count the money he hands me, I dont trust the credit card company to charge me the correct fees and credit me the correct interest, I dont trust the waiter not to bring me a Medium when I ordered medium rare. I check, double check, and take precautions. So why in Gods name would I trust ANYONE with my health and safety? Especially when they have proven over and over again to be inept, complacent, and generically ineffective?
Its just insane man.
Did you read #77?
clublights
03-10-2013, 23:25
My house.
No one is allowed to possess here except me .....
and those I authorize.... the rest are subject to lethal force. :-D
dwalker460
03-10-2013, 23:46
Did you read #77?
nope, too busy typing... the two finger point-n-poke method
Great-Kazoo
03-11-2013, 00:53
Any place a democrat is at, justifying their stand against guns
JM Ver. 2.0
03-11-2013, 02:39
No not really. As someone who works on a military base every day... Despite being in a "very secure" area (inside of a secure area, which is in another secure area, which is inside of a military installation), I do not feel safe at all. I seriously feel like a sheep. "Oh something bad must've happened, I better go back to my office and hide!" [facepalm]
From what I gathered, people knew him. That's all I meant by the friendly thing.
I donno all the details. You know more than I do. But I guess I'm wrong.
Either way, my statement stands. No armed non-LE in a station or jail.
HoneyBadger
03-11-2013, 07:57
From what I gathered, people knew him. That's all I meant by the friendly thing.
I donno all the details. You know more than I do. But I guess I'm wrong.
FWIW: "Friendly Fire" generally refers to an accidental shooting of friendly forces. Trust me... the hours of lectures, training, and CBTs (Computer-Based Training) we had after this asshat shot up Ft Hood was grueling.
Either way, my statement stands. No armed non-LE in a station or jail.
I'm not arguing this at all. In this case, you know better than I do. I've never been in a police station or jail.
Did you ever get the second set of patches I sent you? [Beer]
Bailey Guns
03-11-2013, 08:23
For anyone worried about handguns on planes and how dangerous they are, take a look at some videos of the damage a WWII fighter or bomber could absorb and still keep flying. And we're not talking handgun rounds...more like 20mm, artillery flak and really big, incendiary shit. And that was 40s technology.
Personally, I'm not worried about guns on planes. Some of you guys make it sound like an otherwise rational, law-abiding person is gonna go apeshit and shoot the plane outta the sky just because he/she is allowed to carry on a plane.
JM Ver. 2.0
03-11-2013, 10:55
FWIW: "Friendly Fire" generally refers to an accidental shooting of friendly forces. Trust me... the hours of lectures, training, and CBTs (Computer-Based Training) we had after this asshat shot up Ft Hood was grueling.
I'm not arguing this at all. In this case, you know better than I do. I've never been in a police station or jail.
Did you ever get the second set of patches I sent you? [Beer]
Exactly. Just from what I heard was the guy was known to the people he shot. That's all I meant.
For anyone worried about handguns on planes and how dangerous they are, take a look at some videos of the damage a WWII fighter or bomber could absorb and still keep flying. And we're not talking handgun rounds...more like 20mm, artillery flak and really big, incendiary shit. And that was 40s technology.
Personally, I'm not worried about guns on planes. Some of you guys make it sound like an otherwise rational, law-abiding person is gonna go apeshit and shoot the plane outta the sky just because he/she is allowed to carry on a plane.
That is not it at all. It is the captivity of the plane, kind of hard to evade on a plane. That reduces my defensive capacities. No cover except other bodies.
HoneyBadger
03-11-2013, 13:15
That is not it at all. It is the captivity of the plane, kind of hard to evade on a plane. That reduces my defensive capacities. No cover except other bodies.
You won't need to find cover... Just pee on yourself and the threat will go away! [facepalm]
No cover except other bodies.
Some people refer to this as "Shooting in the sea of heads." The next time you are sitting in a high number seat looking forward, while everyone is seated, you will see what I'm talking about.
Fortunately, it doesn't happen very often [Flower]
Kraven251
03-11-2013, 13:50
For anyone worried about handguns on planes and how dangerous they are, take a look at some videos of the damage a WWII fighter or bomber could absorb and still keep flying. And we're not talking handgun rounds...more like 20mm, artillery flak and really big, incendiary shit. And that was 40s technology.
Personally, I'm not worried about guns on planes. Some of you guys make it sound like an otherwise rational, law-abiding person is gonna go apeshit and shoot the plane outta the sky just because he/she is allowed to carry on a plane.
I only worry about snakes on a plane.
The reality is though, commercial airliners are not going to be brought down by a bullet hole in the fuselage. It will probably screw up cabin pressure and make things bumpy, but the Hollywood explosive decompression really doesn't happen in aircraft unless they had more than a couple other structural issues going on.
Bailey Guns
03-11-2013, 14:08
That is not it at all. It is the captivity of the plane, kind of hard to evade on a plane. That reduces my defensive capacities. No cover except other bodies.
I understand, but even then... Devise a program similar to CLEAR or whatever it's called. Pre-screen properly licensed people who can carry. They're not likely to freak out and start shooting up the plane any more than an armed pilot is. And if the pilot freaks out there's little you can do anyway.
For anyone worried about handguns on planes and how dangerous they are, take a look at some videos of the damage a WWII fighter or bomber could absorb and still keep flying. And we're not talking handgun rounds...more like 20mm, artillery flak and really big, incendiary shit. And that was 40s technology.
Personally, I'm not worried about guns on planes. Some of you guys make it sound like an otherwise rational, law-abiding person is gonna go apeshit and shoot the plane outta the sky just because he/she is allowed to carry on a plane.
Um, planes back then were not pressurized and they rarely flew above levels that required oxygen until they were over their target area to try to get above the flak.
True shooting a hole even in a pressurized plane is not going to cause catastrophic damage but it would definitely cause a lack of oxygen and the bullet could very well hit wires, hydraulics or spark an explosion in an empty fuel cell. Based on the regular reports of people freaking out on planes while in mid flight I will forego the right to carry a firearm on a plane at this time.
Based on the regular reports of people freaking out on planes while in mid flight I will forego the right to carry a firearm on a plane at this time.
You may choose to forego that right, however, there is a laundry list of special people who are allowed to carry on board. If it was really that dangerous, I would think that list would be either be much smaller or completely done away with altogether.
Given the type of searches conducted on people going into lockup facilities, I am more confident that they are not armed then I am with the possibility that passengers on the airplane are not armed.
Daniel_187
03-11-2013, 18:15
Space
MRI machine.
^ WINNER!! [ROFL1]
I would not carry it there ,even someone pay me to carry.
MRI machine.
Allergy clinic where they treat anyone with copper, powder,and/or metal allergy.
That is funny [LOL]
I assume that most clinics and Dr's offices are private property and they would establish their own rules for what is and isn't allowed. I would imagine that people with copper or other metal allergies would probably need to live in a plastic bubble [Flower]
I posted this because our church has a sign with severe peanut allergy sign at a building, and one of the elder was eating peanut as a snack..... haha
KestrelBike
03-11-2013, 22:49
MRI machine.
hahahaha Winner!
BushMasterBoy
03-11-2013, 22:56
New York & California for starters...
New York & California for starters...
Not where is it illegal, but where should it be illegal.
Besides, lots of people carry in both those states. Why should it be illegal for any law abiding citizen to carry there? If the police can justify the need to be armed, that same justification can be used to defend the rights of citizens to be armed.
So far I'm still only willing to be disarmed in the place where the inmates get stripped searched. I will abide by the will of private property owners, and leave if they ask me to do so. I didn't mention public pools or outer space as both seem either obvious or unlikely. Clearly international travel adds another layer of complications, and is beyond the scope of my initial question. I'm not convinced on any of the other locations mentioned. If you have the clearance to be in a high security area, you should be trustworthy with a firearm. IMO, cell phones with cameras and USB drives cause more damage to national security than a few handguns.
Uberjager
03-12-2013, 02:00
Seriously? Your fucked if anyone does catastrophic shit on an aircraft, period. You can carry a belt fed machine gun on the bitch if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the acceleration of gravity is 9.81 meters per second squared. Any of you guys inking of going all hero on a plane, the only thing you can do is prevent it from being used as a guided missile.
Too much TV is right...
Fixed[Abused]
Rucker61
03-12-2013, 06:50
Seriously? Your fucked if anyone does catastrophic shit on an aircraft, period. You can carry a belt fed machine gun on the bitch if you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the acceleration of gravity is 9.81 meters per second squared.
Capt. Malcolm Reynolds (http://www.ar-15.co/name/nm0277213/): Just get us on the ground!
Hoban 'Wash' Washburn (http://www.ar-15.co/name/nm0876138/): That part'll happen pretty definitely.
If I had a dollar for every gun carried by judges into courtrooms around the country and carried by the special people onto commercial aircraft, I would retire a wealthy man.
Despite my title at work, I do not believe I am any more special than any other law abiding citizen. IMO, if I get to have a gun, then they should get to have a gun too. If the SHTF, I like my odds knowing that there are a whole lot more good guys with guns than bad guys with guns. Besides, the Giffords shooting in AZ is a great study in how few people will actually pull the trigger even when they have the opportunity.
I don't believe the average citizen is as stupid as the media would have you believe.
I'll give you judges for sure. I would have no problem with them packing. Actually I think it's a great idea.
I'm well aware of who and how many people carry guns on planes. It ain't that many.
I completely disagree with your comment on the average citizen. Especially at the airport. Go stand by a gate for half an hour and listen to the stupid shit people ask the gate agents. I can assure you that you will have less faith in humanity. Perhaps even feel a little dumber for having done it. It really is that bad.
I know common sense is a dirty word these days, being usurped by the liberals, but I do think it applies to guns on airplanes. Meaning that all ammo should be frangible, glaser-type stuff while on the plane. They could hand it out with the fucking peanuts. Can you imagine? Stewardess comes up and offers you a hot towel, whiskey soda, and some glasers. People all over the plane calmly changing out their mags, racking the slides. I doubt Ahab would have much success with a plane like that.
I'll weigh in... I think the only places where common folks like you and me should not be allowed to carry (I'm excepting OneGuy, Kev, and JM) are detention facilities (to include county jail, state prison, federal prison, etc), courts (same rules as current, metal detectors and deputies/cops), mental/drug treatment facilities, and commercial aircraft. On the airplane thing- this is not for "safety" in terms of stray rounds causing depressurization, as has been said, that's not really a catastrophic/crash incident, I'm more worried about: small space + lots of innocents + armed citizen who is potentially not even remotely trained in CQB = BAD! I'm cool with being on a plane with an armed person, I'm not cool with the fact that one miss is probably going to end the life of an innocent.
I'll weigh in... I think the only places where common folks like you and me should not be allowed to carry (I'm excepting OneGuy, Kev, and JM) are detention facilities (to include county jail, state prison, federal prison, etc), courts (same rules as current, metal detectors and deputies/cops), mental/drug treatment facilities, and commercial aircraft. On the airplane thing- this is not for "safety" in terms of stray rounds causing depressurization, as has been said, that's not really a catastrophic/crash incident, I'm more worried about: small space + lots of innocents + armed citizen who is potentially not even remotely trained in CQB = BAD! I'm cool with being on a plane with an armed person, I'm not cool with the fact that one miss is probably going to end the life of an innocent.
I not so worried about the LEO on my plane than the idiot who gets drunk and fights with the guy next to him. It happens a hell of a lot more often than people think. I'd rather not enter a firearm into that equation....and it would happen. People seem to loose their g-damn minds on airplanes.
Zundfolge
03-12-2013, 13:01
Anyone genuinely afraid of people packing guns on airplanes need to stop learning physics from Hollywood movies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1_1l7M8FA
The only downside to law abiding citizens CCWing on airplanes is that Jihidists will die without getting their 72 virgins and TSA will be virtually unnecessary (they can go back to being "Skycaps" and fetch our luggage like the good ole days).
Anyone genuinely afraid of people packing guns on airplanes need to stop learning physics from Hollywood movies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1_1l7M8FA
The only downside to law abiding citizens CCWing on airplanes is that Jihidists will die without getting their 72 virgins and TSA will be virtually unnecessary (they can go back to being "Skycaps" and fetch our luggage like the good ole days).
That was an awesome episode... Hence another reason (despite being good friends with an aeronautical engineer who explained the decompression myth years before the Mythbusters episode) I don't fear a stray round bringing the plane down. I just thought of another place no one should ever carry a firearm- The Internet! That place is full of wild emotions and some pretty loony assholes (mostly in and around that scary part of YouTube and all over Infowars.com)... [Coffee]
My bad. Should read "blows a hole in a fuel tank located in the fuselage." Or a window which would cause the whole cabin to depressurize and possibly cause severe problems. I guess catastrophy may not be gauranteed , but I still am ok with airplane prohibitions.
I am seeing that someone didn't do really well in 8th grade physics.
Anyone genuinely afraid of people packing guns on airplanes need to stop learning physics from Hollywood movies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fi1_1l7M8FA
The only downside to law abiding citizens CCWing on airplanes is that Jihidists will die without getting their 72 virgins and TSA will be virtually unnecessary (they can go back to being "Skycaps" and fetch our luggage like the good ole days).
I can pretty much guarantee that I didn't learn physics from Hollywood movies. Nor am I afraid of an airplane blowing up if a shot is fired. I am however afraid of someone who is not trained in the retention of a weapon bringing one aboard my jet. And again....your average Joe carrying a firearm onto an airplane is beyond stupid.
HBARleatherneck
03-12-2013, 14:07
I not so worried about the LEO on my plane than the idiot who gets drunk and fights with the guy next to him. It happens a hell of a lot more often than people think. I'd rather not enter a firearm into that equation....and it would happen. People seem to loose their g-damn minds on airplanes.
unfortunatley the liberals use the same logic. "im not so worried about the LEO (who may have no clue and are still human) who comes to my restaurant, ball game, theater, etc, its the idiot who gets drunk and then kills everyone with his deranged mind and killer gun. and the blood has run in the streets just like the liberals said it would, if concealed carry got approved in more places.
LEO's are trained in weapon retention. Most CCW carriers are not. And there is certainly no standard for CCW carriers to be held to as far as retention goes. This is not a Liberal/Conservative thing. When some dad or mom is full on destroying a bag of peanuts, slugging cokes and yelling at their kids on the way to Orlando. It would be easy for Johnny Jihad or anyone else to relieve them of their firearm. I've seen more than a few who were "allowed" make me cringe as I saw how they were printing. It's never gonna happen. And I don't know anybody in my business who wants it to.
unfortunatley the liberals use the same logic. "im not so worried about the LEO (who may have no clue and are still human) who comes to my restaurant, ball game, theater, etc, its the idiot who gets drunk and then kills everyone with his deranged mind and killer gun. and the blood has run in the streets just like the liberals said it would, if concealed carry got approved in more places.
HBARleatherneck
03-12-2013, 14:37
the airplane arguement is really stupid anyway. I think we all believe a private company can make the rule against carrying. and Im sure all the airlines would ban carry. now, if they get any government funds. forget it. not that the taxpayers should be paying for any of this crap. be competitive or close shop.
dwalker460
03-12-2013, 14:39
So, let me get this straight....
Because there are folks to protect you on an airplane your OK with giving up your right to defend yourself?
Huh....
I guess then since there are standing armed forces and police to defend us we should all lay down our weapons and trust that no matter what the armed folks around us will protect us??
Interesting,
So try this one on for size-
You know why you dont read about a nutjob driving up to a gun range, pulling out his pistol, and proceeding to fire off some rounds? Because there are folks with guns there.
Armed folks, or even the possibility of armed folks, tend to keep the noise down. None of these whackjobs out there sought out any areas where there possibly would be armed resistance.
Now, airplanes are confined, give yout hat. But the always have been. And AGAIN, for DECADES, as in MORE THAN ONE, folks thought nothing of carrying thier firearms onto the plane. Never heard tell of someone going crazy and shooting one up. Never heard of one hijacked, never heard of one bombed out of the sky. Even in wartime.
Now, pnder this...
A guy gets agitated on the plane, he knows that no one has any sort of weapon on the plane, so there are no consequences to any of his actions beyond possible arrest. Now, lets say that the possibility exists that in a cabin of 125 people 30 of them are carrying weapons of one sort or the other. Changes things a bit. Now if he shows his ass there is a real possibility he will be looking down the barrel of a citizen with a loaded weapon and pissed because you disturbed his in flight movie.
Aloha_Shooter
03-12-2013, 17:30
LEO's are trained in weapon retention. Most CCW carriers are not. And there is certainly no standard for CCW carriers to be held to as far as retention goes.
Just how much training in retention do I need when you can't see my weapon and it's snugged under my armpit or down by ... well, anyone reaching in there WILL be noticed and WILL get an elbow in the face (unless she looks really good in a bikini). I really don't want to be on alert all the time, would rather sleep on most of my plane trips so am hardly likely to want to carry even if it's allowed but "retention" is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen against it.
The last time I checked, most of us weren't asking to relax background check or training rules to get a CHP so anyone who WOULD carry concealed on an plane is already part of one of the most law-abiding demographic groups in the nation.
As far as the question goes, I can see barring private concealed carry at places where emotions have a tendency to run high (e.g., courthouses) or people have often wanted to make a political statement (e.g., White House or Capitol building) but I would generally prefer they allowed carry by licensed individuals subject to security check.
Umm, you guys forgot Colorado in general.... [gohome]
The fact that JM Ver 2.0 argues for something usually makes me think it is a bad idea just on principle. But for the most part, prisons and jails are probably better left to SORT and less lethal weapons than firearms.
Second that.
How about:
No person is allowed to carry when on a security detail or part thereof for any government official who has supported, voted for, or sponsored any anti-2A bill, order or activity in any way or form.
Sounds good to me. Let them see just what it feels like to be forcibly disarmed.
dwalker460
03-12-2013, 18:20
Seconded!
Just how much training in retention do I need when you can't see my weapon and it's snugged under my armpit or down by ... well, anyone reaching in there WILL be noticed and WILL get an elbow in the face (unless she looks really good in a bikini). I really don't want to be on alert all the time, would rather sleep on most of my plane trips so am hardly likely to want to carry even if it's allowed but "retention" is one of the dumbest arguments I've seen against it.
The last time I checked, most of us weren't asking to relax background check or training rules to get a CHP so anyone who WOULD carry concealed on an plane is already part of one of the most law-abiding demographic groups in the nation.
As far as the question goes, I can see barring private concealed carry at places where emotions have a tendency to run high (e.g., courthouses) or people have often wanted to make a political statement (e.g., White House or Capitol building) but I would generally prefer they allowed carry by licensed individuals subject to security check.
Really....one of the dumbest arguments you've seen on this? Ask a law enforcement officer how much time they spend on weapon retention. All it would take is one careless person carrying and one motivated terrorist, psyco, whatever to seize the moment. Most passengers aren't quite as ninja as yourself. May I ask.....what do you do for a living?
dwalker460
03-12-2013, 18:41
May I ask.....what do you do for a living?
I am suddenly more interested in what you do for a living?
I am suddenly more interested in what you do for a living?
Airline Captain
Zundfolge
03-12-2013, 18:52
Really....one of the dumbest arguments you've seen on this? Ask a law enforcement officer how much time they spend on weapon retention. All it would take is one careless person carrying and one motivated terrorist, psyco, whatever to seize the moment.
And yet most of the stories we see in the news about handguns left in public bathrooms or rifles left on the roofs of vehicles only to slide into traffic or sub-machineguns stolen out of an unsecured vehicle its not "civilians", its not CCWers, its cops.
We really need to get past this ludicrous notion that all (or even most) members of law enforcement are highly trained "high-speed-low-drag-operators" and all "civilians" are idiots that can barely keep from soiling themselves. Most police officers are social workers that happen to carry guns. That's not to diminish what they do, its just the truth. Most of the police officers I've know over the years were competent at their jobs but were LESS CAPABLE with a firearm than most of the "civilians" I've met through firearms forums and at the range (not that I haven't met cops that are VERY capable, but most of them would be capable with a gun whether they were cops or accountants or bartenders).
Either the masses are all Homer Simpsons that need the heavy but benevolent jack boot of the state on their necks, or they're adults capable of self governance. If you think we're all Homer Simpsons then join the gun banners because not only should Homer not be allowed to CCW even in the middle of the woods with nobody for miles, he shouldn't be allowed to touch any gun (or even a sharp knife).
dwalker460
03-12-2013, 18:53
Yea, and dont you guys have a firearm in the cabin with you? But those of us flying in coach cannot?
dwalker460
03-12-2013, 18:55
And yet most of the stories we see in the news about handguns left in public bathrooms or rifles left on the roofs of vehicles only to slide into traffic or sub-machineguns stolen out of an unsecured vehicle its not "civilians", its not CCWers, its cops.
We really need to get past this ludicrous notion that all (or even most) members of law enforcement are highly trained "high-speed-low-drag-operators" and all "civilians" are idiots that can barely keep from soiling themselves. Most police officers are social workers that happen to carry guns. That's not to diminish what they do, its just the truth. Most of the police officers I've know over the years were competent at their jobs but were LESS CAPABLE with a firearm than most of the "civilians" I've met through firearms forums and at the range (not that I haven't met cops that are VERY capable, but most of them would be capable with a gun whether they were cops or accountants or bartenders).
Either the masses are all Homer Simpsons that need the heavy but benevolent jack boot of the state on their necks, or they're adults capable of self governance. If you think we're all Homer Simpsons then join the gun banners because not only should Homer not be allowed to CCW even in the middle of the woods with nobody for miles, he shouldn't be allowed to touch any gun (or even a sharp knife).
I completely agree, and can only add that while I know several truly awesome cops, I still would not trust my life to them. Personal responsibility includes my health and safety.
Yea, and dont you guys have a firearm in the cabin with you? But those of us flying in coach cannot?
Dude.....then walk or ride a bus. We'll be ok without you.
I am suddenly more interested in what you do for a living?
RMAC757 (https://www.ar-15.co/members/5577-RMAC757)
https://www.ar-15.co/images/tf_ideal/statusicon/user-online.png
Drives the Blue French Bus
dwalker460
03-12-2013, 19:04
Dude.....then walk or ride a bus. We'll be ok without you.
Man I always like quotes like this! How many airlines have declared bankruptcy? And needed bailouts to continue operating? How much effect will the next "incident" on an aircraft have? And there will be one, because you have the TSA as your only line of defense, which has been proven ineffective, and a cabin full of defenseless passengers. Its what the military calls a "target rich environment" for whackos.
And yet most of the stories we see in the news about handguns left in public bathrooms or rifles left on the roofs of vehicles only to slide into traffic or sub-machineguns stolen out of an unsecured vehicle its not "civilians", its not CCWers, its cops.
We really need to get past this ludicrous notion that all (or even most) members of law enforcement are highly trained "high-speed-low-drag-operators" and all "civilians" are idiots that can barely keep from soiling themselves. Most police officers are social workers that happen to carry guns. That's not to diminish what they do, its just the truth. Most of the police officers I've know over the years were competent at their jobs but were LESS CAPABLE with a firearm than most of the "civilians" I've met through firearms forums and at the range (not that I haven't met cops that are VERY capable, but most of them would be capable with a gun whether they were cops or accountants or bartenders).
Either the masses are all Homer Simpsons that need the heavy but benevolent jack boot of the state on their necks, or they're adults capable of self governance. If you think we're all Homer Simpsons then join the gun banners because not only should Homer not be allowed to CCW even in the middle of the woods with nobody for miles, he shouldn't be allowed to touch any gun (or even a sharp knife).
I think your trying to create an argument with me that doesn't exist. To be honest I'm not even sure what point your trying to make with Homer Simpson analogy. Yes, there are many, many well trained civilians and equally as many poorly trained LEO's. Your not seeing the big picture. This is about creating a standard for the lowest common denominator, not persecuting well trained, law abiding citizens. Risking the chance of ND's, poorly secured weapons, argument/fights, whatever aboard the plane with your average Joe who took his CCW on the internet a couple weeks earlier isn't worth it. There are a few of us on this board that see what happens aboard aircraft on daily basis. Do you have any idea what happens when we get stuck for a couple hours off the gate? People loose their shit.....every time.
Man I always like quotes like this! How many airlines have declared bankruptcy? And needed bailouts to continue operating? How much effect will the next "incident" on an aircraft have? And there will be one, because you have the TSA as your only line of defense, which has been proven ineffective, and a cabin full of defenseless passengers. Its what the military calls a "target rich environment" for whackos.
Your proving my point every time you type.
Ask a law enforcement officer how much time they spend on weapon retention.
Alot.
The reasoning for weapons retention for uniformed police officers is based on the regular carry of an exposed weapon, which is visible and accessible to anyone behind, to the side, or otherwise in close proximity. When your job has you rolling around on the ground while trying to subdue a subject, or working crowd control at an Occupy style rally, knowing where your weapons are and keeping them away from others is pretty important.
While, in training, we work on regaining weapons if you happen to lose one, the emphasis is obviously on not losing them in the first place.
Ground fighting is also an important part of training in LE. Would anyone like to consider the difficulties of ground fighting in the aisle or between seats on a full airplane? Again, the emphasis is on not going to the deck, and if you go, make sure you are on top. There are a lot of hard, sharp items down there. You can use them if you are in a position of dominance. They can be used against you if you are not.
There are many difficult environments to work in, and anyone who thinks that a gun will get you out of more trouble than it can get you into is just fooling themselves. For a citizen who carries concealed, use of a firearm should really be considered a weapon of last resort. Something along the lines of "If I don't pull this trigger, someone will die or be seriously injured. I have no other choice." If you can't hit your target, you have no business pulling the trigger. That is just as true on the street as it is at 30,000 feet. It is also true for LE as well as anyone else. At least in LE, the deep pockets of liability will probably be the taxpayers. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would suffer significant financial setbacks for that type of liability. I'm pretty sure that anyone on this board would be financially ruined if they missed in that situation. Not to mention the other legal and psychological difficulties.
Here is a domestic airliner question for those in the profession. If a significant event happens while over the continental United States, what is the longest time likely between advising ATC of the emergency and wheels down? I ask this question in anticipation of the consideration of "backup assistance" not being available at cruise altitude.
dwalker460
03-12-2013, 19:24
Your proving my point every time you type.
ANd your proving mine. There is zero reason why a citizen should not have the right to carry a firearm on board an airplane. The exact same logic could be applied to any public transportation or venue. In fact that is the exact same logic being applied to magazine limits, UBC's, and the CCW on college campuses. I mean, the guy next to you with a firearm might have just broken up with his gf and be unstable and lose it.
Get over yourself. Your not better than me or any other citizen. That you choose to hold the public in such disdain is somewhat interesting. Perhaps you should seek employment with the Democrat Party Comrade.
Alot.
The reasoning for weapons retention for uniformed police officers is based on the regular carry of an exposed weapon, which is visible and accessible to anyone behind, to the side, or otherwise in close proximity. When your job has you rolling around on the ground while trying to subdue a subject, or working crowd control at an Occupy style rally, knowing where your weapons are and keeping them away from others is pretty important.
While, in training, we work on regaining weapons if you happen to lose one, the emphasis is obviously on not losing them in the first place.
Ground fighting is also an important part of training in LE. Would anyone like to consider the difficulties of ground fighting in the aisle or between seats on a full airplane? Again, the emphasis is on not going to the deck, and if you go, make sure you are on top. There are a lot of hard, sharp items down there. You can use them if you are in a position of dominance. They can be used against you if you are not.
There are many difficult environments to work in, and anyone who thinks that a gun will get you out of more trouble than it can get you into is just fooling themselves. For a citizen who carries concealed, use of a firearm should really be considered a weapon of last resort. Something along the lines of "If I don't pull this trigger, someone will die or be seriously injured. I have no other choice." If you can't hit your target, you have no business pulling the trigger. That is just as true on the street as it is at 30,000 feet. It is also true for LE as well as anyone else. At least in LE, the deep pockets of liability will probably be the taxpayers. Warren Buffet and Bill Gates would suffer significant financial setbacks for that type of liability. I'm pretty sure that anyone on this board would be financially ruined if they missed in that situation. Not to mention the other legal and psychological difficulties.
Here is a domestic airliner question for those in the profession. If a significant event happens while over the continental United States, what is the longest time likely between advising ATC of the emergency and wheels down? I ask this question in anticipation of the consideration of "backup assistance" not being available at cruise altitude.
Roughly... (very roughly) considering all of the factors that may be involved 15 minutes. Colowyo is stud and could do it in 10
And there will be one, because you have the TSA as your only line of defense, which has been proven ineffective, and a cabin full of defenseless passengers.
TSA is not the only line of defense.
Passengers, post 9/11 are anything but defenseless. I think many people would be shocked just what passengers have done to their fellow passengers when they have done stupid things on airplanes after 9/11. It would take a mighty foolish individual to jump up and take a screaming run at a flight deck door today. God help the fool if the plane is on it's way to an airport near a large military base and the plane is full of young and vigorous members of our military. There would be a world of hurt delivered unto the wicked on that flight.
dwalker460
03-12-2013, 19:31
TSA is not the only line of defense.
Passengers, post 9/11 are anything but defenseless. I think many people would be shocked just what passengers have done to their fellow passengers when they have done stupid things on airplanes after 9/11. It would take a mighty foolish individual to jump up and take a screaming run at a flight deck door today. God help the fool if the plane is on it's way to an airport near a large military base and the plane is full of young and vigorous members of our military. There would be a world of hurt delivered unto the wicked on that flight.
Point ceded, and your right I have seen a greater awareness among many passengers on my flights.
I was stuck in an airport on 9/11. I had a bag full of specialty tools with me that I had carried from TN to CA for a contract working with a race team there. On the way out I just popped them into the underseat, on the way back the police officer inspecting the bag nearly crapped himself when he saw the saws and other tools in the bag.
ANd your proving mine. There is zero reason why a citizen should not have the right to carry a firearm on board an airplane. The exact same logic could be applied to any public transportation or venue. In fact that is the exact same logic being applied to magazine limits, UBC's, and the CCW on college campuses. I mean, the guy next to you with a firearm might have just broken up with his gf and be unstable and lose it.
Get over yourself. Your not better than me or any other citizen. That you choose to hold the public in such disdain is somewhat interesting. Perhaps you should seek employment with the Democrat Party Comrade.
[ontopic]
No I am not better....nor did I say I was better. What I did explain to you while using small words is that I work in this environment and the odds are I know a lot more than you do about it. Hold the public in disdain? Dude, the flying public pays my salary and I'm thankful as hell for that. Now I'm a Democrat because you disagree with me? I tell you what find 5 Airline pilots that agree with you and I'll issue you a public apology.
Roughly... (very roughly) considering all of the factors that may be involved 15 minutes. Colowyo is stud and could do it in 10
I thought if you sent 7500 you didn't get to land right away.
Does CStone remind anyone else of Sheriff Bill Masters? Not that I know either one of them.
Does CStone remind anyone else of Sheriff Bill Masters? Not that I know either one of them.
I've been to Telluride. I've never met Sheriff Masters. I don't know whether reminding anyone of him would be a good thing or a bad thing.
I'm willing to buy you a cup of coffee Irving. Then you could say you've met one of us [Beer]
I read his book and I'll bet you that cup of coffee that you'd agree with it. Your posts remind me of his sound logic. Carry on (just not while you're sitting between a judge and the Post Master general on a commercial airliner about to take off from a treadmill).
I read his book and I'll bet you that cup of coffee that you'd agree with it. Your posts remind me of his sound logic. Carry on (just not while you're sitting between a judge and the Post Master general on a commercial airliner about to take off from a treadmill).
Thanks for the book recommendation. I need to finish the Cormac McCarthy book I've been trying to finish, but I will definitely put Masters' book on my list.
Someone on the site mailed me one out of the blue last year. I can't remember who it was, but he sent it free of charge and I made sure to read it. If that guy is reading this now, I forgot to thank you for the kind gesture.
Thanks for the book recommendation. I need to finish the Cormac McCarthy book I've been trying to finish, but I will definitely put Masters' book on my list.
Which one CSTONE? Blood Merdian is one of my favorite novels.
Aloha_Shooter
03-13-2013, 09:43
Really....one of the dumbest arguments you've seen on this? Ask a law enforcement officer how much time they spend on weapon retention. All it would take is one careless person carrying and one motivated terrorist, psyco, whatever to seize the moment. Most passengers aren't quite as ninja as yourself. May I ask.....what do you do for a living?
Yes, one of the dumbest arguments. Your argument about accidental hits to hydraulic lines was much better. LEOs typically carry openly so need to worry about retention more than someone who is carrying concealed. You may certainly ask -- I'm a consulting engineer. Specifically, a systems engineer so I look at processes and data flow as well as specific system designs. Prior to that, I was USAF so the rare times I was issued a weapon, we carried openly and DID worry about retention (especially when supporting the SPs on patrol after 9/11).
Just what motivated terrorist or psycho can you think of who is going to go reaching into random armpits or down pants in search of a weapon? THAT's the stupidity I'm talking about when you focus your argument on retention as it applies to concealed carry. I'll grant you retention as a factor in arguing against open carry but it's a ridiculous point when you're talking about concealed carry.
Which one CSTONE? Blood Merdian is one of my favorite novels.
The Orchard Keeper
I would like this thread to be a discussion about places that: law abiding, citizens, who are legal to own and possess firearms, should not be allowed to have access to a firearm.
I have worked in many places where possession and access to firearms is severely restricted. I disagree with those restrictions and today, I cannot think of a single place in this country where good citizens should be prohibited from having their firearm.
What say you.
First, I agree.
I see the question of firearms access by law-abiding citizens as one of simple self defense.
If you change the discussion/question to:
I would like this thread to be a discussion about places that: law abiding, citizens, who have a God given right to self defense, should not be allowed to defend themselves.
I have worked in many places where possession and access to firearms is severely restricted. I disagree with those restrictions and today, I cannot think of a single place in this country where good citizens should be prohibited from having their firearm.
What say you.
I think the answer is clear - No Where!
I think the answer is clear - No Where!
Since I wrote the original question, I have been reminded of the issues about having weapons in a detention facility (criminal or mental). As I stated above, I consent to be disarmed in a place where the inmates are stripped searched. Taking a weapon into one of these places is truly counter productive and dangerous.
Second, while I still do not feel safer in a "gun free" airport or on a "gun free" commercial airliner, I will publicly acknowledge that there is virtually no possibility that this restriction will go away during my life time. I lament the amount of taxpayer and consumer money that has been spent and will continue to be spent on a false sense of security.
I did add the private property and private property owner rights caveat after the original question, and I fully recognize, and support the rights of private property owners to consent or deny access to anyone or anything on their property.
Last, let me add this point. IMO, there is no such thing in this country as a true "gun free" zone. It is a legal construct of government that is either obeyed by law abiding citizens, ignored by criminals, or superseded by agents of the government, who are authorized to carry guns into these so called "gun free" zones. I personally resent the assumption by government at all levels that agents of the government are inherently more trustworthy and proficient than law abiding citizens. IMO, this assumption by government is based on arbitrary and often untested and unsupported implied competence.
I will expand on a tenet of our judicial system, Innocent until proven Guilty. I believe that a citizen is competent and trustworthy until proven otherwise. I support due process of an objective magistrate in examining evidence prior to removing the rights of citizens. This is where I stand.
Be safe.
HBARleatherneck
03-13-2013, 11:55
Since I wrote the original question, I have been reminded of the issues about having weapons in a detention facility (criminal or mental). As I stated above, I consent to be disarmed in a place where the inmates are stripped searched. Taking a weapon into one of these places is truly counter productive and dangerous.
Second, while I still do not feel safer in a "gun free" airport or on a "gun free" commercial airliner, I will publicly acknowledge that there is virtually no possibility that this restriction will go away during my life time. I lament the amount of taxpayer and consumer money that has been spent and will continue to be spent on a false sense of security.
I did add the private property and private property owner rights caveat after the original question, and I fully recognize, and support the rights of private property owners to consent or deny access to anyone or anything on their property.
Last, let me add this point. IMO, there is no such thing in this country as a true "gun free" zone. It is a legal construct of government that is either obeyed by law abiding citizens, ignored by criminals, or superseded by agents of the government, who are authorized to carry guns into these so called "gun free" zones. I personally resent the assumption by government at all levels that agents of the government are inherently more trustworthy and proficient than law abiding citizens. IMO, this assumption by government is based on arbitrary and often untested and unsupported implied competence.
I will expand on a tenet of our judicial system, Innocent until proven Guilty. I believe that a citizen is competent and trustworthy until proven otherwise. I support due process of an objective magistrate in examining evidence prior to removing the rights of citizens. This is where I stand.
Be safe.
Ya know, I know alot of cops. Past and present. Cops who were new, cops who had been doing it 3 decades. State cops, Federal, local, County, relatives. and you maybe the most level headed one I have known. Some on this site think that cops are saints and their shit dont stink and they are special. LEOs are people who voluntarily signed up for a job. They do the job they are paid to do. Some do it well, some do it ok, some do it outstanding and some are a disgrace. All people are the same. (at least to me) Some people dont understand. I believe you do. Thank you.
i dont care if you are an airline pilot, cop, janitor, septic pumper, teacher, politician. You are all the same and should be treated with the same respect and should live by the same rules.
Ya know, I know alot of cops. Past and present. Cops who were new, cops who had been doing it 3 decades. State cops, Federal, local, County, relatives. and you maybe the most level headed one I have known. Some on this site think that cops are saints and their shit dont stink and they are special. LEOs are people who voluntarily signed up for a job. They do the job they are paid to do. Some do it well, some do it ok, some do it outstanding and some are a disgrace. All people are the same. (at least to me) Some people dont understand. I believe you do. Thank you.
i dont care if you are an airline pilot, cop, janitor, septic pumper, teacher, politician. You are all the same and should be treated with the same respect and should live by the same rules.
A-Freaking-men!
In terms of the airline problem- as I've stated before, my concern is not a stray round bringing the plane down, or even inhibiting someones rights (much less the asinine- not picking a fight with you RMAC- retention fear), my concern is that anyone lacking the skills equal to that of some kind of special ops/SWAT/IDF/etc in terms of CQB, in a tight airline fuselage, is a huge liability. It's one thing to engage a hostile in your home or on the street, but inside the extremely confined quarters of an airliner stress and margin of error increase exponentially, and even the most prepared and fast-reactive person would have difficulty in that situation. I am very confident in my training and skills, but I'm no expert, and I don't think I'd be comfortable engaging a hostile on an airliner. YMMV.
Yes, one of the dumbest arguments. Your argument about accidental hits to hydraulic lines was much better. LEOs typically carry openly so need to worry about retention more than someone who is carrying concealed. You may certainly ask -- I'm a consulting engineer. Specifically, a systems engineer so I look at processes and data flow as well as specific system designs. Prior to that, I was USAF so the rare times I was issued a weapon, we carried openly and DID worry about retention (especially when supporting the SPs on patrol after 9/11).
Just what motivated terrorist or psycho can you think of who is going to go reaching into random armpits or down pants in search of a weapon? THAT's the stupidity I'm talking about when you focus your argument on retention as it applies to concealed carry. I'll grant you retention as a factor in arguing against open carry but it's a ridiculous point when you're talking about concealed carry.
I concede...Your obviously the expert [not-worthy] Hydraulic lines...WTF are you talking about? Maybe the airline industry can hire you as a sort of security consultant.
Ya know, I know alot of cops. Past and present. Cops who were new, cops who had been doing it 3 decades. State cops, Federal, local, County, relatives. and you maybe the most level headed one I have known. Some on this site think that cops are saints and their shit dont stink and they are special. LEOs are people who voluntarily signed up for a job. They do the job they are paid to do. Some do it well, some do it ok, some do it outstanding and some are a disgrace. All people are the same. (at least to me) Some people dont understand. I believe you do. Thank you.
i dont care if you are an airline pilot, cop, janitor, septic pumper, teacher, politician. You are all the same and should be treated with the same respect and should live by the same rules.
Unless you board an aircraft...then we are all not the same and there is a different set of rules. It's no different than being aboard a ship.
buffalobo
03-13-2013, 17:53
As to planes, should be up to airline, not govt.
cstone, thank you, your statement is dead on.
Sent from my DROID Pro using Tapatalk 2
hurley842002
09-24-2015, 03:51
Ran across this while searching for something else, let's bump it up for old time sake (and the newbs). Wow there are a lot of old members no longer with us (or don't participate).
Bailey Guns
09-24-2015, 06:26
People should only be allowed to carry inside their own homes, inside a room with bullet-proof walls, that's locked from the outside. No magazines over 15 rounds at all. Then the rest of us will be safe.
I always thought that carrying in certain places like airplanes and sporting events don't really need to be scrutanitized or disected nearly as much, as one carries there as they are between places where they are more likely to need a firearm. Same with carrying while driving. The chances that drawing/firing while driving would ever be the best thing to do are insignificantly small, but transitioning when you are stopped each time is not reasonable.
Yes, I know that there are chumps out there who fantasize about brandashing in such places to look tough, but I think that is likely a pretty small minority.
People used to carry on aircraft prior to it being banned. We could and did carry weapons if we felt like it. It was a free country without issues.
Environments with explosive vapors, visiting rooms at prisons where visitors and convicts have direct contact, some courtrooms (divorce court comes to mind)... that's about all I can think of.
hurley842002
09-24-2015, 09:26
I always thought that carrying in certain places like airplanes and sporting events don't really need to be scrutanitized or disected nearly as much, as one carries there as they are between places where they are more likely to need a firearm. Same with carrying while driving. The chances that drawing/firing while driving would ever be the best thing to do are insignificantly small, but transitioning when you are stopped each time is not reasonable.
Yes, I know that there are chumps out there who fantasize about brandashing in such places to look tough, but I think that is likely a pretty small minority.
I can agree with this. When I used to go to sporting events, I can think of very few opportunities that I would have had a good safe shot if needed, but it doesn't mean I don't want to be armed from the stadium to my vehicle. Doesn't really matter now, as I don't attend sporting events.
I can agree with this. When I used to go to sporting events, I can think of very few opportunities that I would have had a good safe shot if needed, but it doesn't mean I don't want to be armed from the stadium to my vehicle. Doesn't really matter now, as I don't attend sporting events.
While the chances of hitting unintended targets is great at sporting events...they are one of the places I most would desire my firearm. Incidents of people attacked (and sometimes killed) at sporting events has grown with the expansion of alcohol at said events. Attacks, robberies, murders have all gone up at professional sports arenas in the last number of years...and I suspect we are not being told the true numbers as the sports leagues are probably squashing a number of stories as it would dampen their ticket sales.
Guns are dangerous. No one should have them
HoneyBadger
09-24-2015, 13:16
I dont think ANYONE should be able to carry a gun in DC. No cops, no security guards, no politicians, nobody.
Then we can see how these piece of shit politicians like it when they are unprotected and at the mercy of criminals. I would love to see that.
The capital would be invaded by angry North Koreans who would then blow up all of our nukes in the silos. Wait, wasn't there a crappy movie about that?
Great-Kazoo
09-24-2015, 14:06
nobody in the hollywood entertainment industry should be able to carry either, not them or their bodyguards or anyone on their behalf. This prohibition would extend countrywide wherever they travel.
WELL, SO MUCH FOR TOLERANCE AND DIVERSITY FROM GUN OWNERS.
hurley842002
09-24-2015, 15:27
The capital would be invaded by angry North Koreans who would then blow up all of our nukes in the silos. Wait, wasn't there a crappy movie about that?
HA! Olympus has fallen or something like that.
I am currently at a training facility where everyone is disarmed at the gate. It is one of the FLETC facilities and other than while training at a live fire range, the only people permitted to have a firearm or ammunition within the complex are the contract security personnel.
I find the irony of a base full of law enforcement personnel being disarmed, mildly humorous. It is sort of like taking weapons away from the military while on base. [Flower]
Be safe.
What happens if a gun is placed into an MRI machine?
It gets stuck to the side of the machine till they turn the power off.
I have heard the urban legend about an MRI causing a pistol to discharge. I have never been able to find a reliable source for the story. Maybe MythBusters should do the experiment for one of their shows.
HoneyBadger
09-24-2015, 17:59
It gets stuck to the side of the machine till they turn the power off.
I have heard the urban legend about an MRI causing a pistol to discharge. I have never been able to find a reliable source for the story. Maybe MythBusters should do the experiment for one of their shows.
Couldn't have been a Glock. All the important parts are plastic! [LOL]
Fentonite
09-24-2015, 18:07
It gets stuck to the side of the machine till they turn the power off.
I have heard the urban legend about an MRI causing a pistol to discharge. I have never been able to find a reliable source for the story. Maybe MythBusters should do the experiment for one of their shows.
the exception makes the rule:
http://www.supertrap.com/ST_Downloads_files/GUN_in_MRI.pdf
pretty interesting discussion of the mechanics of a Colt in an MRI.
It's my position that anytime you have been disarmed by firearm prohibition at any public facility, whomever made the decision to prohibit self defense is now liable or responsible for the people's safety at their facility.
If somebody that usually carries gets attacked going to and from a sports stadium, I would support litigation against that entity for taking away a permit holders ability to protect themselves. NFL, MLB and each facility be it Sports Authority or Coors Field has now assumed the responsibility for your protection by not allowing you to carry or providing a place to store your gun when at the game. CCW holders have been every bit as scrutinized and background checked as the average police officer that is carrying inside that same facility.
I have had to suspend carrying this entire year at the Rockies games, because of the metal detectors. Never felt a need to be armed during the game inside the stadium. I always feel completely vulnerable when walking to and from the game. Have bought ticket packages every year for over ten years. I thought would try it for this one year, this was the last year I will buy Rockies tickets.
Sort of a hot button issue with me, sorry for the mini rant. I just can't stand arbitrary Gun Spree Zones.
Bars and casinos. Intoxication and gambling just don't mix with firearms well.
the exception makes the rule:
http://www.supertrap.com/ST_Downloads_files/GUN_in_MRI.pdf
pretty interesting discussion of the mechanics of a Colt in an MRI.
Interesting. Thanks!
So it is no longer an urban legend. Just very rare. [Coffee]
It's my position that anytime you have been disarmed by firearm prohibition at any public facility, whomever made the decision to prohibit self defense is now liable or responsible for the people's safety at their facility.
If somebody that usually carries gets attacked going to and from a sports stadium, I would support litigation against that entity for taking away a permit holders ability to protect themselves. NFL, MLB and each facility be it Sports Authority or Coors Field has now assumed the responsibility for your protection by not allowing you to carry or providing a place to store your gun when at the game. CCW holders have been every bit as scrutinized and background checked as the average police officer that is carrying inside that same facility.
I have had to suspend carrying this entire year at the Rockies games, because of the metal detectors. Never felt a need to be armed during the game inside the stadium. I always feel completely vulnerable when walking to and from the game. Have bought ticket packages every year for over ten years. I thought would try it for this one year, this was the last year I will buy Rockies tickets.
Sort of a hot button issue with me, sorry for the mini rant. I just can't stand arbitrary Gun Spree Zones.
The reality is that this would never be successful, nor would you want it to be.
hurley842002
09-24-2015, 19:57
CCW holders have been every bit as scrutinized and background checked as the average police officer that is carrying inside that same facility.
I agree with all of your rant except this part. The average police officer goes thru much more than a CCW permit holder. Poly, psych, home visits, family/friends/neighbors interviewed etc. With that said it's not really relevant, as I believe in constitutional carry.
Not to mention continuous performance reviews. But alas, I agree with Hurley.
BushMasterBoy
09-24-2015, 22:58
The International Space Station...
HoneyBadger
09-25-2015, 00:13
Private property without the explicit consent of the property owner?
Great-Kazoo
09-25-2015, 00:26
Bars and casinos. Intoxication and gambling just don't mix with firearms well.
. Didn't have an issue in vegas or reno. Then again, the last thing i wanted was attention / scrutiny. OTOH: The girl trying to sell me meth was funny.
hurley842002
09-25-2015, 00:46
Bars and casinos. Intoxication and gambling just don't mix with firearms well.
So because the likelihood of some drunk schmuck starting an incident is higher, I shouldn't be able to protect myself? That makes a lot of sense. Some people just can't leave NY thinking in NY.
ETA: I don't frequent bars or gamble, the closest thing I get to a bar is Old C's or Buffalo wild wings if I'm feeling wild, and obviously don't drink if carrying. Hell, I don't make it a habit to drink outside the house much anymore.
I was just trying to point out that CCW holders have been vetted and are not just any Joe Shmoe with a gun. I do realize that police are further evaluated that the average CCW, my point is that both are scrutinized.
I believe you should be allowed to carry most anywhere by just showing your permit. When was the last time any of us permit holder was asked to see proof that we have one? And when did showing that permit allow us to carry when others are prohibited. The general public doesn't seem to afford a permit holder any further privileges than the average gangbanger.
I don't see the downside of holding anyone that takes away our right to defend our selves being held liable when we are attacked after they've disarmed us. I believe that it sets precedence that anybody that operates an open to the public facility can disarm law bidding people by simply posting a sign. It wont take long before having a CCW will only be effective as long as you are in your car. I believe allowing any public facility to disarm CCW holders undermines the entire privilege of being permit holder. If we were a constitutional carry state I may have a different view on this but I believe the permit should afford special privilege. I believe that as long as a state has a permit process the privileges that permit affords should not be allowed to be removed by anybody other than the governing body involved in issuing said permit.
If a business does not want permit holders to carry they can operate in another state. I know that is a decision that most people here want every private business owner to make. I disagree, even as a business owner you don't have the right to disarm me as long as I have satisfied the requirements of this state to carry a gun. We already have carry laws pertaining to government buildings, alcohol, public transportation etc. I believe to prohibit anyone to carry in your business you need to show cause and acquire written approval from the governing body that issued the permit. Having a business comes with certain requirements and allowing permit holders to carry should be one of those requirements that you have to deal with.
HoneyBadger
09-25-2015, 11:28
If a business does not want permit holders to carry they can operate in another state. I know that is a decision that most people here want every private business owner to make. I disagree, even as a business owner you don't have the right to disarm me as long as I have satisfied the requirements of this state to carry a gun. We already have carry laws pertaining to government buildings, alcohol, public transportation etc. I believe to prohibit anyone to carry in your business you need to show cause and acquire written approval from the governing body that issued the permit. Having a business comes with certain requirements and allowing permit holders to carry should be one of those requirements that you have to deal with.
This statement is ridiculous. Do you think you should be allowed to tresspass as well, since you have a CCW?
Businesses do not have "the right to disarm me", you, or anyone... They do have certain controls over their private property, the same way that you can control who enters your home with a weapon. If you don't like their policy, then don't give them your business. A CCW permit is not some "God card" that somehow means you can trample the rights of other people.
So because the likelihood of some drunk schmuck starting an incident is higher, I shouldn't be able to protect myself? That makes a lot of sense. Some people just can't leave NY thinking in NY.
ETA: I don't frequent bars or gamble, the closest thing I get to a bar is Old C's or Buffalo wild wings if I'm feeling wild, and obviously don't drink if carrying. Hell, I don't make it a habit to drink outside the house much anymore.
NY thinking not applied here. Just going by personal experiences. I mean hell if you are responsible enough to carry then you shouldnt be drinking, but I shouldnt make a blanket assumption that if your in a bar your drinking.
A CCW permit is not some "God card" that somehow means you can trample the rights of other people.
Yea, that would require a gay card
61147
Maybe I should be clear up front this is not about open carry and I'm not asking for any new rights to be granted. This all about concealed carry and patrons with carry permits having the right to do just that. We as gun owners need to very cautious about who can by fiat take away any right we have won in hard fought battles. And that includes private citizens trying to take those rights.
Having said that, talk about a ridiculous statement! Nowhere in anything I said, would I give anybody the right to trespass, nor would I take away your right to keep someone out of your home armed or not. And what is a "God Card"? A CCW is a means that we as a society have put in place to control who can carry a concealed gun. It does not give you any other right beyond enhancing your ability for self defense.
Obviously you can see the difference, your home is not a facility open to the public. Entering a business as a patron that's open to the public is not trespassing during business hours. You don't have the right to keep gays out of your business, but if I understand you, if I have a permit and carry a concealed gun you can keep me out for that reason alone? How is one right protected and one not? It is no more harmful to your business and the general public for someone licensed to have a gun in there pocket than it is being gay, concealed means concealed. You say it's ok for the business to take away your right to self defense, while society tells you that you can't be trusted with the decision to keep people out that you may not like. And how does my right to self defense harm your business, unless I brandish? We have many rules in place governing a private business, but we can't make rules that go against constitutional rights as they pertain to a business.
Owning a business does not grant unlimited private property rights. Business owners already subordinate there rights to fire dept, health dept, liquor licensing etc. This is about a business owner not being allowed to take away my licensed right to self defense. As long as I have complied with the rules we as a society have in place, by obtaining a permit, I should be allowed my legal choice to defend myself. I also believe these rights should not be something that the owner of the business can take away from his employees.
And this is not about if I believe society even has the right to make rules about how I defend myself. Who ever you choose to be in your home is not being challenged here nor should it be challenged.
HoneyBadger
09-25-2015, 16:04
Dude, it's not about taking away rights. If you voluntarily enter someone else's private property, you cannot just do whatever you want. A store is some private citizen's property. Nobody is taking your rights away if you enter their property and remain on their property voluntarily. If they ask you to leave their property (BUSINESS HOURS DON'T MATTER) and you refuse, then you are trespassing.
Also, your argument about businesses already submitting to laws for liquor licensing and other business regulation is a separate and unrelated issue. If you want the government to force another individual to do something that you cannot legally force them to do yourself, YOU are the tyrant.
Just to make things even more clear, because this might be the root of the problem: You do not have the right to force someone to do business with you.
Great-Kazoo
09-25-2015, 16:21
Just to make things even more clear, because this might be the root of the problem: You do not have the right to force someone to do business with you.
You've been gone a few. perhaps you missed the ruling against that cake maker.
HoneyBadger
09-25-2015, 17:03
You've been gone a few. perhaps you missed the ruling against that cake maker.
Oh right - I forgot! Our rulers decided that the principles of liberty that our country was founded upon don't exist if it makes gay people mad or hurts somebody's feelings. [facepalm]
Most businesses open to the public are private property with some limitations on the owners of that property.
The classic example is the restaurant where the owner decides that they will not seat or serve old people. The private property owner would be sued for discrimination and the private property owner would most likely lose. Private property such as a residence, that is not open to the general public, except by invitation, would give the property owner greater latitude in restricting who and what was permitted on their property.
Regardless, if you are asked to leave another person's property, the proper thing to do is leave peaceably. If you believe you have been wrongfully asked to leave, consult with an attorney who specializes in civil rights litigation and make a decision how you would like to address the perceived wrong.
The cake maker did not refuse service, just refused certain specific types of service. The conflict is which personal rights have greater standing, the right to be treated equally or the right to religious expression.
HB, It appears you are reading some of what I posted, however, not sure why you bring up other issues. In the spirit of discussion I will respond to your other issues. I totally agree a person, with or without a gun, is committing trespass if they don't leave your business if asked. I also agree no one should be allowed to "do whatever they want" in your business. Good issues that may deserve further discussion but they have nothing to do with what I'm talking about.
I'm talking about a gun legally in the pocket of a patron that nobody knows even exists. And if, this patron uses that gun to thwart an attack without firing a shot. I say that just because you own the business you should have no right to a legal remedy against a patron simply because they legally have a gun and you find out and don't like it. Simply owning a business and having a gun free sign does not afford someone the right to take another person's second amendment right to self defense. I know some business owners can and do wield that kind power over the minions but I believe in this country they should have never been given that authority. I believe we should not allow any citizen to have that control over another just because they have a business. There are many advantages to owning a business just not disarming legally armed citizens.
It appears to be your position as the owner of a movie theater, with "no guns" posted at the door, you could have somebody with a gun arrested for trespass because they popped James Holmes in the head before anybody else died. I believe that attitude is exactly why these shootings happen in the first place. People believing they have the right to create a gun spree zone without any responsibility for the consequences.
You have said nothing that convinces me that you as a business owner have the authority to disarm me in your business unless I'm doing something illegal with the gun. Carrying it in my pocket is not illegal with a permit nor should it be in your business. I believe the only right a business owner has would be to see a copy of my permit if he suspects I'm armed and if I'm asked I must be truthful about possession.
Aloha_Shooter
09-25-2015, 22:34
I'm talking about a gun legally in the pocket of a patron that nobody knows even exists. And if, this patron uses that gun to thwart an attack without firing a shot. I say that just because you own the business you should have no right to a legal remedy against a patron simply because they legally have a gun and you find out and don't like it. Simply owning a business and having a gun free sign does not afford someone the right to take another person's second amendment right to self defense.
Yes it does. It's called private property rights. The Second Amendment forbids the GOVERNMENT from keeping you weaponless (with some exceptions that I hope will eventually be overturned). Your right to carry/speak/worship/etc. does not outweigh MY right to control what's happening on MY property. You have every right to not patronize my store or services. Now, if your piece is properly concealed, the property owner will never know unless/until you have to use it. At that point, the property owner can thank you for your action, ask you to leave their premises, ignore your actions, etc.
I know some business owners can and do wield that kind power over the minions but I believe in this country they should have never been given that authority. I believe we should not allow any citizen to have that control over another just because they have a business. There are many advantages to owning a business just not disarming legally armed citizens.
I get it, like so many liberals, you want to dictate what the business can do with its property and how it can regulate its clientele. I suppose next you will say restaurants have no right to post signs saying "No shirt, No shoes, No business" or that the gun stores that posted signs saying Obama voters were unwelcome had to do business with those cretins.
It appears to be your position as the owner of a movie theater, with "no guns" posted at the door, you could have somebody with a gun arrested for trespass because they popped James Holmes in the head before anybody else died. I believe that attitude is exactly why these shootings happen in the first place. People believing they have the right to create a gun spree zone without any responsibility for the consequences.
I believe the "no guns" attitude is foul and attracts miscreants like Holmes but it is their right to post those rules at a private business. They can't charge you with trespass unless/until you refuse to leave when asked but they don't give up their private property rights.
You have said nothing that convinces me that you as a business owner have the authority to disarm me in your business unless I'm doing something illegal with the gun. Carrying it in my pocket is not illegal with a permit nor should it be in your business. I believe the only right a business owner has would be to see a copy of my permit if he suspects I'm armed and if I'm asked I must be truthful about possession.
You seem to believe all businesses are public accommodations much like the ACLU and Obama do. Unfortunately for your point -- and fortunately for us -- most courts still seem to recognize most private property rights despite the infamous cake and photographer rulings.
HoneyBadger
09-25-2015, 23:01
HB, It appears you are reading some of what I posted, however, not sure why you bring up other issues.
You have said nothing that convinces me that you as a business owner have the authority to disarm me in your business unless I'm doing something illegal with the gun. Carrying it in my pocket is not illegal with a permit nor should it be in your business. I believe the only right a business owner has would be to see a copy of my permit if he suspects I'm armed and if I'm asked I must be truthful about possession.
Dude... NOBODY IS TALKING ABOUT DISARMING ANYONE. [facepalm]
Ok, I'll give this one more try. It is my point that people regardless of how much money they have, should not be allowed to keep me from legally protecting myself. That has nothing to do with what our piece of shit president believes. And really you think "No shirt, No shoes, No business" is the equivalent to having something in your pocket that nobody can see. Having a gun in your pocket is like being gay, as long as no one knows, nobody is uncomfortable.
Having a legally carried gun is right that SHOULD not be revoked by any individual any more than being gay or black and walking into a public business can be revoked by an individual business owner. Being denied to CCW in a business is every bit as prejudice as preventing a gay from entering. While you here and we as a society don't currently want to allow CCW to be outside the purview of private property owners. So for the 35th time, I THINK IT'S WRONG. I know now you guys don't agree, but I don't think that my position makes me a liberal. This is all about my opinion, this not about me misunderstanding the existing law. I realize I'm going this position alone but it's what I believe.
Ed if it makes you feel any better, currently private property owners can't restrict your right really, just not allow you to exercise your right on their premesis. They can't disarm you, and even when they ask you to leave, they aren't disarming you. I see where your heart is at on this.
hurley842002
09-26-2015, 00:30
At the end of the day it comes down to, YOU HAVE A CHOICE RATHER OR NOT TO PATRONIZE A BUSINESS, nobody is forcing you to go to that movie theatre with the "no guns" sign. That's it, nothing more nothing less.
I would like this thread to be a discussion about places that: law abiding, citizens, who are legal to own and possess firearms, should not be allowed to have access to a firearm.
I have worked in many places where possession and access to firearms is severely restricted. I disagree with those restrictions and today, I cannot think of a single place in this country where good citizens should be prohibited from having their firearm.
What say you.
I've picked up a LOT of information in this thread- what a great question! I've been thinking and thinking, but much of what I've come up with has already been discussed. Many points that I hadn't considered were brought forth. Bonus!
If I follow this logic, the question relies on a juxtaposition of control: control over one's self and their perception of the environment, and control over another's perceived ability.
I've been to concert venues, discoteks, and bars enough to hope and pray that some of the more inebriated/drugged-to-the-gills individuals were not armed. In those cases, reliance of control over myself and my abilities would come into play (and the ideal situation would be of get the hell out of there soonest, if at all possible.) The retention issue covered thoughts that I've flirted with, but never really analyzed. Again, the concert venue springs to mind, because although this is no longer the 90s, mosh pits are alive and well and seem to be everywhere. Avoiding the moshers can be a full-time ordeal.
There is a lot to consider when it comes to remaining in control of yourself and your firearm; I don't live an exciting life, but I may be in situations that are riskier than others when adding a firearm. The concealing factor (and the need for it to remain concealed) can be tough. A beach scenario has different requirements than a daycare with children crawling all over you. Both situations need to be handled differently, but one should still be able to carry (and had better play the "what-if" game seriously, instead of simply relying on the fact that every factor in one's environment is completely under control.)
The other side is the control of others, which is a vicious cycle. Unless you're perfectly trained to recognize danger signs, understand exactly what they are going to do and when they are going to do it, control yourself and your firearm while being assured of not tripping or shaking at a vital moment...well, I can't do that so I'm not going to try to control anyone else. I just try to avoid situations where someone armed would easily lose their control. That way lies accidents.
To answer the question, I would say that ideally, the law has no business dictating to good citizens when and where they should carry. My caveat is that 'good citizens' implies a lick of common sense; that good citizens also know enough about themselves to understand how and when to retain control. Should they be going to a place or event where their control slips (4/20 rally, as a guest on the Jerry Springer show, crashing an ex's wedding, a pub crawl that lasts longer than six hours) I would hope they anticipate accordingly and bring along a DCD (designated carrier/driver) instead.
Unfortunately, people are people and as such, cannot be expected to act for the best interests of themselves (much less for others.) So there's my non-answer.
Oh, and maybe in a hot air balloon ride. Or a zeppelin factory.
hurley842002
09-26-2015, 00:39
I see where your heart is at on this.
I do to, and I appreciate the argument, but at the end of the day, other rights exist as well. There will always be the issue of my right trumps your right, and in some cases it does, but not always. I believe my right to be healthy and smoke free, trumps your right to enjoy that cig, some municipalities/establishments agree, some don't. It is what it is, and that's another topic.
Are you spying on me? I'm enjoying a cigar right now!
hurley842002
09-26-2015, 00:47
Are you spying on me? I'm enjoying a cigar right now!
The question isn't "am I spying on you", it's do I work for the NSA or Google.......?
HoneyBadger
09-26-2015, 09:41
Ok, I'll give this one more try. It is my point that people regardless of how much money they have, should not be allowed to keep me from legally protecting myself. That has nothing to do with what our piece of shit president believes. And really you think "No shirt, No shoes, No business" is the equivalent to having something in your pocket that nobody can see. Having a gun in your pocket is like being gay, as long as no one knows, nobody is uncomfortable.
Having a legally carried gun is right that SHOULD not be revoked by any individual any more than being gay or black and walking into a public business can be revoked by an individual business owner. Being denied to CCW in a business is every bit as prejudice as preventing a gay from entering. While you here and we as a society don't currently want to allow CCW to be outside the purview of private property owners. So for the 35th time, I THINK IT'S WRONG. I know now you guys don't agree, but I don't think that my position makes me a liberal. This is all about my opinion, this not about me misunderstanding the existing law. I realize I'm going this position alone but it's what I believe.
[Shake]
Nobody is keeping you from legally protecting yourself. If you don't like somebody's rules about guns and you don't feel that you'll be able to adequately protect yourself if the nee arises, then stay off their property. YOU are making the choice to limit your legal protection by voluntarily entering their property. YOU are choosing to play ball in someone else's court with their rules. Don't like the rules? Go play somewhere else. Don't like the "no guns" sign at the movie theater? Go somewhere else. You ALWAYS have a choice.
You are trying to protect what is yours, and so are they. You may not agree with their methods. There may be piles of statistics and loads of studies that show that their methods aren't going to work. That's irrelevant because it's their property and if you want to be on their property, you need to follow their rules.
Side note - this is not at all related to discrimination for age, race, gender identity issues, etc. Those have been legally determined to be variables that an individual inherently has and cannot control. You can control whether or not you want to bring a gun (or any object) into a store.
ETA: Just a quick note here:
I do to, and I appreciate the argument, but at the end of the day, other rights exist as well. There will always be the issue of my right trumps your right, and in some cases it does, but not always. I believe my right to be healthy and smoke free, trumps your right to enjoy that cig, some municipalities/establishments agree, some don't. It is what it is, and that's another topic.
I understand the emotion of Ed's argument, and I think I understand your sentiment here, but by definition, the rights of one individual cannot trump the rights of another. I had a really long-winded explanation here, but it got a little incoherent so I'll just leave it at that. Frederic Bastiat's "The Law" as well as John Locke's "Two Treatises on Government" lay a good foundation here and our constitution was specifically written with Locke's works in mind.
kidicarus13
09-26-2015, 10:40
Inside of MRI machines
Anywhere within the magnetic field of a rail gun
I thought of another one that I did not see listed: Next to MRI machines. (http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2010/01/03/dont-bring-a-gun-near-an-mri/)
Certain areas of certain Military Bases, Posted Private property, Detention Facilities, Courtrooms/Houses, and Mental Institutions.
However all of these (excepting private property) would be required to have an armory just outside where you could check in/checkout your firearms kept under lock and key with armed guards.
Sent from my SM-G920T using Tapatalk
milwaukeeshaker
09-30-2015, 10:29
You have been watching too many movies. That blow a hole in the fuselage and everyone dies is utter and complete nonsense. The plane would depressurize and the oxygen masks would drop down and no one would get sucked out.
And what happens when the guy who wants to end it decides to blow a hole in the fuselage and kills 300+ other passengers?
milwaukeeshaker
09-30-2015, 10:31
Shoot a hole in a tank filled with kerosene, see if it catches on fire. Only problem would be a leak.
My bad. Should read "blows a hole in a fuel tank located in the fuselage." Or a window which would cause the whole cabin to depressurize and possibly cause severe problems. I guess catastrophy may not be gauranteed , but I still am ok with airplane prohibitions.
Yeah, Mythbusters pretty much debunked the hole depressurization thing. The windows are polycarbonate over glass, so shooting one makes a caliber-sized hole, not much else.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2025 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.