List of places no one should be allowed to possess a firearm:

[davsel]

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!

[cstone]

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 It is a legal construct of government that is either obeyed by law abiding citizens, ignored by criminals, or superseded by agents of the government, who are authorized to carry guns into these so called "gun free" zones.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]

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.

[Ronin13]

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.

[RMAC757]

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.