I came up with the first true "common sense" gun law.

[slugg]

Let me first say that I am not a lawyer. I'm also not a politician. I'll go so far as to say that I am no one.

Anyway, here it is.

No person lawfully carrying a firearm shall ever be restricted access to a public space. There shall be a clear distinction between public and private space versus public and private property. Public spaces are any property, regardless of ownership, that is accessible by the general public; this includes private property, such as restaurants, stores, etc. However, for private spaces, such as a home or secure facility, such a restriction would be allowed.

^^ This, to me, is the only "common sense" gun law I can come up with.


This isn't too far off from Tennessee's new law (source):

The new law, SB 1736, dictates that should any concealed carry permit holder's safety be threatened after disarming themselves to enter their place of business, then the business will be held liable.

Thoughts?

 

[PokerGuy]

Common sense left the building long time ago when it relates to gun laws. The lefties have gone completely batty on the topic and will stop at nothing short of destroying the 2nd amendment. If there was any doubt, take a look at the CA laws recently passed.....

 

[cbrunny]

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Let me first say that I am not a lawyer. I'm also not a politician. I'll go so far as to say that I am no one.

Anyway, here it is.

No person lawfully carrying a firearm shall ever be restricted access to a public space. There shall be a clear distinction between public and private space versus public and private property. Public spaces are any property, regardless of ownership, that is accessible by the general public; this includes private property, such as restaurants, stores, etc. However, for private spaces, such as a home or secure facility, such a restriction would be allowed.

^^ This, to me, is the only "common sense" gun law I can come up with.


This isn't too far off from Tennessee's new law (source):


Thoughts?

Do you live in a big city?

 

[PokerGuy]

.... and, like clockwork, another fine example of nutty anti-gun stupidity shows up.

 

[fskimospy]

Let me first say that I am not a lawyer. I'm also not a politician. I'll go so far as to say that I am no one.

Anyway, here it is.

No person lawfully carrying a firearm shall ever be restricted access to a public space. There shall be a clear distinction between public and private space versus public and private property. Public spaces are any property, regardless of ownership, that is accessible by the general public; this includes private property, such as restaurants, stores, etc. However, for private spaces, such as a home or secure facility, such a restriction would be allowed.

^^ This, to me, is the only "common sense" gun law I can come up with.


This isn't too far off from Tennessee's new law (source):


Thoughts?

What benefits do you think this law would confer on either the owners of public spaces or the people who frequent them? Why do you consider this to be common sense?

 

[KB]

This is the first true common sense gun law:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


I am not sure I agree 100% with your common sense law. I believe a bar owner should be able to restrict guns in their bar or a sports venue should be able to install metal detectors and prevent weapons from entering their establishment.

 

[slugg]

What benefits do you think this law would confer on either the owners of public spaces or the people who frequent them? Why do you consider this to be common sense?

Because it would protect the rights of someone who is lawfully carrying. It would prevent business owners from prohibiting you from the second amendment.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Because it would protect the rights of someone who is lawfully carrying. It would prevent business owners from prohibiting you from the second amendment.

Do you live in a big city?

 

[brycejones]

Why limit this to the 2nd amendment? Property owners can boot you for your speech why isn't the 1st amendment protected as well? Or is only the 2nd that should trump property rights?

 

[glenn1]

I'm pro-gun but I'm wondering what problem the OP is looking to solve with this theoretical law.

 

[Kwatt]

Because it would protect the rights of someone who is lawfully carrying. It would prevent business owners from prohibiting you from the second amendment.

The second amendment is about the people and the gov.


IMO A property owner should have a lot of leeway in what they allow.


.

 

[ivwshane]

I think the OP might want to look into what "common sense" means.

 

[fskimospy]

Because it would protect the rights of someone who is lawfully carrying. It would prevent business owners from prohibiting you from the second amendment.

The second amendment doesn't apply to business owners though?

 

[Greenman]

This is the first true common sense gun law:

"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


I am not sure I agree 100% with your common sense law. I believe a bar owner should be able to restrict guns in their bar or a sports venue should be able to install metal detectors and prevent weapons from entering their establishment.

Common sense.

 

[thraashman]

I think the OP might want to look into what "common sense" means.

Apparently it means eliminating the rights of ownership of private property so that gun owners can feel like big men with their guns on them.

Common sense.

Now we just need a common interpretation of it. I personally ascribe to the interpretation that was used for over 150 years after it was written and historical linguists interpret it as meaning at the time of writing, which is different than the recent Supreme Court ruled it. Then again, I've found that in almost all cases if Scalia thought one way, logic and reality were the opposite.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Here is a common sense improvement. Lets see if I can get shot down.
If you cannot own a gun for whatever reason (assault, previous criminal time and so forth) its illegal for you to own or make a 3D printed gun at home.
Admittedly 3D printed guns aren't exactly working great right now but we're not that far off from being able to print one at home.

 

[zinfamous]

Because it would protect the rights of someone who is lawfully carrying. It would prevent business owners from prohibiting you from the second amendment.

Business owners that prevent you from carrying into their property are not violating the 2nd amendment.

Such protections are certainly not baked into the wording of that amendment...or is this more revisionist shlock to add to the pile of nuevo 2nd-amendment advocacy that has only been around for ~3 decades now?

One would have to rewrite that amendment to argue that business owners are in violation.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

It's more complicated than that:

http://www.wsj.com/articles/u-s-leads-world-in-mass-shootings-1443905359

Read the article for a better context of the image:

 

[Thebobo]

Let me first say that I am not a lawyer. I'm also not a politician. I'll go so far as to say that I am no one.

Anyway, here it is.

No person lawfully carrying a firearm shall ever be restricted access to a public space. There shall be a clear distinction between public and private space versus public and private property. Public spaces are any property, regardless of ownership, that is accessible by the general public; this includes private property, such as restaurants, stores, etc. However, for private spaces, such as a home or secure facility, such a restriction would be allowed.

^^ This, to me, is the only "common sense" gun law I can come up with.

Thoughts?

Honestly horrible idea. Why? Because it infringes on my rights! My rights to keep prepubescent adolescent AK tote'n wanker assholes out of my place of business. As such you can pry my kick-out-gun-carriers-out-of-my-property-business-baseball-bat out of my cold dead hands before you can come in. Its like the republican party, what once was extreme right wing is now normal. Now with many gun owners they seem to think they have freaking rights over everyone and everything. Pretty soon the the zealots will make it illegal to propose new gun laws. We give you an inch you take a mile, its pathetic. BTW half the wankers here haven't a clue what the constitution even is yet they yell dont mess with our second amendment rights over and over.

Thank you.

 

[Knowing]

This isn't too far off from Tennessee's new law (source):


Thoughts?

It'll never work because of Castle Rock v. Gonzales.

tl;dr- if you try to invoke a restraining order and your estranged husband kills your three children while the police play grab-ass they aren't responsible for not upholding the law.

Now, there might be a subtle distinction between the responsibility of government to enforce its own laws and the government's habit of forcing the proletariat to enforce the government's laws for them.

 

[WHAMPOM]

Let me first say that I am not a lawyer. I'm also not a politician. I'll go so far as to say that I am no one.

Anyway, here it is.

No person lawfully carrying a firearm shall ever be restricted access to a public space. There shall be a clear distinction between public and private space versus public and private property. Public spaces are any property, regardless of ownership, that is accessible by the general public; this includes private property, such as restaurants, stores, etc. However, for private spaces, such as a home or secure facility, such a restriction would be allowed.

^^ This, to me, is the only "common sense" gun law I can come up with.


This isn't too far off from Tennessee's new law (source):


Thoughts?

But can you remember when the NRA was for stricter gun laws?

 

[PokerGuy]

But can you remember when the NRA was for stricter gun laws?

There is no shortage of stupid people advocating ever stricter anti-gun laws, the NRA's action is not needed there. They focus their attention on upholding the rights of free people.

 

[evident]

I'm for the right to bear arms. I'll probably own one in the future and join the local gun club down the street and i have a serious question.

what is the NRA / "gun nut" argument against having some type of system like a driver's license and required tests to own a firearm?

 

[Knowing]

I'm for the right to bear arms. I'll probably own one in the future and join the local gun club down the street and i have a serious question.

what is the NRA / "gun nut" argument against having some type of system like a driver's license and required tests to own a firearm?

A license is permission and rights do not require permission to exercise.

See also, ID to vote constitutes a poll tax.