Civil rights progress
9 Responses to “Civil rights progress”
Remember, I do this to entertain me, not you.
Uncle Pays the Bills
 |
|
Find Local
|
Categories
- ATF (769)
- Death Match (10)
- Eminent Domain (225)
- In the bag (9)
- Notes to Junior (546)
- Poker (74)
- Recipes (142)
- Shotgun Noob (11)
- The Airing of Grievances (19)
- uncategorized (47,725)
February 20th, 2013 at 8:19 pm
They still need to fix a couple of BIG problems in the bill. It only covers privately own vehicles and it the company finds out, they can fire you.
February 20th, 2013 at 9:30 pm
“under certain conditions.”
Hmm, wonder what infringing conditions those would be.
February 20th, 2013 at 10:10 pm
“Hmm, wonder what infringing conditions those would be.”
The text of the bill is at the link at the top of the page Uncle linked.
The primary conditions seem to be:
1) Not prohibited by Federal law.
2) The permit holder’s vehicle is parked in a location where it is permitted to be;
3) The gun and ammo is out of sight (and locked up if vehicle owner not present)
Number 2) seems a little “funny” — what if the condition of “permission” to park is that there not be a gun in the car? No where in the bill does it explicitly prohibit a property owner from setting such a condition on the use of the parking area.
It seems the primary thing accomplished by the bill is that it relieves the owner of the parking area from any liability for incidents involving a gun (or ammo) that was stored in a car in their parking area. I would rate this as a “good” thing — it really shouldn’t even need to be said, but that’s the world we now live in.
What is doesn’t seem to do is make it an unequivocal “right” to leave a gun in your car: as I wrote above, it still appears that “permission” to use the parking area could be conditioned on not having a gun in the car.
February 20th, 2013 at 10:12 pm
html FAIL!! Try again:
“Hmm, wonder what infringing conditions those would be.”
The text of the bill is at the link at the top of the page Uncle linked.
The primary conditions seem to be:
1) Not prohibited by Federal law.
2) The permit holder’s vehicle is parked in a location where it is permitted to be;
3) The gun and ammo is out of sight (and locked up if vehicle owner not present)
Number 2) seems a little “funny” — what if the condition of “permission” to park is that there not be a gun in the car? No where in the bill does it explicitly prohibit a property owner from setting such a condition on the use of the parking area.
It seems the primary thing accomplished by the bill is that it relieves the owner of the parking area from any liability for incidents involving a gun (or ammo) that was stored in a car in their parking area. I would rate this as a “good” thing — it really shouldn’t even need to be said, but that’s the world we now live in.
What is doesn’t seem to do is make it an unequivocal “right” to leave a gun in your car: as I wrote above, it still appears that “permission” to use the parking area could be conditioned on not having a gun in the car.
February 20th, 2013 at 10:20 pm
I believe #2 means where the vehicle owner would be able (permitted) to park without a weapon such as an employer’s parking lot. You never know with politicians though.
TS
February 20th, 2013 at 11:21 pm
Le sigh. If a legislature can mandate that folks must allow weapons on their property, can not they also prohibit folks from allowing weapons on their property?
Yes, your car is your property. So are your pockets, but if I tell you not to have peanuts in your pockets when you stop by & I find out, I’ll toss ya to the curb. (Not really – I have nothing agin peanuts but it’s a good example as some folks do have allergies ya know. & by some folks i mean like 47).
It’s the wrong approach – you don’t uphold a Right by disparaging another, especially granting the .gov power it shouldn’t have.
A much better way is to simply make folks liable for any harm that a third party inflicts IF they bar folks form having weapons while on their property. Extend that to the ride to & from home & you have a proper response that protects all Rights concerned without trampling on anyone else’s Rights or ceding even more power to the .gov.
February 21st, 2013 at 2:37 pm
Is the parking lot available to the public? Then you have a hard time banning guns or peanuts
February 21st, 2013 at 3:33 pm
Private property does not lose the property part just cause it’s available to the public. It should be up to the property owner, not the state, to decide who &/or what is welcome.
Smoking bans operate under the same premise – private property that’s open to the public is the purview of the state, not the property owner. & this premise is wrong. It’s wrong even when applied to an object we’re in favor of.
(& nope – peanut bans wouldn’t be that hard, as many places ban food or drinks)
If you take away the object – peanuts, guns, cigarettes, etc… – would you say that the state has the power to over ride your wishes on what is or isn’t allowed on your property?
& would you not be opposed if the pendulum was swinging the other way – with the state saying employers could not allow guns on their property even if they wanted to?
February 21st, 2013 at 4:24 pm
I am very conflicted on this bill for the reasons above. If they can’t prevent you from having a weapon on their parking lot, how can they prevent you from bringing it into their building? Not that I like them telling me what I can do in their building mind you.