Eric.
Regular Member
imported post
A bit of a knee jerk on my part.
A bit of a knee jerk on my part.
-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Meeting with Attorney Scheduled
- Thread starter IndianaBoy79
- Start date
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
imported post
Please don't think I am taking anyone to task. I am just encouraging folks to think things all the way through and to be precise in their criticism.
As I mentioned a few posts back, this regulation doesn't actually infringe on the right to keep arms, nor to bear them. It simply proscribes that if you are in a particular line of business, you need to store firearms in a particular way.
Please don't think I am taking anyone to task. I am just encouraging folks to think things all the way through and to be precise in their criticism.
As I mentioned a few posts back, this regulation doesn't actually infringe on the right to keep arms, nor to bear them. It simply proscribes that if you are in a particular line of business, you need to store firearms in a particular way.
rpyne
Regular Member
imported post
American Rattlesnake wrote:
Mandating how they are "kept" does indeed infringe upon the right to keep arms.
American Rattlesnake wrote:
It is indeed an infringement on the right to keep arms. The definition of "infringe" from the time of writing was "encroach upon at the very fringes".This is not an infringement on the right to keep, nor to bear arms.
Mandating how they are "kept" does indeed infringe upon the right to keep arms.
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
imported post
rpyne, I concede you have a good point. I'm just not seeing this as a personal, individual infringement. It is a business regulation.
rpyne, I concede you have a good point. I'm just not seeing this as a personal, individual infringement. It is a business regulation.
imported post
And that's the point.
It's a business regulation for a specific business involving the public (in this case our children) and their safety. No different than establishing storage requirements for black powder manufacturers, safety procedures/requirements for firearms warehousing undercommercial building codesor including them in regulations regarding interstate commerce.
Is OSHA infringing on your right to keep arms by requiringSmith and Wesson(et. al.) to storeboth raw materials and finished inventoryin a certain way at their plant?
Does a hazardous material data sheet on the truck transporting inventory toa gun store affect this right?
No one that supports a bill prohibiting employing sex offenders in schools is trying to punish the offender, they''re trying to protect the children. It's the same concept.
And that's the point.
It's a business regulation for a specific business involving the public (in this case our children) and their safety. No different than establishing storage requirements for black powder manufacturers, safety procedures/requirements for firearms warehousing undercommercial building codesor including them in regulations regarding interstate commerce.
Is OSHA infringing on your right to keep arms by requiringSmith and Wesson(et. al.) to storeboth raw materials and finished inventoryin a certain way at their plant?
Does a hazardous material data sheet on the truck transporting inventory toa gun store affect this right?
No one that supports a bill prohibiting employing sex offenders in schools is trying to punish the offender, they''re trying to protect the children. It's the same concept.
rpyne
Regular Member
imported post
American Rattlesnake wrote:
American Rattlesnake wrote:
And exactly how does it affect a business without affecting a person? There is no difference. All laws and government regulation ultimately apply to people.rpyne, I concede you have a good point. I'm just not seeing this as a personal, individual infringement. It is a business regulation.
rpyne
Regular Member
imported post
ecocks wrote:
ecocks wrote:
No, it is not the same concept. Being employed by a school is not a basic, natural human right, self defense, the ultimate purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, is.No one that supports a bill prohibiting employing sex offenders in schools is trying to punish the offender, they''re trying to protect the children. It's the same concept.
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
imported post
rpyne wrote:
Again, it does not prohibit a person from keeping a firearm at hand for personal protection.
rpyne wrote:
I am not saying that it does not affect a person. I am saying that it does not prohibit individuals from exercising their right to self defense. It establishes a regulation for a business regarding how stored firearms should be kept in that business during business hours.American Rattlesnake wrote:And exactly how does it affect a business without affecting a person? There is no difference. All laws and government regulation ultimately apply to people.rpyne, I concede you have a good point. I'm just not seeing this as a personal, individual infringement. It is a business regulation.
Again, it does not prohibit a person from keeping a firearm at hand for personal protection.
American Rattlesnake
Regular Member
imported post
rpyne wrote:
You say being employed by a school is not a basic, natural human right; you are correct, but neither is running a day care facility.
Not that this is relevant...there is no prohibition on keeping or bearing arms for self defense in this bill.
rpyne wrote:
I agree with you that the concepts are different.ecocks wrote:No, it is not the same concept. Being employed by a school is not a basic, natural human right, self defense, the ultimate purpose of the right to keep and bear arms, is.No one that supports a bill prohibiting employing sex offenders in schools is trying to punish the offender, they''re trying to protect the children. It's the same concept.
You say being employed by a school is not a basic, natural human right; you are correct, but neither is running a day care facility.
Not that this is relevant...there is no prohibition on keeping or bearing arms for self defense in this bill.
imported post
No, the concept is exactly the same, unless you are so paranoid that you immediately think someone is saying gun owners are like sex offenders.
So,try it again.
No, the concept is exactly the same, unless you are so paranoid that you immediately think someone is saying gun owners are like sex offenders.
So,try it again.
No one that supports a bill prohibiting employing sex offenders in schools is trying to punish the offender, they''re trying to protect the children. It's the same concept.
No one that supports a bill prohibiting improperly stored firearms in a daycare is trying to punish gun owners, they're trying to protect the children. It's the same concept.
IndianaBoy79
Regular Member
imported post
I don't see it as an issue either. You can still carry your weapon while working at a daycare. It just mandates that if you choose to store it, it must be locked up instead of stored in a child's desk. Even without this law, I could see someone going to jail on a negligent homicide charge if they didn't practice due diligence while operating their daycare center. This law just clarifies that position.
At home I have several loaded guns in accessible places. I choose not to have much company because of this. This regulates a business; I see no infringement on individual rights either.
I don't see it as an issue either. You can still carry your weapon while working at a daycare. It just mandates that if you choose to store it, it must be locked up instead of stored in a child's desk. Even without this law, I could see someone going to jail on a negligent homicide charge if they didn't practice due diligence while operating their daycare center. This law just clarifies that position.
At home I have several loaded guns in accessible places. I choose not to have much company because of this. This regulates a business; I see no infringement on individual rights either.
imported post
Same with me/us. We have guns in several places but only because there are no longer children in the house and we are VERY careful with visitors inour home and vehicles.
When I start having to worry about grandchildren visiting changes will have to be made but this hardly constitutes infringement of my 2A rights.
Same with me/us. We have guns in several places but only because there are no longer children in the house and we are VERY careful with visitors inour home and vehicles.
When I start having to worry about grandchildren visiting changes will have to be made but this hardly constitutes infringement of my 2A rights.