This is a discussion on Can We Agree to Ban GFZ's? within the The Second Amendment & Gun Legislation Discussion forums, part of the Related Topics category; The Washington Times published Ted Nugent's open letter to Joe Biden addressing the veep's role in President Obama's task force on gun violence in the ...
Ban GFZ's - modern killing fields. Where I have a legal right to be, my right to bear arms for self defense defense trumps any facility-wide weapons ban.
Ban GFZ's except in legally authorized secure areas with adequate and trained staffing.
Keep GFZ's. The best consideration of security is unique to each site. And, besides, property rights trump government preemptions on gun busting postings.
The Washington Times published Ted Nugent's open letter to Joe Biden addressing the veep's role in President Obama's task force on gun violence in the wake of the Newtown rampage, running here. Here is a link to Uncle Ted's letter.
Nugent, "implores" Biden "to recommend that Congress pass a law to ban gun-free zones immediately."
Our forum membership has argued the merits of such a ban. Without further discussion that may bias the poll, I ask for your opinion and thoughts.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
Array
My vote is YES. "Gun Free Zones" are a microcosm of gun control itself, with the same devastating results. So where have there been mass shootings in recent memory?
Schools - Yep
Malls - Check
Military Bases - Uh-huh
Churches - Ditto
Police Stations - Nope
Gun Shows - Nada
Ranges - Nah (except suicides)
So I vote with a resounding YES.
"I practice the ancient art of Klik Pao."
-miklcolt45
Array
I believe Uncle Ted hit the nail on the head. I'd support that 100%. I'd ask that we look into some kind of tax breaks for gun safe purchases as well, as this may help keep guns out of the hands of the mentally unstable, like the shooter in Connecticut. I need another gun safe, and if the fed wants to help me buy it, I'm all for it. :)
" But if you are authorized to carry a weapon, and you walk outside without it, just take a deep breath, and say this to yourself... Baa." Col. Dave Grossman on Sheep and Sheepdogs.
Array
As long as we aren't talking about violating private property owners' rights, then I agree that GFZs are generally a bad idea.
"Men who look upon themselves born to reign, and others to obey, soon grow insolent" -Thomas Paine
Array
I agree. What needs to happen is that civil liability needs to come into play for those who choose to not allow firearms on their property, should something happen. I get the whole, "you are free to not frequent that establishment", but the bottom line is that if you won't allow me to protect myself on your property, YOU become responsible for my safety. Simply posting a "No-Guns Allowed" sign doesn't really prevent a determined criminal. How many banks have been robbed while having the "No Guns Allowed" sign prominently posted on the front door?Originally Posted by Badey
Array
I voted to ban with the understanding that we are only talking government-enforced GFZs. If it's private property, then the property owner rightly decides to have whatever rules they want. As far as I'm concerned, government has no rights, and thus no right to make anything "gun-free" by its decree.
"Responsibility" pales to "response ability".
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
Array
^^^^^^^^ This ^^^^^^^^
My first though when reading the poll options was that it was poorly worded in that it was mixing up private property with public property. There is a vast difference between the two.
I totally agree with the exclusion of any private property. However I do realize and accept that all "government" cannot be open to weapons. Facilities of incarceration and court houses would be valid examples where there is a distinct need for a total prohibition of weapons. In the DMV, not so much.
Array
Not going to happen. I can't say I agree with it, either.
Array
If its a private home then its the home owners decision but it should be posted. If its a privately owned but public area like stores malls etc then different regs apply for everything else so I dont think gun free zones should be able to be established in privately owned but public areas such as those.
Your poll is full of loaded language.
Kahn Souphanousinphone, Sr. "I could be manic, could be depressed. Real crapshoot."
Ummm, no. The real bottom line is if you don't like the property rules, don't come on the property. When you are forced, and I do mean physically forced, onto someone's property, then you can require that they take responsibility for your safety. Otherwise it's your free will. Use it.
NRA Life Member
"I don't believe gun owners have rights." - Sarah Brady
Array
Hummm. ironic from the comments..... in Kansas, you cannot post your home, there is no provision for private homes to post.
I don't necessarily agree with the private property argument, if you are implying privately owned public businesses.
I don't make jokes. I just watch the government and report the facts. --- Will Rogers ---
Chief Justice John Roberts : "I don't see how you can read Heller and not take away from it the notion that the Second Amendment...was extremely important to the framers in their view of what liberty meant."
I'm trying to reflect the sentence about banning GFZ's from the source letter. You have a free slate. Your words expressing how and why you believe as you do are more valuable than the what you believe, in answering the poll, which is, in itself anonymous. It's anonymous because I want your true opinion. If you want to comment, please do.
-Blackstone’s Commentaries 145–146, n. 42 (1803) in District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)Americans understood the right of self-preservation as permitting a citizen to repel force by force
when the intervention of society... may be too late to prevent an injury.
Posting Permissions
10Likes
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
