Does passing a law that prohibits you to fire your gun infringe your 2nd amendment?

The article

To that end, Democratic state Rep. Daryl Rouson, whose district includes St. Petersburg, told FoxNews.com that he has written a bill that would prohibit gun owners from firing weapons on their property, though he insists it would not infringe upon an owner’s right to bear arms.

So what do you think about this? I believe that our 2nd admendment - the right to form an armed militia - is infringed and becomes utterly pointless when we are prohibited from using our arms. How can a militia function when they can't shoot anybody? Or we could take this a step further and look at laws that restrict open carry: How can a militia function when it isn't allowed to bear arms in public? That's saying "You can be a militia, as long as you don't go outside. Then you are criminals." You can't be a militia and do that. The purpose of a militia is to allow the citizenry to fight back against corrupt government. This means open carry and the ability to shoot guns in public.

I believe that these laws are clearly unconstitutional because they undermine and prohibit the intent of our 2nd amendment. In order for a militia to function in it's intended role, it must be able to bear arms in public, and fire those arms in public. In my eyes this is a black and white issue. You either support our constitution in it's entirety, or you don't. If you don't, IMO you don't belong in the United States of America.

If my neighbor started shooting at a target, I wouldn't care as long as he didn't point it at my house. I admit I would prefer him to take it to a gun range for noise considerations (Only noise considerations) but I wouldn't want a law passed against it.

To share a story, my grandfather would sometimes shoot squirrels stealing feed from my grandmother's birdfeeders. He would keep a loaded rifle next to his patio just in case he caught one in the act. It never bothered the neighbors since he lived out in the country, and everyone near him also owned guns. The thing is I don't think it should be a state or local issue - it's in the Constitution. If someone in a town or city wants to exercise their right to bear arms, they should be allowed to.

I want to know if I'm in the minority here. How many here live in the U.S. and believe in an inalienable second amendment?

What is the purpose of a firearm if not to fire it?

These anti-gun morons have always stressed that for a firearms owner to be safe, they must have training. A little practice helps too.

ETA: This is just like allowing ownership of firearms and banning the possession and sale of ammunition..... stupid.

I find it crazy that someone can shoot their gun in their yard when they have neighbours, how do they know, nothing will go astray and injure their neighbours, never mind noise issues.
It's really selfish if nothing else, gun owning moron alert.

Er wait... You Americans have the right to form a well regulated armed militia?

Get to it! Your country is being run by murderers who are stealing from you and your children to help themselves and their friends become rich and powerful. You are distracted as they make you look towards the Middle East but that's by the by...

Form that militia and kill some scum.

That area is known for rampant stupidity.

It would turn a gun into a paperweight and turn an otherwise law abiding citizen into a criminal if they use said firearm in self defense.

Stupid law is stupid, and someone needs to rochambo that idiot asap.

a reply to: peskyhumans

The second clearly states "a well regulated militia".

At the time it was written "well regulated" meant they were trained and capable, not under gov regulations.

How then can they be " well regulated" if they can't fire their weapons?

Imagine how bad of a shot a soldier or police officer would be if they never got to practice.....this is effing stupid.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
I find it crazy that someone can shoot their gun in their yard when they have neighbours, how do they know, nothing will go astray and injure their neighbours, never mind noise issues.
It's really selfish if nothing else, gun owning moron alert.

Don't know about you, but I've got a pretty big yard and no clear view of any neighboring houses. Not everybody lives in the suburbs, and of course, not everyone is out shooting their find in their yard. The reason this becomes an issue is home/self defense. If you have an intruder threatening you, that law essentially makes it illegal to neutralize the threat...

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
I find it crazy that someone can shoot their gun in their yard when they have neighbours, how do they know, nothing will go astray and injure their neighbours, never mind noise issues.
It's really selfish if nothing else, gun owning moron alert.

That is simple.

You fire into a burm. A pile of dirt.

Bullet stops.

No danger at all to anyone else.

As for the sound thing.....lol, it is legal to be audibly annoying during the day time.

I doubt anyone shooting is going to be outside all day every day just rapping off rounds.

Your thinking "shooting range" not target practice.

Besides, it is already illegal to fire weapons in densely populated areas like cities and towns.

It depends upon how its worded. If it were to prohibit use of a firearm for lawful self-defense purposes in the home, then yes, that would be unconstitutional and the US Supreme Court has said as much. But I suspect that it would also uphold the authority of states and localities to regulate or prohibit construction and usage of private shooting ranges, especially in residential areas. Besides, as has been stated, its long been accepted that cities and towns may regulate or prohibit public discharge of firearms if they want, and virtually all of them do.

a reply to: peskyhumans

It says literally, " the right to own and bear arms." It says nothing about firing them. Believe it or not, an ordinance to prohibit firing arms would not be unconstitutional under Supreme Court Justice Scalia's " strict constructionist" philosophy!

as I understand it, and bare in mind that I'm a UK citizen, so probably don't understand it at all, is such.

the 2nd amendment gives you a right to bear arms, which in todays language means that you're allowed to own guns, and form a militia if you need to to overthrow the governemt if you believe that it's acting against your rights.

If you (USans) ever do realise that this is happening, and decide to form a militia, you won't care that you're not legally allowed to fire your weapons, and neither will law enforcement.

If you've got a gun, and need to practice, then go to a shooting range, and get properly trained, and do it under supervision.

if you're worried about protecting your property - don't think that just owning a gun will be good enough. Start with better security, maybe get a dog, and a baseball bat, outdoor security lights? better locks on doors, etc. Last resort is to get a gun for self defence in the home.

that's how I see this.

[edit to add] if the govt is doing everything it can to stop people from owning firearms, or ammunition, or making it illegal to fire guns on private property, or whatever, do you not wonder what their end game is? or why they're doing this? Have you thought that maybe they don't want you to be able to form a militia and rise up against the govt? or that if you do you'll be useless at it and underprepared, and unable to actually succeed in overthrowing them.

a reply to: CrastneyJPR

Actually, the Second Amendment was an attempt to avoid the need for a standing army, which is expensive and prone to misuse by the Executive Branch of the Federal Government. As the Founders intended it, the US military would primarily consist of the various states' National Guards under command of the state governors and locally elected officials.

a reply to: DJW001

As the Founders intended it, the US military would primarily consist of the various states' National Guards under command of the state governors and locally elected officials.

This is true.
But the framers of the Constitution were also adamant about the necessity of an armed citizenry to prevent the government that they framed from becoming tyrannical. We mustn't let that be swept under the rug.

originally posted by: butcherguy
a reply to: DJW001

As the Founders intended it, the US military would primarily consist of the various states' National Guards under command of the state governors and locally elected officials.

This is true.
But the framers of the Constitution were also adamant about the necessity of an armed citizenry to prevent the government that they framed form becoming tyrannical. We mustn't let that be swept under the rug.

Correct; they wanted the national defense directed and executed by the people, not a central authority figure as it had been in the Europe they left!

originally posted by: peskyhumans
The article

To that end, Democratic state Rep. Daryl Rouson, whose district includes St. Petersburg, told FoxNews.com that he has written a bill that would prohibit gun owners from firing weapons on their property, though he insists it would not infringe upon an owner’s right to bear arms.

So what do you think about this? I believe that our 2nd admendment - the right to form an armed militia - is infringed and becomes utterly pointless when we are prohibited from using our arms. How can a militia function when they can't shoot anybody? Or we could take this a step further and look at laws that restrict open carry: How can a militia function when it isn't allowed to bear arms in public? That's saying "You can be a militia, as long as you don't go outside. Then you are criminals." You can't be a militia and do that. The purpose of a militia is to allow the citizenry to fight back against corrupt government. This means open carry and the ability to shoot guns in public.

I believe that these laws are clearly unconstitutional because they undermine and prohibit the intent of our 2nd amendment. In order for a militia to function in it's intended role, it must be able to bear arms in public, and fire those arms in public. In my eyes this is a black and white issue. You either support our constitution in it's entirety, or you don't. If you don't, IMO you don't belong in the United States of America.

If my neighbor started shooting at a target, I wouldn't care as long as he didn't point it at my house. I admit I would prefer him to take it to a gun range for noise considerations (Only noise considerations) but I wouldn't want a law passed against it.

To share a story, my grandfather would sometimes shoot squirrels stealing feed from my grandmother's birdfeeders. He would keep a loaded rifle next to his patio just in case he caught one in the act. It never bothered the neighbors since he lived out in the country, and everyone near him also owned guns. The thing is I don't think it should be a state or local issue - it's in the Constitution. If someone in a town or city wants to exercise their right to bear arms, they should be allowed to.

I want to know if I'm in the minority here. How many here live in the U.S. and believe in an inalienable second amendment?

It's a back door attempt at gun control along with excessive ammunition taxes and lawsuits. They try to do from the side what they can't achieve through direct legislation.

originally posted by: WilsonWilson
I find it crazy that someone can shoot their gun in their yard when they have neighbours, how do they know, nothing will go astray and injure their neighbours, never mind noise issues.
It's really selfish if nothing else, gun owning moron alert.

There are already local ordinances that prohibit discharging a firearm, with exemptions for self defense, in populated areas due to the obvious safety issue.

Oh and also to those saying form a militia, most states already have them.
I know many folks in the Kentucky state militia. As to the firing of weapons
at your own home, KY is a big hunting and firearm state, yet in my city it
is illegal to discharge a firearm within city limits. The reason for the law
is clear, too many houses too close together, cars everywhere, kids playing
and riding bikes.... Just too risky even for those of us who support firearm
rights.

We have a couple of rock quarries in town that you are allowed to go
target practice at but to get a bullet out of those would be very difficult.

However the county has no such laws so if you live just outside of city limits
like i do then you can have your own range. The property i live on is fantastic
for that, long open field with a natural hill that slopes pretty high thus giving
a perfect back drop for long shooting.

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: peskyhumans

It says literally, " the right to own and bear arms." It says nothing about firing them. Believe it or not, an ordinance to prohibit firing arms would not be unconstitutional under Supreme Court Justice Scalia's " strict constructionist" philosophy!

But it also mentions a "well-regulated militia." It is sort of hard to have one of those if the people forming it aren't even allowed to fire those guns.

Have any of you read anything beyond the title and FOX "News" interpretation?

It doesn't prevent anyone from shooting an intruder, it prevents the use of outdoor gun ranges in certain zoned land. Leave it to FOX News to lie about it to get people's panties in a twist.

“The simple fact is that backyard gun ranges in residential neighborhoods are not legal,” Marion Hammer, president of the Unified Sportsmen of Florida and past president of the National Rifle Association, told Guns.com. “I know of no zoning ordinance anywhere in Florida that allows gun ranges in residential areas. Neither are gun shops, churches, newspaper printing facilities, junkyards, TV stations, homemade go-car race tracks, etc. allowed in residential neighborhoods and areas zoned for exclusively for residential use.”

Hammer pointed out that state law Florida statue 790.15 (1), prohibits just such makeshift shooting ranges in areas such as Carrannate’s. She contends the real underlying problem is that area lawmakers are simply not in compliance themselves, blaming preemption statutes that do not apply in this case.

“The legislature has already addressed this. Some local governments are refusing to enforce state law,” Hammer said. “Some local government officials have claimed that because they can’t regulate firearms, they can’t do anything about these ranges. That is ludicrous. They need to enforce state law – it’s uniform and it’s clear. ”

Source

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: DJW001
a reply to: peskyhumans

It says literally, " the right to own and bear arms." It says nothing about firing them. Believe it or not, an ordinance to prohibit firing arms would not be unconstitutional under Supreme Court Justice Scalia's " strict constructionist" philosophy!

But it also mentions a "well-regulated militia." It is sort of hard to have one of those if the people forming it aren't even allowed to fire those guns.

I believe that DJW was making a point about our scary SCOTUS.
We are on a precipice, IMO.