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

a reply to: peskyhumans

It's an infringement more so on Personal Property then anything else.

ammm i am going to say YES, and also the fact that the bill if passed would be a illegal law.
What good is a gun if you can not fire it? might as well not have one.

That is over stepping the 2nd for sure. Shall not be infringed, i do believe this falls under that category.

a reply to: WilsonWilson

In most states, in order to fire your weapon, even in the country you have to own at least 10 acres and have a back stop of some kind, if you practice much.

Now i could see a law for someone who has 1/2 a acre or smaller , they just dont have the room to shoot. But every state i know of already has regulations in place to keep the owners of smaller property restricted. To easy for the bullet to hit and bounce going a different direction than you expected.

a reply to: and14263

The Militia is already formed, and several thousands strong. Ready and willing, the issue is not enough people are paying attention, and if they went out to clean house and set things straight, Obunghole and co would have them facing a army, and they would be shot, or locked up.
Plus, once you open that can of worms, there is no going back, no matter how long it takes, or how many lives it cost. People are ready, but would prefer to avoid it at all cost. It would be a very nasty battle if started.

originally posted by: and14263
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.

Shush dont mention that on here.

They only want the fun of the first bit not the responsibilty of the secound!

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 from becoming tyrannical. We mustn't let that be swept under the rug.

It already has!

The US hasnt exactly stopped its goverment becomeing worse than the "tyranny" it orignaly broke from.

Of interest:

Kendra O’Connor, who has lived in the neighborhood 18 years, says her two children play 8 feet from the shooting range, and their bedroom is just 20 feet away.

Source

Would you all want a gun range target to be within 8 feet of your child playing in your yard?

This man doesn't want to have to go to the gun range to shoot. Well, Wah! It's people like this that give a bad name to law-abiding, safe, responsible gun owners. And maybe he is one. But his insistence on taking advantage of the loophole in the law shows a real lack of common sense.

He shook hands with Carannante, telling him, “and you’re not going to set up right now.”

“Possibly, I don’t know yet,” he said. “We’ll see what happens. It’s still my legal right.”

originally posted by: crazyewok

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 from becoming tyrannical. We mustn't let that be swept under the rug.

It already has!

The US hasnt exactly stopped its goverment becomeing worse than the "tyranny" it orignaly broke from.

I do not disagree with you.

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!

"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."

It is intended for us to form a militia using the second amendment. A militia cannot function unless it can both openly bear it's arms and fire them.

I can see restricting firing a gun in the city, a stray bullet could hit someone. That should be done by the community though.

Someone shooting a troublesome coon in a rural community with a 22 safely is not problem, except for the coon I suppose. It might get the neighbor a little riled because they feed the coon though. The neighbor feeding the coon shouldn't be though, because soon there will be a family of coons bothering the neighbors. If the coon is causing damage to the neighbors property he has rights to shoot it. If the neighbor doesn't want the coon to get in trouble and shot, don't feed it.

These kind of things in the example above can cause problems which infringe on our rights to shoot wild animals and the problem comes from feeding these animals, not from shooting them when they damage your property or endanger your family. A seemingly harmless coon cornered by a kid picking up a ball can cause the coon to attack the kids hand and coons can carry rabies without any noticeable symptoms.

Passing a law like this is not good, the behavior of people feeding animals without respect for those who sustain damage because the animals are attracted causes problems, that is why there are laws against feeding wild animals. People ignore these laws and then their "kind" action causes the animal great stress in the long run and then they blame others for having to kill these animals. Then these people coagulate to make killing animals in town illegal. I can see having laws to stop people from shooting in town as long as they pass laws to prosecute people feeding troublesome wild animals in town. Even feeding wild rabbits in town can cause the rabbits to need to be dealt with by neighbors who's trees and garden the rabbits eat.

I'm sorry for getting off topic. They already have local laws governing this around here, you are not supposed to discharge a firearm within five hundred feet of someone's house in the country and they already have ordinances in almost every city. If done on a local basis, exceptions can be made by local authorities who actually can tell what is going on. The government does not have to tighten their laws, let this be a local matter. If people want to tighten regulations in their areas, let them do it. I would never shoot a bun in town because a bullet can hit a rock and bounce into the neighbors window even if shooting towards a coon on the ground. Live traps are for that in cities.

This law is ridiculous, Why should someone living somewhere else living far away be able to say we cannot shoot a gun if we have a good reason. Let this be a local regulation. When they pass a law like this, it governs everyone, if you shoot a bear on your property because it is viscous, you can get fined with no defense for your action. You pay a fine or go to jail. Sounds like a money maker to me.

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

His legal right takes precedence over feelings of neighbors, regardless how long they have resided there.

The kids are in just as much danger from vehicles and someone committing crime.

Property rights still mean something in some states.

a reply to: peskyhumans

I live in Suburbia and can't discharge my guns on my privately owned property because it's within city limits.

But I certainly can legally in defense of myself or others anywhere.

originally posted by: butcherguy

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.

Exactly. At the risk of thread drift, the SCOTUS has been using a very literal interpretation of the Bill of Rights to limit individual freedoms, while expanding the privileges of "fictional persons," ie; corporations and other special interest groups.

As far as the actual topic of the thread goes, yes, state and municipal government can legally place restrictions on when and where citizens can discharge their weapons when not actually engaged in militia service. That's just common sense.

a reply to: macman

So, you wouldn't mind a gun range within 8 feet of your kids' play area?

a reply to: peskyhumans

You pretty much nailed it. I need to get productive this morning or I would type some more; but you summed up my own opinion rather well.

If my home is invaded, and I'm not allowed to shoot him - and if he Knows that - my gun is worth nothing. Pull the trigger isn't the first response unless he has a gun himself; but the option must exist...

a reply to: DigitalJedi805

There's a clear exception in the law for protecting life and property.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Of interest:

Kendra O’Connor, who has lived in the neighborhood 18 years, says her two children play 8 feet from the shooting range, and their bedroom is just 20 feet away.

Source

Would you all want a gun range target to be within 8 feet of your child playing in your yard?

This man doesn't want to have to go to the gun range to shoot. Well, Wah! It's people like this that give a bad name to law-abiding, safe, responsible gun owners. And maybe he is one. But his insistence on taking advantage of the loophole in the law shows a real lack of common sense.

He shook hands with Carannante, telling him, “and you’re not going to set up right now.”

“Possibly, I don’t know yet,” he said. “We’ll see what happens. It’s still my legal right.”

Isolated incidents that endanger those around them - as this gentleman's sounds to - should be dealt with accordingly; but it's not a reason to outlaw firing on your own property IMO. The only two times that I feel owning or using a weapon should even be evaluated; are if you are protecting life, or endangering it.

originally posted by: DigitalJedi805
Isolated incidents that endanger those around them - as this gentleman's sounds to - should be dealt with accordingly; but it's not a reason to outlaw firing on your own property IMO.

It doesn't outlaw firing on your own property! That's wrong. It outlaws having a firing range on your own property.

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.

How stupid does he think people are ?

YES it does infringe.

Write a LAW that says a gun owner can not fire a gun on his own property !

LOL geez.

a reply to: neo96

FOX is lying. It doesn't prohibit firing a gun on one's property. It prohibits building a firing range on residential property.