Starbucks and Guns (Page 2)

hrliles - 2010-03-04 5:58 PM California?  Foreign Countries do not count. 

Tripolar - 2010-03-04 9:14 PM

But what's stopping them from grabbing a gun from someone's holster and shooting up the place?  I know holsters can be designed to make this difficult, and obviously if the gun owner is being vigilant, he can stop the person.

bootygirl - 2010-03-04 3:33 PM

Very timely - McDonald vs Chicago was heard in the supreme court march 2.  The court ruled that states must respect the 2nd ammendment.    

Jackemy - 2010-03-05 8:24 AM

I'm all for the 2nd amendment. I'm an NRA member, received and endorsement from the NRA and Sportsman Alliance of Maine when I ran for office. However, I'm a bigger supporter of the 10 amendment.

I cannot for the life of me understand why gun supporters would want to set a precedent that Federal judges have authority over state gun laws. Just because the federal government has to abide by the second amendment does not mean a local community can't place regulation on who can and cannot carry. If the people don't like the regulations in the community then move or elect people into office that will change the regulation. It is absolutely bizzare that a group that is generally for smaller, local government chants the rallying cry for big government when it comes to their guns.



   

trinnas - 2010-03-05 8:00 AM

So clairfy for me what you mean.  Does that mean a state can make a law banning a given religion or the right to free speech and the federal government should have no power to stop them? 

*not trying to be obstreperous here just want to understand your thinking as I am not familiar with the specifiecs of the case.

Jackemy - 2010-03-05 9:13 AM

Apples and oranges. Banning someone on the basis of race, creed or color falls under the equal protection clause in that we are all equal under the law.

Not exactly familiar with the specifics in this case but regulating the use of a firearm within city limits still treats all citizens within the city limits equal under the law. 

Jackemy - 2010-03-05 9:13 AM

Apples and oranges. Banning someone on the basis of race, creed or color falls under the equal protection clause in that we are all equal under the law.

Not exactly familiar with the specifics in this case but regulating the use of a firearm within city limits still treats all citizens within the city limits equal under the law. 

merlin2375 - 2010-03-05 9:19 AM Just to add a few things, in the case of McDonald vs. Chicago oral arguments have been heard and more will continue to be heard. While it seems the court is poised to rule in favor of 2A, the ruling has not yet been made. A decision is expected in early June.

Second, most agree that even if the ruling is in favor of 2A it will not change the notion that local jurisdictions can restrict the purchase and ownership of firearms. What it will do is stop outright bans like the one in Chicago. It will take years of cases to figure out what "shall not infringe" actually means. The court has already noted in previous cases that states can restrict/license firearms reasonably. The Federal Government is already bound by the 2nd amendment however because the 2nd amendment is not incorporated, states are not required to follow it. It doesn't have anything to do with the Federal Government getting more involved. This would already be settled in the case of Heller vs. DC where handgun ban was struck down but the issue is the DC is not a state so it left some gray area. It has to do with States infringing on the Second Amendment through laws that they pass.

As far as moving or electing official, it all depends how you look at it. IMHO, given that the right to carry and bear arms is in the Constitution and its in the "Bill of Rights", it is to be considered a civil right. There's no way one would tell someone to "move or elect different officials" in the case of say censorship, unreasonable search/seizure or disregard for the ability for one not to incriminate themselves.

See here about incorporation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29

crazyyella - 2010-03-05 10:00 AM

While I support Starbucks in this position, if they decided to say no to carrying, that is also their decision.  I concealed carry sometimes (by permit of course, and today I just so happen to be doing so), but I'm not sure if I would ever open carry.  For one, I think you lose your edge should you ever be put in a situation to need to use your firearm.  Why let the "bad guys" know that you are packing?  If you are open carrying, and some criminal decides to commit an act, they would likely target those open carrying first, why wouldn't they?  For two, I don't find it necessary to advertise the fact that I'm carrying while shopping, pumping gas, or whatever else I'm doing during the day.  What is the point? 

trinnas - 2010-03-05 8:18 AM

Why would it be acceptable to violate one portion of the constitution as long as you do it in accordance with another portion of the constitution?

DanielG - 2010-03-05 10:07 AM If you're over 18 and under 21 you can own and open carry a firearm in VA so there is no choice as to method. In CA a lot of counties either don't issue or issue very few CCW licenses so OC is the only choice. There are a number of other examples but those are two of the most common ones. Oh, if I remember correctly in VA you cannot carry concealed in a place that serves alcohol to drink on the premises so you cannot even go out to dinner with a concealed firearm, you must OC it, correct?

crazyyella - 2010-03-05 10:40 AM



Well, in Virginia you can't own a pistol unless you are 21.  You also can't buy pistol ammo unless you are 21.  Not sure you are going to open carry a rifle unless you are hunting. 

Yes, I cannot CC in pretty much any restaurant.  That really doesn't affect me as I rarely ever eat out.  I can see the point of contention from both sides.  I've never thought about the open carry at a restaurant, however, as this is a small community, I wouldn't do so since I never know when I'd bump into a client, and I don't want that kind of publicity. 

DanielG - 2010-03-05 10:45 AM In VA you can own a handgun at 18. You can buy handgun ammo at 18 as well, VA doesn't have a law about buying ammo and age.

Jackemy - 2010-03-05 10:21 AM


It's all about the public choice theory. 

What public-choice theory basically says is that there needs to be double-secret-probation super majorities at all levels – local, state, and federal – wherever there is government, so that you have to have almost overwhelming, if not unanimous approval to do anything.  So that everyone must agree that this tax is good.  Everyone must agree that that road should go there.   Everyone must agree that those guns must be confiscated.  Meaning you must then rely on the order part of law and order.  You must then rely on your civic institutions and your communities and your little “r” republican communities to govern yourself.  You self-govern.  That’s not an anarchist point of view.  It is not a libertarian point of view. It is not a liberal point of view.  It is a very conservative point of view.  And it is very consistent with Jeffersonian little “r” republicanism.

I don't like gun control laws, but I respect a community's right to self govern within our federalist system.

crazyyella - 2010-03-05 10:50 AM



From the Virginia State Police website:

What is the legal age to purchase or possess a firearm?
A person must be at least 18 years of age to purchase a rifle or shotgun. To purchase a handgun from a licensed firearms dealer, you must be at least 21 years of age, pursuant to federal law. For statutory regulations concerning underage persons possessing firearms, refer to Virginia Code §18.2-308.7, possession or transportation of certain firearms by persons under the age of eighteen.

So I guess, yeah, if you purchase from another owner, not a dealer, you can do that.  Something I didn't know.