I see, yes, they should demonstrate their rights by going to these places. It is their freedoms!

Just because its a right, doesnt mean you have to go and do it.
I think I have the right to wear a shirt that says FUCK YOU in bright red letters, i would not wear it in respect to other people not wanting themselves or their children having to see it.

I believe it adds nothing to the current discussion and actually is counterproductive.

Hiking or camping I can see as a place to carry, especially around here, you can stumble on someones "patch" or a meth operation. Also there are instances of rape and robbery in the "hollers" 'round here. But to the mall or on your daily errands, at least conceal. out of simple courtesy.

Open carry is legal here in Oregon. Do I practice it often? Absolutely not. I live in downtown Portland, and open carry is virtually never seen here. A lot of folks would be intimidated, and I have no right to expect them to somehow magically know that I'm not one of the bad guys. It just makes more sense, if I'm going to be carrying, to do so concealed.

I do spend a bit of time in very rural areas, often way out in the hinterlands in Eastern Oregon. Open carry is much more commonly seen out there, and no one seems to think anything of it. I'd have no problem openly carrying there (although I actually don't).

If they are responsible gun owners why shouldn't they be allowed to take their guns anywhere they want.

Kind of misses the point, but there you go.

Bryant

I be able to go to a national park or a restaurant or take my grandchildren to day care without seeing your public display of insecurity?

Why shouldn't we be able to live our lives without thinking we're in a prison?

They like the way it makes them feel, and the 93+% who don't tote react.

is compensation for lots of deficiencies.

"your public display of insecurity"

That statement makes it, not about a firearm, but about a message. So by that logic, it's protected under the 1st amendment as well, would it not?

(I am not an OC advocate)

actually, most people in most places don't really enjoy seeing guns every day.

believe it or not...

of course you think its normal if you have one- people who don't think its weird.

so long as the gunman/gunwoman doesn't point a loaded gun directly at any person, why can't the 2nd Amendment, "open, carry any guns for all" advocate take the firearm out of the hoster or take the assult rifle off their shoulder and sort of line up a target or two at the park? Not even necessarily shoot, but practice some sight work. Aw hell, why not argue that laws preventing shots fired within city limits already places the 2nd Amendment foot on that slippery slope to total banning.

I mean, I've heard all the yammering about slipperly slopes....Or do you want to step onto that slippery slope all by yourself and say that perhaps there are some limits?

but most on here agree there should be some limits.. where? Well that is the crux of the problem.
I guarantee I could be next to you and you would never know if I had a weapon, nor what it was, and some of the things I have carried concealed as part of my former work would most likely give you apoplexy.

anytime reasonable restrictions are even discussed. Why are they not already concerned over the "slippery slope" of total gun banning given there are already some guidelines in place? Why does one law put us on to the slipperly slope to total gun banning while others do not? Why not just admit that this "slippery slope" rhetoric is baseless?

I do believe there are people that want a total ban on all guns in civilian hands.. they admit it. they are in the minority right next to the machine guns and grenade launchers at WalMart people.

BUT, yes I butted... I also think if you want "compromise" then come to the table with something for me, a responsible, trained and conscientious weapons owner.
I will go with putting all Semi-autos on the NFA, as AOW's with a $5 point of sale tax stamp.... if you refine the SBR, SBS and suppressors process to the same one time and immediate system. There I have made a an offer in good faith and would be willing to go through with it.. what would be your response?

supressors process are not making sense to me. FWIW $5 stamp..as in an additional tax? What is that supposed to do besides raise gov't revenues?

Certain configurations of weapons are ARBITRARILY limited and taxed, and registered with the ATF.
Under a certain barrel length a weapon gas to be taxed and registered, and has a lengthy and involved registration process to pay the tax levied on these weapon categories.

trained and conscientious weapons owner. "

that sounds like 'i'm in charge of gun laws because i have a gun'

and have put forth a valid and reasoned, as well as informed idea. Where are yours. Lets talk, about actual ideas that are workable and not just feel good political theater.
I answer many uninformed posters with my knowledge and ideas. I have answered you multiple times with facts and information.
An idea is right there, fully explained, what is your response to my compromise, as opposed to your "we are in charge because we have, well we have, um .. guns are bad save the children."

I do believe there are people that want a total ban on all guns in civilian hands.. they admit it. they are in the minority right next to the machine guns and grenade launchers at WalMart people.

yes, they are both out of their respective trees.

I will go with putting all Semi-autos on the NFA, as AOW's with a $5 point of sale tax stamp.... if you refine the SBR, SBS and suppressors process to the same one time and immediate system.

DEFINITE yes on the bold part, but-

i'll just babble because you know what i'm talking about here-

the new AWB is for sure better than the 1st, but if the same thing can be done by using the laws we have already, why not? they've been proven to at least be tolerable for 100+ years in sum.

the GCA has to be factored in/fixed also.
In 1960 Congress changed the transfer tax for all "any other weapon" (AOW) category to $5.

sooo, maybe less than a pack of cigs is just a BIT low? the ATF has no money, the budget is a nightmare, so wouldn't a sliding tax or whatever you'd call it be fair?
like 20% for a $200 gun and 10% for a $2000 one? i think it makes sense to partially fund the ATF that way. if you've got that much scratch for a gat...chip in a little for other gun owners?

just realized the AWB is in the GCA now: (that's 200+ pages its around pg. 26)
http://www.atf.gov/publications/download/p/atf-p-5300-4.pdf

so a NFA 2013, you mean?

The United States Supreme Court, in 1968 decided the case of Haynes v. United States in favor of the defendant, which effectively gutted the National Firearms Act of 1934. As one could possess an NFA firearm and choose not to register it, and not face prosecution due to Fifth Amendment protections, the Act was unenforceable. To deal with this, Congress rewrote the Act to make registration of existing firearms impossible except by the government (previously, an existing firearm could be registered by any citizen). In addition to fixing the defect identified in Haynes, the revision tightened definitions of the firearms regulated by the Act, as well as incorporating a new category of firearm, the Destructive Device, which was first regulated in the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968. This revision is known as the National Firearms Act of 1968 to differentiate it from the NFA of 1934, which is a different (and now void) law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

the GCA says-
While current law mandates that a background check be performed if the seller has a federal firearms license, private parties living in the same state are not required to perform such checks under federal law. State laws however can prohibit such sales.

obviously that bold part has to go. because of-
Supreme Court decision

In a 5–4 decision, the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Court of Appeals. It held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[9]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Lopez

so all sales can be regulated- they obviously affect the economy.

Subsequent developments

United States v. Lopez (1995) was the first decision in six decades to invalidate a federal statute on the grounds that it exceeded the power of the Congress under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The opinion described Wickard v. Filburn as "perhaps the most far reaching example of Commerce Clause authority over intrastate commerce." In Lopez, the Court held that while Congress had broad lawmaking authority under the Commerce Clause, the power was limited, and did not extend so far from "commerce" as to authorize the regulation of the carrying of handguns, especially when there was no evidence that carrying them affected the economy on a massive scale.[2]

SELLING them certainly does, so...(thanks to a farmer trying to skirt wheat growing laws in 1940 or so! how odd...)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wickard_v._Filburn

also-

the Brady bill needs some help. the Tiahrt crap has to go away NOW!

don't know if i mentioned this before, but i (hypothetically) don't care if it is a pistol or a rifle if i'm getting shot at.

the amount of bullets in the gun is the thing, right? just ask dirty harry?

more probs-
“None of the funds made available for injury prevention and control at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention may be used to advocate or promote gun control,” says language added to the CDC appropriations bill in 1996. Two years later, the language was added for all HHS agencies including for the NIH.

The gun lobby’s Tiahrt Amendment restricts law enforcement officials from fully accessing and using Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) gun trace data. Clerks at the ATF literally write records by hand, circa 1950,

The NRA has blocked technology to produce “smart guns” that only operate in their owners’ possession, like smart cars.

“Felons Finding It Easy to Regain Gun Rights,” said a chilling New York Times report in November of 2011.

In similar micro-managing behavioral legislation, the NRA is trying to make it illegal for doctors to ask patients if they have guns in the home.

Thanks to NRA lobbying, gun manufacturers cannot be sued. Unlike Big Tobacco or Big Pharma, the 2005 Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act gives gun makers, gun dealers and trade groups immunity from negligence and product liability lawsuits!
http://gunvictimsaction.org/blog/2013/01/the-nra-hates-gun-regulations-except-when-it-loves-gun-regulation/

am i wrong? isn't the nra a trade group?


The NRA Surge: 99 Laws Rolling Back Gun Restrictions
In the past four years a barrage of measures across 37 states have made it easier to own, carry, and conceal firearms
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/09/map-gun-laws-2009-2012

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2012/12/16/the-6-craziest-state-gun-laws/

I myself have a requirement of having a CCL the few times I have sold a weapon. And as NFA items, transfer to another customer would necessitate a background check and another 5 tax stamp. I would agree to say, 50 bucks, but for some people 200 is not just pocket change, I don't think guns should be limited to the rich. I also would like to see a further push to education and more realistic training for CCLs at the least, but for all types of firearms. but we would need to keep the NRA out of it.

if you are buying a $2000 gun, you aren't TOO strapped for cash is all i'm sayin'...a sliding tax scale

the GCA needs some help-

(10) The term “manufacturer” means any person engaged in the business of manufacturing firearms or ammunition for purposes of sale or distribution; and the term “licensed manufacturer” means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.
(11) The term “dealer” means
(A) any person engaged in the business of selling firearms at wholesale or retail,
(B) any person engaged in the business of repairing firearms or of making or fitting special barrels, stocks, or trigger mechanisms to firearms, or
(C) any person who is a pawnbroker. The term “licensed dealer” means any dealer who is licensed under the provisions of this chapter.
(12) The term “pawnbroker” means any person whose business or occupation includes the taking or receiving, by way of pledge or pawn, of any firearm as security for the payment or repayment of money.
(13) The term “collector” means any person who acquires, holds, or disposes of firearms as curios or relics, as the Attorney General shall by regulation define, and the term “licensed collector” means any such person licensed under the provisions of this chapter.

so the guys in parking lots at gun shows should really be classified as pawnbrokers? sound good?

(20) The term “crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year” does not include—
(A) any Federal or State offenses pertaining to antitrust violations, unfair trade practices, restraints of trade, or other similar offenses relating to the regulation of business practices, or
(B) any State offense classified by the laws of the State as a misdemeanor and punishable by a term of imprisonment of two years or less.

doesn't that bold ^^ mean there are thousands of people with DUIs who can't buy guns? (misdemeanor over two years, and you don't have to go to jail, just be convicted?)

(21) The term “engaged in the business” means—
(C) as applied to a dealer in firearms, as defined in section 921 (a)(11)(A), a person who devotes time, attention, and labor to dealing in firearms as a regular course of trade or business with the principal objective of livelihood and profit through the repetitive purchase and resale of firearms, but such term shall not include a person who makes occasional sales, exchanges, or purchases of firearms for the enhancement of a personal collection or for a hobby, or who sells all or part of his personal collection of firearms;

there is just plain no number there. so we just trust people to not sell untaxed or monitored guns for a hobby?
sounds kinda like.... A LOOPHOLE?!?!? 'repetitive' is just a BIT vague, no?


(22) The term “with the principal objective of livelihood and profit” means that the intent underlying the sale or disposition of firearms is predominantly one of obtaining livelihood and pecuniary gain, as opposed to other intents, such as improving or liquidating a personal firearms collection:

maybe throw an "or" after that and? $$ gain over a certain amount?

any numbers pop into your head? you'd know better than me!

so I still find it excessive. And if the AWs are NFA, they are registered, and taxed to the owner not the weapon, any and all transfers are done via an FFL, and also have a 6-8 month wait currently, for the stamp to be processed. this could be streamlined to a point of sale via FFL, they collect the money and issue the stamp.. this is an excesively onerous system, and not workable at all if every existing semi auto were blanketed as NFA. again you have latched on to what you want.. registration .. what of my quid pro quo, making short barrel rifles and silencers as simple to get. NICS check and point of purchase tax stamp.

That's about the dumbest stupid shit I've ever read.

I'm guessing you've never been told the NUMBER ONE RULE of gun safety... amiright?

It's a clear example of that damn slippery slope...the crowd, the laws telling"them" when and where and how they can use their weapons.

It's called hyperbole, which may have slipped by you since it didn't use this

It was my wry attempt to point out the extreme, I think many here have caught the point. The slippery slope argument is invalide because there are already rules of conduct and laws in place and their precious is still in their possession.

As he turned the barrel of that rifle swept whoever was standing near him.

THIS IS UNSAFE.




He should have been arrested for that stupid move alone, if you OC you must do so in a safe manner.

You can take a gun anywhere you like so long as you shove it up your ass first.

Well stated, sir!

Perfect. Then gun humpers never have to be separated from their Precious.

Since you want to go there, you are a being bigoted and completely intolerant of my alternative lifestyle.. does that apply across the board, come on come out and be honest. You find me perverse and beneath you because of my lifestyle. I am certain that kind of thinking manifests itself in other ways.
I thought discrimination and bigotry were against the ideas of DU.

and get all huffy?

despite many of us being open and bringing ideas to the table, well I might as well embrace my difference, and as such demand you respect it.

honestly, i'm sure you seem more reasonable in person?

I talk very little about guns outside of the technical with fellow serious owners.. not the kind of people that would buy a Bushmaster at all, especially with the man card slogans, we actually mock the asinine targeting by "tier 3" companies and discuss the pitfalls and headaches of the untrained and uneducated engaging in this current frenzy.

More likely I would talk to you about Kurt Vonnegut, and introduce you to Cockatoo, Poot-tee-weet,

Of all the locations listed in your post, the only one that MIGHT be restricted is the day care center as it might fall under the same rules as schools.

All the other places are legal for gun carrying, including the banks. Of course, your local laws may vary.

They know just how dangerous the yahoos that pack are. Yet, we are supposed to smile at some fool with a gun strapped on like someone in a war zone.

If I'm with my family carrying its out in the open, people have the right to know that I have a firearm on me, I'm out with my wife and kid, I want it to blatant that it is for protection of my family and me, when I'm by myself I don't carry.

I don't see any reason why anyone would openly carry a rifle in public places unless they are trying to be an asshole and pull a stunt.

No harm to decent people, regardless of what transpires.