I thought they were fine with that when it comes to things like voting rights, women's rights, labor rights and so on and so forth.

although they are far too stupid to understand

The Second Amendment is a burden on everyone else's right to keep their blood and internal organs intact.

The Second Amendment is a burden on MY right not to feel menaced by some nutcase who somehow desperately needs to prove he's some Dirty Harry-type - in a fully civilian, NON-combatant situation (like a fast food joint or Starbucks or grocery store or some such), in public. What about MY rights, 'eh? I think most of these gunners and "Second-Amendment Remedies" types are a menace to society.

The law simply says that firearms must be stored in a lockbox or with a trigger lock installed when not being carried. Firearms that are being carried do not have to be stored this way.

But then again, I'm about as anti-gunner as it's possible to be. Why do their rights trump my rights?

Are there court cases (or anyone with a JD, for that matter) you could cite to
back up your claim?

resorting to a closet full of gunz and one, or more, stuck in your pants when going to the store. We'd all be better off.

...in yet another example of 'colonism':

You get to parade around the commons and fire your weapon, to make sure it works. And make sure we have a standing army that will protect us from invaders. Which, of course, is negated by our Department of Defense. We really don't need Musketeers protecting our Commons anymore, thank you very much.

There is a reason Teabaggers believe that the judiciary has no power to interpret the Constitution - it is how they suppress the rights of groups they don't like.

You get to stand on the the commons and make a speech, or publish it on a hand-cranked press...

The Constitution recognizes a RKBA. What you do with a gun is another matter, and that is generally left to the states.

We already have a standing army, but the Constitution and law recognize and provide for a militia ( Sec. 1 Articles, and 2A).

The Musketeers derive from a work of fiction, and aren't in charge of any "commons," nor of private property.

And want to use them on us without consequence.

and can only be opened when testosterone and adrenaline levels are low.

So if someone needs it for self defense, they're SOL?

They should be disregarded.

There is no constitutional amendment giving you freedom from your irrational fear/paranoia.

paranoia" applies a LOT more to the extremists who cling to the 2nd Amendment than it ever could apply to someone like me.

There are NO black helicopters.

There is NO big Operation Jade Helm 15.

There is NO Big Gumnnt Coming to Take Yer Guns.

There is NO Big Barack Obama Monster coming to take yer guns.

There's no U.N.=BAAAAAAD because it's gonna take over America and we're gonna be ruled by fer'ners.

There is NO Muslim Sharia Law currently being imposed on America.

There is NO Commie or Fascist or whatever the word is these days hiding behind every tree in your neighborhood or threatening to break into your house and make your children turn gay.

There is NO "new world order" - and btw, that phrase was first introduced by a republi-CON busily trying to climb out from under ronald reagan's shadow and stand in his own light at the end of the 1980s - george bush the 1st.

That's not me being paranoid, my friend. That's the extremist gunners of America being paranoid, thankyouverymuch. And you defined them quite accurately in your post.

I don't often post about my opinions about the extremist gunners out there. And I'm used to getting flamed for my views. But I'm SORRY, folks. My views AREN'T changing on this one. NOT EVER. The FIRST Amendment - the one that comes BEFORE that precious Second Amendment, includes MY right to speak out about this and lodge my objections. Additionally, the foundational phrase "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" applies to ME, TOO. JUST AS it applies to anyone who claims the right to arm up as much as they can afford to. MY RIGHTS are just as important and valued and legitimate as ANY gunners' rights. MY Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness in our most basic formal founding document includes my right NOT TO BE MENACED by a bunch of extremist nutcases somehow badly needing to parade around in public with their bullet belts and assault rifles in my face when I'm out minding my own business and trying to go about my day without not causing any trouble.

Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. We who do NOT want to be menaced by these goddam guns in our faces and in our lives and in our peace by all these civilian wannabe Dirty Harrys and Rambos all the time have rights, too. We just haven't asserted ours with the militancy that the other side has. And of course, it helps, on their side, when they're armed, and extremely intimidating. That's the whole point, isn't it?

You're inventing "rights" to defend your paranoia/unreasonable fear.

You don't have a right to never be scared. Especially when your fears have almost no basis in reality.

so SICK of having to cater to the paranoid delusions of gun humpers

I honestly think this whole conspiracy, gun thing is just a bunch of sexually impotent guys who are bored and love to play army tough guy.

An old boyfriend of mine got into this big time. I swear he had a 1 inch dick and was impotent and being this pretend tough guy was his way of trying to make up for it all.

First he dressed up like a biker. Then he switched over to dressing like a Viet Nam vet. Now its all this gun rights shit and wearing fatigues and running around with a big gun.

It's pathetic.

> There is no constitutional amendment giving you freedom from your irrational fear/paranoia.



Maybe I just live too far away from your subculture?

birthday party with an open carry handgun strapped to his side. I felt nervous the whole time he was there. Really distracted from what should have been a nice day of hamburgers and hotdogs.

That was just plain stupid, dangerous and inexcusably rude.

I don't care how many guns they have at home. I don't care if they masturbate with the fucking things.

But I will not put up with that in my life. If a business allows that in their store I won't be shopping there. If someone is so paranoid that they have to carry around a gun then I don't want to be within a thousand feet of them.

It's the right to leave a fucking loaded handgun lying around unlocked.

perhaps they should retire, move to a same-sex marriage state, get married and live happily ever after ...

It is something they would have always wanted ......

I'd swing my fine Cuban cigar from one side of my mouth to the other, dip my toes in the receding tide along the beautiful tropical shoreline, and tear open my latest assignment:

"Re-write this opinion from Antonin Scalia's staff in your own words and append Justice Thomas' signature."

Sweet. I'll be done in time for my marimba lessons!

Let the other seven make decisions.

We are a land of corporations, instead.

So the Court did the right thing.

irresponsible gun owners end up in jail for the "unfortunate accidents" then people will start self enforcing.

Guns that are locked up are useless in home defense. If you want to be a victim lock your guns up. I don't play that role.

the role you are playing is not a smart one.

for the safety of others, i hope you live alone.

May be your issue but it is not mine.

my issue is that i want to be responsible. your answers are showing that you aren't.

I know I am.

the idea that guns locked up will delay your using them too much.

so how many seconds is it necessary to be able to access and use your gun while you are asleep?

how many seconds does it take you to unlock your gun?

I don't play the victim. Others may differ.

you said that locking the gun up would render leave you vulnerable.

so how many seconds would it take you to unlock a gun that you would be vulnerable.

again, try to keep up with things you say, even if they are simply to derail threads like these, people do actually pay attention to things you say and attempt to reason with you nonetheless.

I like to pretend that just as you do... rather easy to do on the internet, isn't it?

that is the most incredibly insane thing I had read here in a long time.

people who have kids and lock up their guns are suicidal?

people who lock up their guns for any reason are suicidal?

downthread you compared yourself to Ruth Bader Ginsburg.

you're out of line even thinking of comparing yourself to her. you've been posting here against most of what she stands for.

and against rational thought to boot.

I don't spend my Christmas holidays with Scalia. I don't perform in Opera's with Scalia. So no, I'm not like Ginsburg at all.

that's the one thing you left out.

if you are actually a liberal, please correct me.

I am an effective one. I actually get things done politically in the real world. Not just a liberal with a keyboard.

that doesn't make you an effective liberal at all.

Why would I do such a useless task? SC decisions are the law of the land. I really don't have a clue what you are posting about and I suspect you don't either. Since you are oddly making this about Ginsburg of all people do you support her position on Roe v Wade? Do you know what it is?

away from the keyboard?

Not surprising.

and to make her sound as conservative as you are, though she isn't.

Not just a liberal with a keyboard, but a liberal who is also instantly alert from a deep rest. Rather than mocking, we should stand in awe of the people on the internet who allege to do and be so much... who allege to be progressive... who allege to be effective.

After all, who are we to question such A-Team, He-Man, Star-Spangled Awesome Sauce posters who claim, who allege, who profess, who declare. Granted, we have nothing to go on other than those claims, allegations, and declarations, but no one on DU would ever lay right to such pride, to such pretensions, to such pomp and imperious pretension unless it's all very, very true.

but completely unable to operate a lock quickly.

get informed.

http://firearmslaw.ca/gun-law-resources/firearms-storage-transportation/


Information for Americans
Note: This page contains information that is useful for any foreign visitor to Canada who wishes to temporarily import firearms into the country. It is titled “Information for Americans” simply to reflect the reality that the vast majority of such individuals are indeed visitors from the United States.

Do you want to bring your firearms with you when visiting Canada? Would you like to hunt or participate in a shooting competition?

Note that many firearms offences are punishable by mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment. When in doubt, consult with the Canada Border Services Agency or the Royal Canadian Mounted Police before attempting to enter the country.

Temporarily importing a firearm into Canada

Follow these simple steps to so as not to run afoul of Canada’s stringent gun control laws.

Determine which class of firearm you wish to temporarily import. Prohibited firearms cannot be imported under any circumstances.
If you are a visitor and do not have a Canadian firearms licence, you must declare your firearm in writing prior to arriving at the Canadian border.
This declaration can be done by filling out Form CAFC 909 Non-Resident Firearm Declaration and paying a CAN$25 fee. Once confirmed by a border services officer, it has the same effect as a temporary licence and registration and is valid for up to 60 days.
If you wish to temporarily import a restricted firearm (e.g. a handgun), you also require an Authorization to Transport (ATT).
You can get an application for an ATT by calling the Canada Firearms Centre at 1-800-731-4000. Normally, if you are a visitor declaring your restricted firearms in writing, you should plan to come to the CBSA office between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. in order to apply for an ATT, as you will need a Non-Resident Firearm Declaration confirmation number to apply. If you are unable to come to the office during these hours, please make arrangements in advance by calling the Chief Firearms Officer of the province you will be visiting, as listed in Appendix A.
When in Canada, your firearm must be stored and transported in accordance with the relevant legislation and regulations.
If you do have a Canadian firearms licence (see procedure below), you must show your licence and registration certificates to the CBSA agent at the border.
Visitors who hold a valid Canadian firearms licence but do not have registration certificates for their firearms must also complete Form CAFC 909, Non-Resident Firearm Declaration and pay a CAN$25 fee. Once confirmed by a border services officer, the declaration has the same effect as a temporary registration certificate for the firearms for up to 60 days.

Don't tell me about Canada. It does not have a 2nd amendment so it is irrelevant. And your whole post is about importing guns into Canada which has ZERO relevance to the OP. The law is unenforceable because no one knows how you are storing your gun in your house. Unless you advocate putting cameras in everyone's house so the government can supervise your activities. It would not surprise me if you do advocate that.

perhaps he would be happy if there were 3 more justices on the court who think as they do.

And you accuse me of not being able to shoot straight....

and correctly.

it's a relevant observation to make, that you side with Scalia and Thomas on this issue, and one wonders on how many other issues.

I guess we better check her out too....

i wish i could say the same for your posts.

Of course you will not.

you're going to make yourself out to be a liberal.

nice, but obvious try however.

unlike you, she has spoken in favor of abortion rights.

Ummm, I am not a SC Justice or elected politician. Where would I speak in favor of abortion rights? Its legal where I live. No real life person speaks about it at all.

and people in real life speak about it.

and speaking of Arizona, look at your comments on the Arizona abortion law signed just recently.

just your usual arguing with the liberals and pro-choicers here and not seeming troubled or commenting negatively on a conservative law that was passed.



http://www.democraticunderground.com/10141053695

They are there so when something bad happens, a drug bust, someone get's shot, someone get's robbed, etc. that they apply the law then as one of multiple charges against the perpetrator.

There are countless examples of laws like this on the books here on the East Coast. Things like how long of a knife one is allowed to carry. You think they are checking anyone's knives? Hell no, but you stab some one and they got more against you in court.

This is for guns inside of a house. The law does not require them to be locked up when being used. The owner can always claim he was using them -- cleaning, etc.

Hell, the 4th Amendment (or what's left of it) practically shields any realistic enforcement of this.

Unless S.F. and CA start termiting the law to require all locked-up guns be unloaded with ammo in another room, the gun be disassembled, or in an inoperable condition, or other D.C. (pre-Heller) some-such, the law is not a violation of 2A.

As you mention, unless law-makers want to run afoul of the WOD-deminished 4th Amendment, I don't see how this can be enforced except retroactively.

There is a long-running campaign to distribute trigger/action locks which may be responsible for the exceedingly low incidence of gun-related childhood (under 15yoa) mortality. Operation Childsafe should be supported by all. Lock boxes are in the same category.

Thomas and Scalia are monsters in robes.