|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 21, 2007 10:33:12 GMT -5
I will trust the information posted today on the Indiana Governments page. It even says in one of your examples that "Indiana and Minnesota prohibit carrying a gun on "school property." States like Arizona, Colorado, New York and Virginia -- to name just a few -- all prohibit guns within "school grounds" or "school buildings" or at "school functions." formation posted on the pages you listed ..... " (http://www.gunowners.org/fs9611.htm) I think State Law trumps the Federal law in this case. Trust all you want. Try doing somthing the "State" says is "legal" but the Fed says is a Crime in front of someone who wants to prosecute Federal Law/make an example. The Law is Wrong - and most LEOs interpret it as such.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 21, 2007 10:34:17 GMT -5
lol .... have a nice day.
|
|
|
Post by indianahick on Mar 21, 2007 13:07:51 GMT -5
According to a LEO I know. Federal law always over rules state laws. Then it depends upon whether or not the feds want to prosecute someone or not. Which simply means that it depends upon whether or not they want to make an example of you. Some laws only do two things, A) make a criminal out of an otherwise honest citizen. B) create easy victims.
As for citing states that have extremely restrictive laws against firearms, three that I would not use are, California, Illinois, New York. As all are extreme anti firearms states.
Getting a law stopped be for it gets passed is easier than getting one repealed or changed. Just which firearms law would have stopped those boys in Colorado, which one would have stopped that idiot in Penn, which one stopped that boy that stole his grandfathers firearms (a LEO by the way) and went to school and killed students. Now the question is would there have been lives saved and how many if some of the teachers in those place were armed? No one knows and no one can say.
To many laws are passed because of hysteria. Both federal and state.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 21, 2007 13:15:13 GMT -5
That's the way I've always understood Fed Law too.
A State can be MORE restrictive, but never Less.
And the funny thing is, to get a Law repealed, it usually has to be done so by the Courts. And the Courts will only review it AFTER someone has been "injured" by the law.
You just can't go to SCOTUS and say "I believe this Law is unconstitutional". You have to be "legitimately" arrested for it (without grandstanding) first.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Mar 21, 2007 13:18:02 GMT -5
tmarsh83......"Lets say you do get attacked in Chi-town, where you are carrying your weapon illegally. And you off a bad guy. Do you really think your "i had it, so i used it" logic is going to do you any good?"
Same example, only after you've convinced OIS to leave his gun legally stored in IN somewhere......do you really think the thug who wants to stick the knife in OIS or beat his brains out with a ball bat will be moved to reconsider if OIS is unarmed, as the thug thought he was in the first place? How much good would your "I don't have it because I place the stupid law of some legislature above the laws of self-preservation and common sense" logic do for our friend OIS?
You are right in that he may well not have a good day in court as a result of his exercise of his second amendment right even when the local regulations are in violation of that portion of the Constitution. However, even a bad day in court is preferable to a good day on a slab in a Chicago morgue.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 21, 2007 14:10:30 GMT -5
I'm glad someone thinks my life is more important than a day in court... Maybe I'm just paranoid... but being held up, car jacked, and assaulted - or was in the process of being so until I made the goblin(s) run away by displaying the will & ability to perforate them - has given me pretty good reason to be. Funny how none of the above goblins called the cops for my flagrant disregard of "brandishing" laws.... One of my favorite quotes - modified by my (parens). Wear a gun to someone's house (including God's, or any other place), you're saying "I'll defend this (place) as if it were my own (home)!
When (others) see you carry a weapon, you're saying "I'll defend you as if you were my own family."
Anyone who objects levels the deadliest insult possible; "I won't trust you until you render yourself harmless."
|
|
|
Post by JohnSmiles on Mar 21, 2007 16:56:05 GMT -5
OI, some here do not see the forest for the trees on certain issues. No one here is stupid or anti American, but do have a lot to learn. I know full well what the law says in Chicago, DC and dozens of other hysteria ridden areas. I will not walk around in any of them unarmed. I am old enough to understand happens, and I could be next. There is no excuse for trading away your rights to bear arms for pc bs. What part of 'shall NOT BE infringed' is so difficult to grasp? Or the REASON behind the words? There are a lot of laws I do not agree with. There are only a few I do not abide by. And most of those attempt to 'infringe' upon my basic right to 'bear arms'.
|
|
|
Post by steveb on Mar 21, 2007 18:40:29 GMT -5
Seems to me some of you folks need to wake up! I excersise my 2nd ammendment rights and carry 24-7. Nuff said.
|
|
|
Post by steiny on Mar 21, 2007 19:24:44 GMT -5
"Wear a gun to someone's house (including God's, or any other place), you're saying "I'll defend this (place) as if it were my own (home)!" ........ Give me a break. Wear a gun to my house and it say's "You are some sort of paranoid whacko who is a threat to to others and more likely to hurt himself or another innocent, than he is to protect anything or anybody".
When (others) see you carry a weapon, you're saying "I'll defend you as if you were my own family." .......... No they just think you're nuts, and would prefer to steer clear of you.
Anyone who objects levels the deadliest insult possible; "I won't trust you until you render yourself harmless." .......... No, more like "I don't trust you because you're nuts".
If you are truly that paranoid, and within the law, concealed carry is fine, but people don't want to see it, and they don't want to hear about it. This bragging, flaunting,and openly brandishing weapons (where they are not needed) does more damage than good to the image of legal gun owners, by a long shot.
|
|
|
Post by swilk on Mar 21, 2007 19:53:49 GMT -5
I am 99.9% sure in this case of Federal vs State that the Indiana law rules on this case ..... everything I have read says Indiana. There is always a possibility what is out there is wrong ....
I guess I am just more laid back than some .... I have a CC permit and have had for the last 10 years or so. I own 3 handguns specifically for CCW's .... the only time I really carry is when I am going out in the woods. I regularly bring one with me in my vehicle but it stays locked in the console .....
For the people saying "screw the law I am right ...." .... do you realize IF you come across the wrong LEO and IF they prosecute and convict you that you will be a convicted felon that no longer has the right to own, carry or use a firearm? And you could quite possibly spend some time in jail .... is it really worth it?
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 21, 2007 19:57:55 GMT -5
"Wear a gun to someone's house (including God's, or any other place), you're saying "I'll defend this (place) as if it were my own (home)!" ........ Give me a break. Wear a gun to my house and it say's "You are some sort of paranoid whacko who is a threat to to others and more likely to hurt himself or another innocent, than he is to protect anything or anybody". When (others) see you carry a weapon, you're saying "I'll defend you as if you were my own family." .......... No they just think you're nuts, and would prefer to steer clear of you. Anyone who objects levels the deadliest insult possible; "I won't trust you until you render yourself harmless." .......... No, more like "I don't trust you because you're nuts". Thank you for proving my point. Insults are sooo rational. I earned my paranoia, thank you vere much. Not that paranoia is necessary to understand one's natural Right to self defense... Thus ALL OF MY POSTS ABOUT MY GUN BEING CONCEALED... Jeez. I DID say it was simply one of my favorite quotes. No, this is about explaining again and again that there is a fundamental, pre-government-extant Inalienable Right to defend oneself - and concommitant with that Right is the Right to possess the Tools necessary to exercise that Right. But Obviously I live in a world of Radicals... like Locke, Paine, Jefferson and Madison. Silly me.
|
|
|
Post by Russ Koon on Mar 22, 2007 0:56:43 GMT -5
swilk, I thinkI can safely say that we do realize that we're violating the law when we carry in some areas.
It's not a matter of thinking we're above the law, or that it doesn't apply to us. It's a matter of considering the potential need for the gun to be greater than the risk we take in carrying it. It's a calculated risk, that we take on because we feel that the risk is worth taking.
We are also working to change the law, but unless and until that day comes when the states develop some sense in the matter, some of us will consciously make the decision to risk being arrested for carrying in the wrong places, in order to be prepared should the need for that weapon arise.
You may disagree with our decisions, but please don't assume that we are merely ignorant of the potential risk of arrest, or that we are unaware of the potential for the mainstream media to portray us as irresponsible nutcases as they do so often. We know the risk and accept it.
|
|
|
Post by paul3 on Mar 22, 2007 8:14:04 GMT -5
IC 35-47-2 Chapter 2. Regulation of Handguns IC 35 -47-2-19 Application of chapter Sec.19 This chapter " DOES NOT APPLY " to any firearm not designed to use fixed cartridges or fixed ammunition, or any firearm made before January 1, 1899. I carry a 44. cap&ball in the winter, and a 31. cal. cap&ball in summer. No carry permit needed!
|
|
|
Post by steveb on Mar 22, 2007 9:07:16 GMT -5
"Wear a gun to someone's house (including God's, or any other place), you're saying "I'll defend this (place) as if it were my own (home)!" ........ Give me a break. Wear a gun to my house and it say's "You are some sort of paranoid whacko who is a threat to to others and more likely to hurt himself or another innocent, than he is to protect anything or anybody". When (others) see you carry a weapon, you're saying "I'll defend you as if you were my own family." .......... No they just think you're nuts, and would prefer to steer clear of you. Anyone who objects levels the deadliest insult possible; "I won't trust you until you render yourself harmless." .......... No, more like "I don't trust you because you're nuts". If you are truly that paranoid, and within the law, concealed carry is fine, but people don't want to see it, and they don't want to hear about it. This bragging, flaunting,and openly brandishing weapons (where they are not needed) does more damage than good to the image of legal gun owners, by a long shot. Steiny, I'm sorry, but I think it is you, that has lost your mind and it is sad to see .
|
|
|
Post by omegahunter on Mar 22, 2007 15:42:56 GMT -5
State laws never take precedence over Federal laws unless the State law is more restrictive. 1000 feet within a school is the rule.
So far, I have to agree with OI.
This is the first and last post I will make on this subject. It is not up for debate for me. I have to make and live with my own decisions.
|
|
|
Post by Woody Williams on Mar 22, 2007 15:48:35 GMT -5
State laws never take precedence over Federal laws unless the State law is more restrictive. 1000 feet within a school is the rule. So far, I have to agree with OI. This is the first and last post I will make on this subject. It is not up for debate for me. I have to make and live with my own decisions. Then during gun season I will break the law at least 4 times a day. Just going to the range I break the law.
|
|
|
Post by Old Ironsights on Mar 22, 2007 16:32:55 GMT -5
Sad truth. Woody. Sad Truth. And to "Obey the Law" essentially means No Guns. Civil Disobedience in the face of a Bad Law has long, honorable and strong historical precedent. Eventually the Law will get changed. But with attitudes such as some have displayed here, it's going to take a LOOONG time.
|
|
|
Post by huxbux on Mar 22, 2007 16:39:53 GMT -5
I wonder how many people render themselves defenseless throughout their entire workday because they drop their children off at school and don't want to be felonious? The entire list of school prohibitions is idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 22, 2007 17:54:27 GMT -5
I am very pro gun. I own many hand guns, carry occasionally, and have the proper permit. I strongly support gun owner rights. On the other hand, I feel there is a segement of the gun owning public that is "whacko pro gun" and downright stupid in the choices they make about carrying guns. Toting a gun into church or a school function are prime examples of this lunacy. These are clowns I do not care to be aligned beside as a gun owner, and frankly many shouldn't be carrying guns because they are not safe. Take a walk through any major gun show, and you'll see plenty of these whackos. Nobody would ever suspect a SMART concealed carrier is ever toting a gun, he wouldn't expose it to view unless if was a life / death situation, and he dang sure wouldn't feel the need to tote one into a school or church. And what, exactly, about carrying in church is an issue? Is God offended? Hardly. I can give you any number of scenarios why packing in church is a good idea-but then, I suppose I`m one of those "whackos" you`ve referred to.
|
|
|
Post by hunter480 on Mar 22, 2007 18:04:59 GMT -5
I am not saying what they do or do not do .... I am saying that they are not paid or qualified to "make" laws. They are paid and qualified to enforce the laws lawmakers put in place ..... Are you saying that you are endorsing knowingly committing a felony? If "they" ever come for my guns-it`s gonna be a BAD day-they are NOT taking my weapons. When I fire, defending myself, and my right to bear arms as a FREE man, I instantly become a criminal-what about you? You gonna be a sqeaky clean subject?
|
|