Jump to content
 
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...

America's Gun Culture...


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

BS:   These Christians nut jobs hated liberals so much they blamed them for 9 \ 11.   (as well as gays and those evil fornicators).

  

:o B-b-b-but-----

Weren't THEY TOO the reason for HURRICANE KATRINA?  :blink: 

Oh, and too, if someone's gonna hate everybody, then THIS guy would get my vote!  ;) 

 

Sepiatone

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Sepiatone said:

:o B-b-b-but-----

Weren't THEY TOO the reason for HURRICANE KATRINA?  :blink: 

Oh, and too, if someone's gonna hate everybody, then THIS guy would get my vote!  ;) 

 

Sepiatone

Looks like Johnny Winter saying, I hate hurricanes.

(he seems to be in one ;))

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

How New Zealand’s gun buyback program is faring 6 weeks in

 

"New Zealand is six weeks into an ambitious program to buy tens of thousands of guns from owners across the country. After a lone gunman killed 51 people at two Christchurch mosques nearly six months ago, the government rushed through new laws banning military-style semi-automatics in a move that’s being closely followed around the world.

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told the AP in July that most New Zealanders disagree with the U.S. model under which gun ownership is seen as a constitutional right. The new laws in New Zealand emphasize that gun ownership is instead considered a privilege.

So far, owners have turned in more than 15,000 newly banned guns as well as 64,000 parts and accessories. In return, the government has handed them 32 million New Zealand dollars ($20 million). But nobody has a clear target for the program because authorities haven’t kept track of the number of guns in the country.

Tentative estimates put the total number of guns in New Zealand at about 1.5 million and the number of weapons that are now banned at up to 175,000. If those numbers are correct, it would mean less than 10% of the banned weapons have been handed in so far. Owners have until Dec. 20 to turn them over or potentially face charges....

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/how-new-zealands-gun-buyback-program-is-faring-6-weeks-in

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, mr6666 said:

Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern told the AP in July that most New Zealanders disagree with the U.S. model under which gun ownership is seen as a constitutional right.

I hope Ardern didn't really say this but instead it is just sloppy journalism.   

In the USA gun ownership IS a constitutional right,  per 2nd amendment.   Adding 'seen as' is sloppy.

Anyhow it appears the program is failing based on the < 10% stat mentioned.  Even 50% wouldn't be enough.   

I'd vote for such a law for the USA in a minute but first the 2nd amendment would have to be overturned (something I would also vote for,  but I'll never be given the chance).

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

More Big Retailers 'Ask' Customers Not To Openly Carry Guns In Stores

Walgreens, CVS and Wegmans have joined similar calls from Kroger and Walmart following multiple mass shootings in recent weeks.
".....

“It’s a respectful request,” Walmart spokesperson Ragan Dickens told HuffPost.

“And if they do not listen to the request, we’ve asked management to evaluate each situation. If an individual is a potential threat, the manager on duty can contact law enforcement.”.....

 

It’s not clear how other stores will enforce the new policies, but Kris Brown of advocacy group Brady United told CNN that the move by Walmart is “telling the NRA that logic does not support what they’ve been saying — this ‘good guy with a gun’ idea is patently false.”.....

https://www.huffpost.com/entry/walgreens-cvs-wegmans-open-carry-guns_n_5d715d6ae4b03b3b730a9304?ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, mr6666 said:

“And if they do not listen to the request, we’ve asked management to evaluate each situation. If an individual is a potential threat, the manager on duty can contact law enforcement.”.....

This Walmart "request" and the follow-up as defined in the above makes zero sense.   How is management going to determine if someone is a "potential threat"?     Unless the customer is saying things like "I'm carrying this gun so I can shoot people in your store"  (or something to that affect), there is no way to determine if someone is a potential threat.    So I have to assume the managers will be told that anyone with a gun is a potential threat by default.   Thus law enforcement is called.   What does Walmart expect law enforcement to do?     

Since I live in CA I don't know how those open-carry laws work in those states that allow this,  but I have to assume these laws prevent a business from having a 'you-can't-come-in-with-a-gun' policy.  Otherwise why did Walmart take this silly 'request' approach instead of just saying "if you have a gun, you can't enter our stores".

 

 

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Since I live in CA I don't know how those open-carry laws work in those states that allow this,  but I have to assume these laws prevent a business from having a 'you-can't-come-in-with-a-gun' policy.  Otherwise why did Walmart take this silly 'request' approach instead of just saying "if you have a gun, you can't enter our stores".

No, that is the case. In these states, open carry is considered a right and saying something like that would be considered infringing on it.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/open-carry-states/

Link to post
Share on other sites

O'Rourke calls out Texas Gov. Abbott for executive orders following mass shootings:

'Not one' mentions guns....

........The orders signed by Abbott largely focus on increasing reporting standards for law enforcement regarding suspicious persons and educating the public about gun safety.

The orders include implementing state-wide intake questions to better identify information that should be reported to the Texas Suspicious Activity Reporting Network, as well as ordering the Department of Public Safety to create programs aimed at raising awareness of how such reports are used to spot potential mass shooters.

Of the eight orders, none explicitly mention guns or firearms of any kind.

A statement from Abbott accompanying the orders says he will “continue to work expeditiously with the legislature on laws to keep guns out of the hands of dangerous criminals, while safeguarding the 2nd Amendment rights of law-abiding Texans.”........

https://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/460187-orourke-calls-out-texas-gov-abbott-for-executive-orders-following-mass

<_<

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Gershwin fan said:

No, that is the case. In these states, open carry is considered a right and saying something like that would be considered infringing on it.

http://worldpopulationreview.com/states/open-carry-states/

Didn't you mean to say "Yes, that is the case"?   

I.e.  Walmart can't have a 'no guns allowed' policy.     

Anyhow,   once law enforcement is called,  since what the customer isn't doing anything illegal, after a few bogus calls from a Walmart manager,  if I was the head of law enforcement I would advise them we are NOT coming out unless the person made an actual threat.

PS:  bottom line here is this is just a PR stunt by these companies.   My guess is that it might increase the number of customers that open carry;  gun-owners that will carry just because they legally can and someone requested that they don't. 

Note my brother was a gun-nut and his common response to "why do you own so many guns,  or why did you purchase this type of gun,," was "because I CAN!!".

 

 

 

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

Didn't you mean to say "Yes, that is the case"?   

I.e.  Walmart can't have a 'no guns allowed' policy.     

Anyhow,   once law enforcement is called,  since what the customer isn't doing anything illegal, after a few bogus calls from a Walmart manager,  if I was the head of law enforcement I would advise them we are NOT coming out unless the person made an actual threat.

PS:  bottom line here is this is just a PR stunt by these companies.   My guess is that it might increase the number of customers that open carry;  gun-owners that will carry just because they legally can and someone requested that they don't. 

Note my brother was a gun-nut and his common response to "why do you own so many guns,  or why did you purchase this type of gun,," was "because I CAN!!".

Can a Business Owner Exclude Me from the Premises Even if I Have a Carrying Permit?

A business owner generally has the right to exclude patrons from their premises if they refuse to follow the business’ gun policies.  This is because business owners typically have the right to refuse service to patrons for whatever reason, so long as it is not illegal or discriminatory.  However, the business owner must conform to the requirements that may be stated in the opt-out statute. 

For example, opt-out statutes often contain regulations as to the format and language for gun policy signs that are posted.  If the business owner fails to conform to these legal requirements, then the signs are without legal effect, and the business owner might even be subject to legal penalties.

The business owner needs to be sure that their policies do not violate other areas of law, such as discrimination laws or free speech rights. 

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/gun-free-business-policies-and-opt-out-statutes.html

 

You can also Google to find more commentary. The above seems to apply even in "open carry" states. This seems to tick off some gun nuts, and I saw at least one website that listed business chains that prohibit carrying guns (including Whole Foods and Target, among many others), so that "true patriots" can boycott said businesses. 

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LawrenceA said:

Can a Business Owner Exclude Me from the Premises Even if I Have a Carrying Permit?

A business owner generally has the right to exclude patrons from their premises if they refuse to follow the business’ gun policies.  This is because business owners typically have the right to refuse service to patrons for whatever reason, so long as it is not illegal or discriminatory.  However, the business owner must conform to the requirements that may be stated in the opt-out statute. 

For example, opt-out statutes often contain regulations as to the format and language for gun policy signs that are posted.  If the business owner fails to conform to these legal requirements, then the signs are without legal effect, and the business owner might even be subject to legal penalties.

The business owner needs to be sure that their policies do not violate other areas of law, such as discrimination laws or free speech rights. 

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/gun-free-business-policies-and-opt-out-statutes.html

 

You can also Google to find more commentary. The above seems to apply even in "open carry" states. This seems to tick off some gun nuts, and I saw at least one website that listed business chains that prohibit carrying guns (including Whole Foods and Target, among many others), so that "true patriots" can boycott said businesses. 

My understanding is that it depends on what each state's law state.  So, the state may prohibit any kind of restrictions on where guns may be carried concealed or open.

Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, TheCid said:

My understanding is that it depends on what each state's law state.  So, the state may prohibit any kind of restrictions on where guns may be carried concealed or open.

Do you have any sources for that, or a list of states where that's the case? I ask because of what I posted above, and because that's not what I've read. Businesses have the right to refuse service to people carrying firearms, despite the 2nd Amendment, much the same way that businesses can ban someone for their speech despite the 1st Amendment. Neither are the government infringing on your rights. And that's despite each state's open/concealed carry laws. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

Do you have any sources for that, or a list of states where that's the case? I ask because of what I posted above, and because that's not what I've read. Businesses have the right to refuse service to people carrying firearms, despite the 2nd Amendment, much the same way that businesses can ban someone for their speech despite the 1st Amendment. Neither are the government infringing on your rights. And that's despite each state's open/concealed carry laws. 

OK, my knowledge is limited on this, but isn't that part of the situation in Texas with the new laws?  Schools, government offices, stores, etc. cannot prohibit people from coming in with firearms?  Therefore, Wal-Mart cannot prohibit bringing weapons into their stores?  Or maybe they can prohibit concealed, but not open?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, TheCid said:

OK, my knowledge is limited on this, but isn't that part of the situation in Texas with the new laws?  Schools, government offices, stores, etc. cannot prohibit people from coming in with firearms?  Therefore, Wal-Mart cannot prohibit bringing weapons into their stores?  Or maybe they can prohibit concealed, but not open?

No, the only protection the new Texas gun laws provide in this regard is that people cannot be prosecuted if they "unknowingly" carry their weapons into a business where gun are prohibited. The store owner can still ask them to leave, but the gun owner will not be subject to legal penalty for carrying it in to begin with.

Here are the new Texas gun laws:

  • A measure passed clarifies that it's legal for licensed gun owners to carry in places of worship, unless there's a sign posted saying otherwise. It comes nearly two years after a gunman killed 26 people at a Sutherland Springs church.
  • A new law will allow licensed gun owners, including school employees, to store weapons and ammunition in locked vehicles on school campuses as long as it's out of plain view.  
  • Another school-related law removes the cap on how many school marshals can carry guns on public school campuses.
  • Another new law says landlords cannot prohibit their legally gun-owning tenants from having a weapon or ammo on the property. 
  • As a response to Hurricane Harvey, a new measure will allow handgun owners to carry their concealed firearms without a license for up to 48 hours when having to evacuate. 
  • Another measures says foster families can now store guns and ammunition together, rather than having to store them separately. 

Also worth noting, beginning Sunday, there's a new law that provides a defense for licensed gun owners who unknowingly carry their weapon into a place where it's prohibited, but leave promptly when asked.

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/san-antonio/news/2019/08/28/gun-laws-loosen-starting-sunday--what-you-need-to-know-

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, LawrenceA said:

No, the only protection the new Texas gun laws provide in this regard is that people cannot be prosecuted if they "unknowingly" carry their weapons into a business where gun are prohibited. The store owner can still ask them to leave, but the gun owner will not be subject to legal penalty for carrying it in to begin with.

Here are the new Texas gun laws:

  • A measure passed clarifies that it's legal for licensed gun owners to carry in places of worship, unless there's a sign posted saying otherwise. It comes nearly two years after a gunman killed 26 people at a Sutherland Springs church.
  • A new law will allow licensed gun owners, including school employees, to store weapons and ammunition in locked vehicles on school campuses as long as it's out of plain view.  
  • Another school-related law removes the cap on how many school marshals can carry guns on public school campuses.
  • Another new law says landlords cannot prohibit their legally gun-owning tenants from having a weapon or ammo on the property. 
  • As a response to Hurricane Harvey, a new measure will allow handgun owners to carry their concealed firearms without a license for up to 48 hours when having to evacuate. 
  • Another measures says foster families can now store guns and ammunition together, rather than having to store them separately. 

Also worth noting, beginning Sunday, there's a new law that provides a defense for licensed gun owners who unknowingly carry their weapon into a place where it's prohibited, but leave promptly when asked.

https://spectrumlocalnews.com/tx/san-antonio/news/2019/08/28/gun-laws-loosen-starting-sunday--what-you-need-to-know-

Thanks.  But doesn't this sort of move toward the government dictating how a "public" enterprise, such as stores, churches, schools, etc., can or cannot restrict guns?  Similar to government regulating businesses, churches, schools and so forth cannot refuse accommodation because of race.

Maybe I am stretching a point, but seems we are heading in that direction in some states.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, TheCid said:

Thanks.  But doesn't this sort of move toward the government dictating how a "public" enterprise, such as stores, churches, schools, etc., can or cannot restrict guns?  Similar to government regulating businesses, churches, schools and so forth cannot refuse accommodation because of race.

Maybe I am stretching a point, but seems we are heading in that direction in some states.

This would appear to create conflicts for conservatives \ anti-nanny-state types:   those that believe businesses should have the right to refuse services (with only exceptions for very specific reasons like race, gender,  religion,,,) and those that believe gun-rights should be one of those exceptions.

Since most conservatives don't support these exceptions  (e.g. Trump admin is challenging the sexual orientation exception) it might look odd for them to ADD another exception just for gun-owners.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

:rolleyes:  <_<

Top Arizona GOP official asks supporters to help stop 'gun grabber' Mark Kelly 'dead in his tracks'

State GOP Chairwoman Kelli Ward in a fundraising email sent Friday called on supporters to help defeat the former astronaut, 

who is also the husband of former Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-Ariz.), who resigned in 2012 after being seriously injured by a gunman's assassination attempt that left six other people dead. .......

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/460277-top-ariz-gop-official-asks-supporters-to-help-stop-gun-grabber-mark-kelly

  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, jamesjazzguitar said:

This would appear to create conflicts for conservatives \ anti-nanny-state types:   those that believe businesses should have the right to refuse services (with only exceptions for very specific reasons like race, gender,  religion,,,) and those that believe gun-rights should be one of those exceptions.

Since most conservatives don't support these exceptions  (e.g. Trump admin is challenging the sexual orientation exception) it might look odd for them to ADD another exception just for gun-owners.

 

Businesses should be allowed to refuse whoever they want- guns or otherwise.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Gershwin fan said:

Businesses should be allowed to refuse whoever they want- guns or otherwise.

I agree with this unless those that are discriminated against can show they have been economically harmed.

E.g.  If there is only one gas station in town,  it can't refuse services,  since doing so would cause economic harm to those singled out.      

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/6/2019 at 8:46 PM, Gershwin fan said:

Businesses should be allowed to refuse whoever they want- guns or otherwise.

 

On 9/7/2019 at 12:39 PM, jamesjazzguitar said:

I agree with this unless those that are discriminated against can show they have been economically harmed.

E.g.  If there is only one gas station in town,  it can't refuse services,  since doing so would cause economic harm to those singled out.      

There is a BIG difference between discriminating and maintaining a safe or comfortable place for those using a facility.  Just as requiring shirts and shoes in most restaurants and stores is not discrimination.  Always wondered why they don't require pants though.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
© 2020 Turner Classic Movies Inc. A Time Warner Company. All Rights Reserved Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Cookie Settings
×
×
  • Create New...