Would you ban guns or other arms anywhere? And, if so, what kinds?

[BoomChick]

Virginia Tech is a shining example of what happens because of "Kill for Free Zones and leave our kids and their teachers defenseless zones..." AKA: Gun Free School Zones...

I agree! I thought I made it clear that I wanted guns to be allowed in schools. . . . .

[tattedupboy]

I agree! I thought I made it clear that I wanted guns to be allowed in schools. . . . .

By the law abiding citizens of course.

[squisher]

I agree with BoomChick, inmates in jails, prisons and other penal facilities ought not be armed. They couldn't follow the rules, they get things taken away...

Psychiatric institutions are another area I would keep weapons out of easy reach, some of the poor troubled souls honestly just don't know any better. You HAVE to be able to "know better" to be able to be trusted with something as powerful as a gun.

Outside of those two instances (off the top of my head), I see no reason to restrict weapons. Caliber, barrel length, conceal ability, auto fire, semi auto fire, etc. ought not be restricted.

Education perhaps, but not restrictions.

[tattedupboy]

I agree with BoomChick, inmates in jails, prisons and other penal facilities ought not be armed. They couldn't follow the rules, they get things taken away...

Psychiatric institutions are another area I would keep weapons out of easy reach, some of the poor troubled souls honestly just don't know any better. You HAVE to be able to "know better" to be able to be trusted with something as powerful as a gun.

Outside of those two instances (off the top of my head), I see no reason to restrict weapons. Caliber, barrel length, conceal ability, auto fire, semi auto fire, etc. ought not be restricted.

Education perhaps, but not restrictions.

Actually, I can find something in the Constitution that could justify not allowing inmates to be armed. The Fourteenth Amendment says:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

According to this phrase these things (which presumably also means RKBA) cannot be taken away without due process, which suggests that with due process, they can be.

[BoomChick]

Actually, I can find something in the Constitution that could justify not allowing inmates to be armed. The Fourteenth Amendment says:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

According to this phrase these things (which presumably also means RKBA) cannot be taken away without due process, which suggests that with due process, they can be.

Interesting point. Does this suggest that gun bans are doubly unconstitutional since the individuals have been denied due process? I've not received due process to deny me the right to carry on campus/parks/etc. So, why has this liberty been taken away? hmmm... excellent! Would be interesting if folks started demanding their due process for this under the fourteenth!

[tattedupboy]

Virginia Tech is a shining example of what happens because of "Kill for Free Zones and leave our kids and their teachers defenseless zones..." AKA: Gun Free School Zones...

I admire the activism in you, Bohemian, and the fact that you want no compromises when it comes to 2A, which is the way it should be. But, because we're dealing with things the way they are instead of how they should be, would you consider the "salami stacking" approach advocated by Luke in one of his previous posts?

[squisher]

Actually, I can find something in the Constitution that could justify not allowing inmates to be armed. The Fourteenth Amendment says:

No person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process.

According to this phrase these things (which presumably also means RKBA) cannot be taken away without due process, which suggests that with due process, they can be.

Good point on the due process. Better legal terms than what I opined. I agree completely.

[LongRider]

You bet I have an issue with DU.

Our nations abuse of our soldiers is not limited to exposure to DU. We have the greatest Country on earth in all of history bar none. But our nation has done some of the vilest things a country has ever done. Our treatment of our warriors is among the very worst thing we do and we keep on doing it. Yet our soldiers continue to serve heart, mind, body and soul with honor integrity courage and dedication without reservation. Giving all that they have, giving more than most even they knew they had to give. It is for that reason that I get bent when I hear about how vets should not be "allowed" to exercise their rights if they have PTSD. If they have wounded and scarred from the death and dying pain, suffering and horror they endured in service of our nation. Because they "might" do some thing off. It was OK for them to bear arms with PTSD in defense of this nation in service to their fellow man but we don't want them defending their own lives or the lives to their loved ones. How does service to our nation justify depriving a man of his inalienable God given right to life and protect that life because of something they "MIGHT" do.
Why?
They paid the price of admission not just for themselves but for us all. Those that paid are entitled to step up to the table first. The rest of us get to say thank you for the freedom and liberty they paid for. Period. In my mind to imply that they are not entitled to every right and privilege this nation has to offer is treasonous. Until we have seen the horror paid the price we have no place it saying if they are qualified to bear arms. Our warriors need be treated fairly with all the rights and privileges we all enjoy. The ones they paid for. Including due process penalized after they violate the rules not before and the right to bear arms as they did in defense of this nation

[gdcleanfun]

IMHO, we should should have the right to carry our firearms anywhere and everywhere that a BG can carry his/her firearm.

[gdcleanfun]

A good example would be the state of NV. If you don't have a CC permit/license, you're not allowed to carry a firearm. If you feel the need to protect yourself, this leaves the option of a Taser gun. As long as you're 18+, you're allowed to carry a Taser. Concealed or otherwise, you will have it available should the need arise. Take it that it's not as effective as a firearm, but it sure beats having nothing at all.
...
gf

GF stated: "... If you don't have a CC permit/license, you're not allowed to carry a firearm. ..."

I hate being a newbie to this state (anywhere!) but I'm just look for some clarification, not looking for arguments. Do we need some sort of permit to carry openly in Nevada, or just the permit I was issued for concealed carry?

I will look for a better CCW instructor the next time around!