Lets find out where we all stand.

Thanks for the response.

But that is a restriction, and #5 states no restrictions.

That's why I consider #5 to be as ridiculous as #1, for which no one voted. There are simply some gun control laws that make total sense, at least to me, and should NEVER be abolished. A person should always have the right to ban guns from his home. An establishment should always have the right to ban guns. People who carry guns should not be allowed to drink alcohol in excess, or at all.

I'm surprised that only 1 person who voted for #5 has responded to my simple question.

NiceGuy53, you are correct. My apologies. As I said, I went back and forth between 3 and 4 and finally landed on #3. Although I am content with the gun control in my state of Texas, I think some states laws should be stricter in some regards. But before IB hops on my case, I am NOT advocating that ANY state enact stricter gun control laws. I also believe that some states probably have TOO strict gun control laws, such as N.J. and its issuance of CHLs. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I was looking at the question of ownership, and you've brought in the issue of private vs. public scenarios. I should have no more right to bring my gun into your house than I have to fuck my wife in front of your kids while they watch cartoons in your house. It's your house, not mine. I think that's a different issue.

I'm all for no guns in public, but all for open ownership. Anyone with exclusive rights to a weapon has an advantage I object to.

That last paragraph raises the possibility that a third party tries to deny you the right to bear arms. In this case, the real owner of an apartment. Does an apartment management center (on behalf of the owner) have the right to say that you can't possess a gun in your apartment? I pointed out smoking because they already do that (but smoking is not a right). Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

I wasn't trying to cover every scenario. I was simply pointing out that your #1 denies basic rights to gun owners that most people would believe are guaranteed. And #5 denies basic rights to non gun owners that most people would believe are guaranteed.

I was looking at the question of ownership, and you've brought in the issue of private vs. public scenarios. I should have no more right to bring my gun into your house than I have to fuck my wife in front of your kids while they watch cartoons in your house. It's your house, not mine. I think that's a different issue.

I'm all for no guns in public, but all for open ownership. Anyone with exclusive rights to a weapon has an advantage I object to. Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

I'm confused. You voted for "No restrictions other than age and citizenship" yet you are saying I have the right to ban guns from my home.

I think they have amended that, placing more emphasis on "intentionally".
It is a defense if the CHL holder convinces a judge or jury that it was accidental.

Of course, you will probably still have to " take the ride", as they say. Originally Posted by Jackie S

That was the 2013 revision. There is a movement to place more emphasis on "intentionally" as you say but i don't think it has come up yet. I would like to see it relaxed a bit because it is something that I am always conscious of. Always checking to make sure you are completely concealed can be a giveaway that you are carrying.
I'm not in favor of open carry and would never open carry as it can make you a target as well.

I say we should all be able to carry in the open/conceal wtf ever we want. But every business should be able to ask someone to not carry in their business and shoot their ass if they do not comply.

I'm confused. You voted for "No restrictions other than age and citizenship" yet you are saying I have the right to ban guns from my home. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I think an individual can set some restrictions in his own home that are out of the jurisdiction of the government.

Let's say there are no restrictions and everyone can carry open. I think a homeowner is entitled to set restrictions in his own home regarding whether you bring that gun into his house. For the most part I think my rights in my home trump your rights in my home.

If you show up to my home with a weapon and I ask you to disarm before entering I believe I have the right to deny you entry if you don't. If you insist and physically enter without complying to my request then the Castle Doctrine says a reasonable man would be justified in believing you want to cause me physical harm. At that point I can defend myself my home and my familiy by any means up to and including lethal force. Furthermore the Castle Doctrine take the burden off of me to prove that I was acting in a reasonable manner and puts the burden of proof on the intruder to prove that I was not reasonable. It's Pretty difficult to say a man is not being reasonable in his own home when it comes to how he chooses to protect it upon intrusion.

BTW I voted for status Quo.

I say we should all be able to carry in the open/conceal wtf ever we want. But every business should be able to ask someone to not carry in their business and shoot their ass if they do not comply. Originally Posted by WTF

I can go along with that.

I say we should all be able to carry in the open/conceal wtf ever we want. But every business should be able to ask someone to not carry in their business and shoot their ass if they do not comply. Originally Posted by WTF

While I agree that people should have the right to carry in the open, with proper training, I would suggest that people use their brains when doing so. The overwhelming majority of the people do NOT want to see others carrying guns as they go about their daily business, shopping at Walmart or Macys, or Home Depot. Or sitting in Starbucks drinking their lattes.

I think an individual can set some restrictions in his own home that are out of the jurisdiction of the government.

Let's say there are no restrictions and everyone can carry open. I think a homeowner is entitled to set restrictions in his own home regarding whether you bring that gun into his house. For the most part I think my rights in my home trump your rights in my home.

If you show up to my home with a weapon and I ask you to disarm before entering I believe I have the right to deny you entry if you don't. If you insist and physically enter without complying to my request then the Castle Doctrine says a reasonable man would be justified in believing you want to cause me physical harm. At that point I can defend myself my home and my familiy by any means up to and including lethal force. Furthermore the Castle Doctrine take the burden off of me to prove that I was acting in a reasonable manner and puts the burden of proof on the intruder to prove that I was not reasonable. It's Pretty difficult to say a man is not being reasonable in his own home when it comes to how he chooses to protect it upon intrusion.

BTW I voted for status Quo. Originally Posted by boardman

Be careful with the Castle Doctrine, since it is enforced differently in different states. In many states it is as you say -- the homeowner is very justified in almost any action he takes if an intruder is in the home. In other states, the homeowner must prove that the intruder is in the act of committing a crime.

New York has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine, but it is considered weaker than castle doctrine laws in other states. In New York, a duty to retreat exists in any place outside one’s home. Within the home, the statute authorizes deadly force as long as the resident is not the initial aggressor. Outside the home, however, persons must retreat from attackers if they can do so safely.


With respect to victims who are inside their own home, New York’s law states in part:


A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary.

While I agree that people should have the right to carry in the open, with proper training, I would suggest that people use their brains when doing so. The overwhelming majority of the people do NOT want to see others carrying guns as they go about their daily business, shopping at Walmart or Macys, or Home Depot. Or sitting in Starbucks drinking their lattes. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Tough shit what the majority wants....the majority of people do not want gay people to marry. Some God damn Muslim have laws where women have to cover their face....is that right just because the majority wants something? People should have personal rights until they abuse them. Then punish them , not a whole segment of society for a few fuck ups.


Why do you think we have chuldren at the border? Because a group of women cried about sex slaves. Instead of just arresting folks involved in that bery small but horrendous venture...they pass a law basically assuming all are sex trafficked.

Tough shit what the majority wants....the majority of people do not want gay people to marry. Some God damn Muslim have laws where women have to cover their face....is that right just because the majority wants something? People should have personal rights until they abuse them. Then punish them , not a whole segment of society for a few fuck ups. Originally Posted by WTF

And it's attitudes like that that piss off citizens and police alike.

BTW, the latest poll shows 55% of Americans support gay marriage.

Be careful with the Castle Doctrine, since it is enforced differently in different states. In many states it is as you say -- the homeowner is very justified in almost any action he takes if an intruder is in the home. In other states, the homeowner must prove that the intruder is in the act of committing a crime.

New York has a self-defense law based on the castle doctrine, but it is considered weaker than castle doctrine laws in other states. In New York, a duty to retreat exists in any place outside one’s home. Within the home, the statute authorizes deadly force as long as the resident is not the initial aggressor. Outside the home, however, persons must retreat from attackers if they can do so safely.


With respect to victims who are inside their own home, New York’s law states in part:


A person in possession or control of, or licensed or privileged to be in, a dwelling or an occupied building, who reasonably believes that another person is committing or attempting to commit a burglary of such dwelling or building, may use deadly physical force upon such other person when he or she reasonably believes such to be necessary to prevent or terminate the commission or attempted commission of such burglary. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

That's not Castle Doctrine.

New York is one of few states remaining that doesn't have some form of Castle Doctrine.
I am only speaking about those states that have a Castle Doctrine.

The whole jist of Castle laws is to remove the duty to retreat before using deadly force when one is in their home or in some U.S. states just simply where one can legally be and to take the burden of proof off of the person using the deadly force. All one has to say is I was in fear for my life. It would be the prosecutors burden to prove he wasn't.

In New York the prosecutor still has the luxury of saying the actor had a duty to retreat, or that he acted reasonably and that he must prove he made the right decisiont. That's a big difference

Be careful with the Castle Doctrine, since it is enforced differently in different states. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

If I read Boardman correctly, he's talking about an invited guest or family member who has "guest" privileges generally speaking, and NOT intruders. Castle Doctrine inapplicable.

I agree with Boardman, one's "rights" end at my property line. If I say do not come onto my property (regardless of the reason I give), don't come on my property. If one does after being instructed not to do so, then that one is trespassing. One has no "right" to bring a firearm onto my property, period. If I say don't and the person keeps coming, I will "assume" the person intends to do me harm and will take pre-emptive, preventive measures to stop the unwanted ingress.

That's not Castle Doctrine.

New York is one of few states remaining that doesn't have some form of Castle Doctrine.
I am only speaking about those states that have a Castle Doctrine.

The whole jist of Castle laws is to remove the duty to retreat before using deadly force when one is in their home or in some U.S. states just simply where one can legally be and to take the burden of proof off of the person using the deadly force. All one has to say is I was in fear for my life. It would be the prosecutors burden to prove he wasn't.

In New York the prosecutor still has the luxury of saying the actor had a duty to retreat, or that he acted reasonably and that he must prove he made the right decision. That's a big difference Originally Posted by boardman

Technically, at least in the state of Texas, there is no statute regarding something called a "Castle Law". That is simply a name given to cover the rights of homeowners in protecting their homes.

I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. I can cite several articles that state a Castle Law exists in NY.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Castle_doctrine

http://www.mjsacco.com/articles/ny-c...ome-intruders/

http://www.longislandfirearms.com/fo...ut-has-no-sta/

I don't like using Wikipedia as a source, but if you read the state statutes state-by-state you will find several that allow a homeowner to use deadly force only when the homeowner believes his/her life to be threatened.

I would certainly agree that an intruder is in your home in the middle of the night it would be tough for a prosecutor to prove that deadly force was not necessary.

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1055572852

I agree with Boardman, one's "rights" end at my property line. If I say do not come onto my property (regardless of the reason I give), don't come on my property. If one does after being instructed not to do so, then that one is trespassing. One has no "right" to bring a firearm onto my property, period. If I say don't and the person keeps coming, I will "assume" the person intends to do me harm and will take pre-emptive, preventive measures to stop the unwanted ingress.[/QUOTE]

A homeowner's rights inside the home are very different from a homeowner's rights outside the home. I can't talk about the laws in all 50 states, but in Texas you better be damn sure that the person on your property outside your home is a threat to your life before opening fire. Obviously, a person with a firearm on your property is a threat. Without a firearm or another type of deadly weapon, be careful. Ask Fred Yazdi.

http://austin.twcnews.com/content/ne...y-ranch-murder