Comments
LSHDnato t1_iufr3x2 wrote
So after completing the application. Submitting proof you legally own the guns you intend to carry with serial numbers. Passing a qualification. Agreeing to a complete mental health background. Fingerprints and passport photos. Granted the right to carry by the local judge. You still don’t want people to legally and lawfully carry? Go to (insert any ghetto) after 9pm and tell me how many of those people carrying guns did any of that.
BF_2 OP t1_iud8ysj wrote
I've got a plan: Let the NRA and right-wingers have their way with allowing guns wherever -- PROVIDED the same provisions apply to their events.
Ever notice how guns are banned at NRA conventions, Trump rallies, etc.? Why is that? I mean, all gun owners are forthright, upstanding, trustworthy folk, aren't they?
Under my suggested legislation, NRA wouldn't be able to ban guns (not even semi-automatic rifles) at their events, unless such guns are also banned everywhere (*) else. Same true for Trump rallies, CPAC conventions, etc., etc. One size fits all. After all, the only remedy for a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun -- right!?! /s
_________________________
* Okay, maybe not quite everywhere. Guns would be allowed on practice ranges and while hunting (and I mean deer and other game animals, not humans!), subject to hunting regulations. Otherwise, all or nothing. If gun owners be allowed to carry in the downtown, then they should also be allowed to carry in the NRA convention. Or while visiting the Supreme Court. /s
Regayov t1_iudbkdx wrote
> Ever notice how guns are banned at NRA conventions, Trump rallies, etc.?
Ever notice that it’s not the NRA banning? It’s the management of the convention center, local/state laws, or required by the Secret Service when attended by politicians.
BF_2 OP t1_iudclar wrote
And your point is ... ?
Do you think those convention center managers would be allowed to ban guns in their venue if the new laws don't allow them to?
Regayov t1_iuddbl2 wrote
You said “NRA bans” when it’s not the NRA.
As far as I know, private property owners can prohibit firearms on their property in every state. Sometimes it’s auto-felony, sometimes it’s “asked to leave and Tresspass if you don’t” but they have that right.
peter-doubt t1_iuevu5f wrote
Ever noticed the NRA headquarters bans visitors bringing guns?
Of course not, you're an apologist
Regayov t1_iuew108 wrote
I’ve also given zero shits about the NRA and it’s headquarters. And?
peter-doubt t1_iuewkl2 wrote
Doesn't make you less of an apologist
Regayov t1_iuewrym wrote
Perhaps. Tho the fact that I never apologized for anything does. What the heck are you even talking about?
HI_Handbasket t1_iuf4q0r wrote
You spoke up and are unwilling to defend your own position, wonderful.
Regayov t1_iuf6jis wrote
I defended my point, that the rules/prohibitions the OP cited weren’t on the NRA. Then the goalposts were moved to different circumstances. I’m not playing the what-if game.
HI_Handbasket t1_iuf4lwi wrote
Then the NRA should find other gun friendly venues. The NRA agrees to the contract, so yes, it IS the NRA.
Big_Dinner3636 t1_iuglso9 wrote
NRA stands for Negotiating Rights Away. They're just a money grift for boomers. Organizations like FPC and NAAGA actually focus on protecting people's 2nd Amendment rights.
Regayov t1_iudb5ky wrote
> There are education and insurance requirements for new applicants seeking a carry license.
The bill now requires the same insurance that Murphy explicitly prohibited in an EO and called “murder insurance”.
> In addition, there are 25 categories of public places where guns will still be restricted. Those include schools, bars, government buildings, college campuses and, yes, sports arenas
And 20 other “categories” including your own car, public transportation, and any private property that does not explicitly opt in. It basically bans carry in most of the state. That is specifically called out in Bruen as being unconstitutional.