This message was self-deleted by its author

[Agschmid]

This message was self-deleted by its author (Agschmid) on Sun Sep 27, 2015, 12:30 PM. When the original post in a discussion thread is self-deleted, the entire discussion thread is automatically locked so new replies cannot be posted.

[Hoyt]

1. Currently consequences arent much. The irresponsible gun owner simply goes out and buys another one

to keep unsecured in their car. Then, they get on forums like this, or some right wing gun site, and promote more gunz in more places.

[Sunlei]

2. I should be against the law to leave your gun unattended inside a car, or in a house with under 18.

[XemaSab]

87. If you're going for a day of goose hunting at Colusa National Wildlife Refuge

and your shotgun is in your truck when you run into Granzella's and someone takes it, what should the penalty be for having your own shit stolen out of your own truck?

[Crunchy Frog]

93. People should at least be held legally liable for the consequences. n/t

[justhanginon]

3. There is also no requirement that you even have to

report the gun stolen. As previously said, just go out and get another one. The amendment to require notifying police that a gun was stolen was voted down in the Missouristan legislature after the beloved shitheads at the NRA came out against it. SSDD

[Blue_Tires]

14. off-topic, but who's the girl in your sig?

[mikeysnot]

5. Guns, keeping people safe and saving lives....

in peoples imaginations.

[Glassunion]

6. Responsible gun owners

Remember, they had their guns stolen, so they are the victim.

[onehandle]

7. Stolen and illegal guns are the profit margin for gun companies.

Those who promote the 'rights' of gun companies are complicit.

[GGJohn]

40. There's a place on DU for your CT's.

Here, I'll provide the link.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=forum&id=1135

[Lizzie Poppet]

12. When I'm going to a place I can't carry, I leave the weapon at home.

If I'm flying, going to a courthouse, etc., I don't carry. I don't particularly like that, but I'm not going to leave a weapon inadequately secured. My gun safe at home is vastly more secure than my car.

As far as places where it's legal to carry despite the property owner's wishes, I most always simply choose not to go to such places.

[Lizzie Poppet]

19. Not one I particularly care for, but the one I made.

I gave a lot of thought to the matter of carrying in places where the property owner prohibits it (but it isn't illegal). I elected to respect their property rights. If it's a business and there are reasonably competitive alternatives that don't prohibit concealed carry, I patronize the alternatives. About the only time I violate my own policy (and the owner's wishes) is if I have a really compelling reason to be somewhere that prohibits carry and I consider the locale to be sketchy. Not a common occurrence, obviously. I also regularly carry in one nightclub I frequent that prohibits weapons...but the owner and I are pretty good friends, he knows I carry, and has no problem with it (he knows I'm not a "gun flasher" or troublemaker).

[ColesCountyDem]

22. So, you're OK with violating the property owner's right to insist you not carry?

Hmmmmmmm....

[ColesCountyDem]

24. Violating someone else's rights doesn't strike me as a progressive value.

I'm old-fashioned, because I believe that your fist's rights end where my nose begins. I'd be interested in hearing how you square your position with another person's right to control what happens on their property.

[Straw Man]

25. So ...

So, you're OK with violating the property owner's right to insist you not carry?

... you're OK with leaving the gun where it can fall into criminal hands?

[ColesCountyDem]

26. Not at all.

Leave it at home in your gun safe, and it should be just fine.

[Straw Man]

28. Gee, ...

Leave it at home in your gun safe, and it should be just fine.

... if we had enough gun-free zones, we could put an end to concealed carry without even passing any new legislation!

Is that the game plan?

[ColesCountyDem]

29. I don't have a game plan.

I just know the best way to a.) not violate someone else's rights, and b.) not get your firearm stolen.

[Straw Man]

31. You forgot one.

I just know the best way to a.) not violate someone else's rights, and b.) not get your firearm stolen.

c.) inhibit the exercise of a Constitutional right without resorting to legislative or judicial action.

Yup, property rights are rights too, but those who want to make public and commercial spaces gun-free should realize that they may be helping to arm criminals.

[ColesCountyDem]

37. I didn't forget a thing.

Your Constitutional rights are inhibited every day. Try going into a 7-11 and giving a speech about anything. You will be booted out on your ear, and doing so will not violate your Constitutional right to free speech, because it's private property.

[Straw Man]

39. Private property trumps all?

Your Constitutional rights are inhibited every day. Try going into a 7-11 and giving a speech about anything. You will be booted out on your ear, and doing so will not violate your Constitutional right to free speech, because it's private property.

They have that right, certainly, but unless I were interfering with business I don't see why they would -- unless, of course, I were espousing a position the owner found objectionable.

On that note, how do you feel about business owners refusing to serve gay couples? OK because it's private property?

[ColesCountyDem]

43. Private property trumps your CC rights.

As far as the business owners refusing to serve gay couples, it violates the couple's rights.

Nice try.

[Straw Man]

44. Really?

Private property trumps your CC rights.

As far as the business owners refusing to serve gay couples, it violates the couple's rights.

So in your formulation, private property trumps some rights but not others? That seems rather inconsistent. Care to explain your reasoning there?

[ColesCountyDem]

56. No, I don't care to debate this any further with you, and the two situations are not comparable

One is treating everyone in the same manner-- no one may bring a gun on to private property-- and the other has nothing to do with private property whatsoever and involves treating one group of people differently than another group of people similarly situated.

Bye.

[Straw Man]

58. Of course you don't.

No, I don't care to debate this any further with you, and the two situations are not comparable

One is treating everyone in the same manner-- no one may bring a gun on to private property-- and the other has nothing to do with private property whatsoever and involves treating one group of people differently than another group of people similarly situated.

Bye.

Different? Only in that one is a selective denial of rights and the other is a universal denial. I'm not sure why you prefer the latter, but apparently you are unwilling -- or unable -- to explain.

[ColesCountyDem]

59. No, you keep asking me to explain why entirely different fact patterns...

... and issues of Constitutional law aren't dealt with in the same way. I'm tired of the tactic.

[Straw Man]

60. Tactic?

No, you keep asking me to explain why entirely different fact patterns...

... and issues of Constitutional law aren't dealt with in the same way. I'm tired of the tactic.

It's called "discussion." All I'm asking is that you defend your pronouncements.

[ColesCountyDem]

61. No, it's a tactic.

Your posts are nothing but a series of false equivalencies intended to make it appear as though my stances are illogical and inconsistent, which they are not, , and that's not a discussion, it's a tactic.

[Straw Man]

63. Because you say it is?

Your posts are nothing but a series of false equivalencies intended to make it appear as though my stances are illogical and inconsistent, which they are not, , and that's not a discussion, it's a tactic.

False because you say they are? Without supporting your contentions? Sorry, that's not discussion.

[ColesCountyDem]

64. No, because it is what it is.

I've already 'supported it' by pointing out that a.) the fact patterns are different, and b.) the applicable Constitutional principles involved are also different.

[Straw Man]

68. Wrong.

I've already 'supported it' by pointing out that a.) the fact patterns are different, and b.) the applicable Constitutional principles involved are also different.

You have established a.) but not b.).

Facts are not in dispute; interpretations are. The issue has not been conclusively settled in law. Your opinions are simply that: opinions.

[ColesCountyDem]

69. Wrong.

b.) involves the 2nd Amendment, as it applies to CC on private property, and the 14th Amendment (and the Commerce Clause), as it involves the bakery.

Care to prove that &quot t )he issue has not been conclusively settled in law"?

[Straw Man]

72. I refer you to ...

... Branford's post below:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1002&pid=7122083

The issue is still evolving. I obviously would argue that the right to keep and bear arms should be protected as much as other fundamental rights. You obviously don't. But it is not a settled issue, except in your mind.

[ColesCountyDem]

75. And I asked you to *prove* what you wrote.

Case law? Statutes? Ordinances?

[Straw Man]

78. Prove what?

That I think the right to keep and bear arms should be as protected as other rights? That some are using the "private property" defense as an excuse to deny other fundamental rights? That I consider your support of CC bans to be as indefensible as these other denials?

We're looking at two opinions and an observable fact. I'm not sure what you want me "prove."

I never disputed the legal right of property owners to ban CC. I do question the wisdom of that policy, especially in light of the uses some business owners are making of their private-property rights.

How would you feel about a business owners banning the wearing of the hijab on his/her private property, for example? Arguably not discriminatory, right? No one, not just Muslims, can enter with a hijab, just as no one can enter carrying a concealed weapon. Would you consider that to be ethically defensible?

[ColesCountyDem]

79. From post #64:

...You have established a.) but not b.).

Facts are not in dispute; interpretations are. The issue has not been conclusively settled in law. Your opinions are simply that: opinions. ( underlining mine)

Prove that it has not been conclusively settled. Cases, statutes and ordinances would constitute proof.

[Straw Man]

80. Proof?

Prove that it has not been conclusively settled. Cases, statutes and ordinances would constitute proof.

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not disallow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The issue is being hashed out in state legislatures and courts as we speak. Are you disputing that?

The issue most likely will eventually reach the Supreme Court, as it should. The core of the issue is the balance between the private property rights of business owners and the protected rights of the populace. My opinion is that the issue should be decided in favor of the general protected rights. What's yours?

You can scream "case law" until you're blue in the face. You haven't provided any.

[ColesCountyDem]

82. As Reagan famously said, "There you go again!"

Either provide a link to a statute, case or ordinance negating a property owner's right to forbid CC on his or her property, or admit that none exist. I will NOT be drawn into other issues of Constitutional law that do not deal with the aforementioned.

Am I clear? Can you hear me now?

[Straw Man]

89. You missed the fact ...

Either provide a link to a statute, case or ordinance negating a property owner's right to forbid CC on his or her property, or admit that none exist.

... that I never denied that they currently have that right -- at least under Federal law and in most jurisdictions that I know of. But the right is far from absolute.

http://www.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303983904579095532026750354?mod=e2tw

In any case, that was never the point. The point was my analogy between those denials and the anti-gay practices of other business owners, justified with the same rationale you're giving for CC bans. I think they're analogous. You don't, but you won't defend your position except by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "Case law! Case law!" over and over.

I will NOT be drawn into other issues of Constitutional law that do not deal with the aforementioned.

Meaning that you won't discuss anything beyond the one obvious fact that I never disputed. Apparently the broader issue makes you uncomfortable.

Am I clear? Can you hear me now?

It has always been clear to me that you don't want to discuss the broader issue. Feel free to break off at any time, but don't try to pretend that your reluctance is somehow my fault.

[ColesCountyDem]

91. The legal fact patterns are NOT analogous, and the rationales are NOT the same!

Last edited Sun Aug 30, 2015, 08:58 AM - Edit history (1)

Your argument continues to be that my rationale for a private property owner lawfully banning CC on his property and a business owner denying equal treatment to a class of people in the course of his business is the same, and it is not. You refuse to see that the situations are completely different and involve completely different Constitutional questions. There is no 'broader issue'.

You further argue that a property owner's right to ban CC on his/her property is 'far from absolute', yet you are unable to cite a single case, statute or ordinance that proves otherwise, choosing instead to ridicule my demand for proof.

I resent people putting words in my mouth that I have not spoken, and putting forth straw man arguments. You may address my demand for proof by providing some at any time, but quit pretending that my refusal to be drawn into a completely different area of Constitutional law is somehow my fault, so feel free to break off at any time.

P.S.-- I'm done. If you want the last word, you can have it.

[Straw Man]

102. Last word?

I'm skeptical.

Your argument continues to be that my rationale for a private property owner lawfully banning CC on his property and a business owner denying equal treatment to a class of people in the course of his business is the same, and it is not. You refuse to see that the situations are completely different and involve completely different Constitutional questions. There is no 'broader issue'.

This was always about business owners and what they do on the property where they operate. Did you think we were talking about entering people's homes? The issue is and always was businesses that post their property "No Guns Allowed." And there certainly is a broader issue: the extent to which property owners can discriminate on private property that is open to the public.

I posed the question about the hijab because it bridges the divide between a "class of people" and a voluntary action. I've heard the argument from those who defend the French ban that "they can just leave hijab at home" if they want to attend a public school. I think the underlying rights issues are similar and worthy of discussion. You don't want to discuss it. Your prerogative.

You further argue that a property owner's right to ban CC on his/her property is 'far from absolute', yet you are unable to cite a single case, statute or ordinance that proves otherwise, choosing instead to ridicule my demand for proof.

I gave you a citation showing that in many states business owners cannot bar their employees from having weapons in their cars on company property. This contradicts your contention that the right to bar firearms on private property is absolute under the law. I'll stand: it's far from absolute.

Your demand for "proof" was an attempt to narrow and shift the focus of the discussion. And as I've just pointed out, I did provide proof, whether you acknowledge it or not.

[branford]

62. Not all private property is treated the same under the law,

and Congress and the states can regulate it under a variety of constitutional standards (e.g., public accommodations).

Generally, owners of private property can restrict who enters and stays. However, the government can similarly restrict such discretion, particularly when constitutional rights are concerned in quasi-public location. This can mean requiring stores and offices to treat customers the same regardless of race, gender, sexual orientation, etc., or to not discriminate again people who own or carry firearms if otherwise acting in accordance with the law (e.g., laws permitting firearms on college campuses).

[ColesCountyDem]

65. Be prepared to defend your logic, branford.

[branford]

67. Don't thank me too fast.

Many areas of the country protect the right to people to carry firearms at work or into schools, stores, public buildings, parks, and other buildings and locations generally open to the public, via statute or common law, in the same manner as other more common access and service requirements people are more familiar with such as protections concerning gender, race, religion, disability, age, sexual orientation, etc.

As an attorney, part of my practice in NY involves employment and related civil rights law (e.g., disability and housing access, etc.), the area of law is fairly complex and still evolving (e.g., recent religious accommodation disputes in the news), and unsurprisingly, most people do not understand it fully or know their rights and remedies.

My quick perusal of your discussion with Straw Man seems to indicate that you are both arguing past one another, and creating fact patterns and legal interpretations that fit your individual personal views in a total vacuum. Where you hypothetical person intends to carry a weapon is very pertinent to the discussion.

[ColesCountyDem]

70. I thank you for expanding on the legal issues involved.

I'm not arguing past Straw Man, I'm simply refusing to be drawn into defending or arguing that which I did not write. While MO has a CC law, it does not have a law prohibiting the owners of private property from forbidding CC on the property they own.

If Straw Man wishes to argue a separate issue, he should simply state as much, rather than trying to frame the issue as me needing to reconcile my original statement with whatever he posits.

[branford]

73. I would just note that many of statutes preventing discrimination against those

who own or carry firearms, particularly stores, malls, restaurants, etc., are local municipal ordinances rather than statewide laws. They are generally more common is rural and exurban counties and towns.

As I'm not familiar with MO firearm laws or culture, I cannot say if such ordinances are prevalent in the state.

[ColesCountyDem]

74. Quite true.

I live just across the Mississippi River from MO, and the CC laws are fairly lax, and MO is essentially very 'gun friendly'. There are no local ordinances overriding a property owner's right to ban CC on his/her property, as far as I'm aware.

[ileus]

10. Without gun free zones folks won't have to leave PSDs in their vehicles.

Don't want them left in vehicles, then allow CC.


Safety first, getting your firearm stolen never.

[ileus]

13. Exactly....everyone overlooks the obvious solution.

Don't want firearms left in vehicles, don't make laws that promote stolen guns.

[Action_Patrol]

21. That's an insane position to take. Wow

[Eleanors38]

36. I know a few business owners who don't want guns in their stores...

and they damned well don't want signs advertising the fact. But in the spirit of safer communities, I recommend not taking a gun with you to places who don't get the drift, unless you have an exceptionally strong car lock box. Criminals know the ropes.

[dbackjon]

30. It is safer not to carry at all

[ManiacJoe]

90. Care to support your claim?

[Hoyt]

32. Learn to go places without a gun or two strapped to your body. Do you normally wear

your vest to protect you?

[GGJohn]

41. Just for you.

Fact is that it's a personal choice, one that I do make on a daily basis, now, in AZ, we have constitutional carry, or one can apply for the permit, take the course, and get their permit to be able to carry in other states that have a reciprocity agreement with AZ.
I chose the latter route because the wife and I sometimes travel to other states..

BTW, she has a permit to carry also.

[Hoyt]

46. It's a personal choice that adversely affects society, just like your 3 or 4 gun safes

packed full of lethal weapons and ammo.

[beevul]

47. Theres a difference between adversely effecting society, and simply bothering you.

Him having guns in a safe effects society not at all.

It just bothers you, is all...which is just fine with me.

[Hoyt]

50. You are wrong, but I get you need to protect your precious gunz.

[GGJohn]

51. Explain why he's wrong? eom.

[beevul]

53. Compelling argument.

[GGJohn]

49. How does our CCW's adversely affect society?

Do tell.

It just bugs the shit out of you that I have 3-4 safes full of firearms doesn't it.

[Hoyt]

54. I know you supported him, but Zimmerman is a good example, as is OP.

And yes, gun polluters and promoters bother me.

[GGJohn]

55. I supported Zimmerman?

Got any links? Because I sure as hell don't remember that, in fact, I didn't even have an account here during that time.

So unless you have any links, you need to apologize for lying about me and delete this post.

[Duckhunter935]

77. That apology will never happen

they either just run away when called out or change the subject, move the goalposts, lol.

[GGJohn]

81. Oh I know that,

he likes to throw shit and see what sticks, which is rare.

[ileus]

57. Naw I normally just carry my personal safety device.

[Hoyt]

71. You actually carry a lethal weapon. If it were just a "PSD," you and the other gunners would not

be interested.

[ileus]

85. It's not lethal if not used, and it's not a weapon if used for protection.

[Hoyt]

88. Yoy wouldn't strap it on if it were not lethal and "empowering."

[pintobean]

34. I agree

Those "no guns allowed" signs only stop the law abiding citizens from being armed, anyway. The criminals don't give a flying fuck about those signs, other that seeing easy targets.

[beevul]

48. (properly placed this time) You must not have gotten the memo...

[Lee-Lee]

16. Lots of victim blaming here

Shouldn't the focus be on teaching people not to steal, instead of victim blaming and shaming?

The people who were stolen from must have been "asking for it" since every post here has blamed them and none have blamed the actual criminals.

It's interesting how many here will insist on the above logic for some cases of crime, yet when it's a group they don't like attitudes shift...

[pintobean]

27. That was my first thought.

Don't blame the criminals. Never blame the criminals.

[beevul]

45. Deleted, responded to wrong post.

[Glassunion]

66. Look. Owning a gun is a right.

I agree with that.

But it is a responsibility as well. I own firearms, yet I never, ever, leave one in an unattended vehicle. Bad people will do bad things. Been that way since well before we have walked upright. Leaving a firearm in an unattended vehicle is not responsible. If you can't take it with you, leave it at home locked up.

[Crunchy Frog]

94. If you choose to place your deadly weapon in a location where others can access it,

you are not a victim, you are an accessory. Sorry, that's just how I see it.

Your "victimhood" is getting other people killed.

[Lizzie Poppet]

96. Pointing out irresponsibility doesn't preclude blaming the thief.

It's not an either/or situation...

[NightWatcher]

20. That NRA bumper sticker tells everyone that you've a gun in your glovebox

And usually one in the center console too.

[Eleanors38]

35. I keep a water moccasin in my center console and label the lid: "Ruger Inside."

[GGJohn]

42. I keep a Western Diamondback in my glove compartment

and a big ass NRA sticker on my back window.
Imagine the surprise when a thief opens the glove box.

[beevul]

52. In keeping with the gun theme...

I'd go with a boomslang if I were you.

[Eleanors38]

33. I'm guessing the criminals know where the gun-free zones are.

That said, plan your trips/destinations to keep in mind where authorities advertise "Gun-Free Zones," and leave your gun home, or custom-build a strong car lock box. Thugs & CelebroPunks are already encouraged & turned on by "Gun-Free Zones," so don't enable them further.

[Rex]

38. Except of course when a cop uses their gun to commit a crime.

Those are issued by the PD.

[HassleCat]

76. "Steal my gun" sticker

You have seen them, I'm sure. "This vehicle protected by Smith & Wesson." I think all such stickers should have instruction sheets posted, just in case the criminals are too stupid to figure it out themselves. (1) Make sure I went inside the stadium or bar. (2) Break a window. (3) rummage through the car until you find my handgun. (4) Steal it. (5) Sell it to a bad person.

[sanatanadharma]

83. Every stolen gun is a second ammendment vioation...

...of the words "well regulated".

And, unless one is willing to argue that the founding fathers were careless or meaningless with their words, a stolen gun is should be absolute proof that the gun owner has abrogated that 2nd amendment right.

PERIOD! No excuses. Get a better safe, bigger safe, bigger bolts, more welding, more security alarm systems, armed guards, fewer guns, never leave it behind...what ever it takes to stop the theft. A Theft happens! You failed! It should be a criminal offense.

We are constantly told that laws don't stop criminals from getting guns. Well, apparently law abiding gunners do not either.
Perhaps it is time to return to the concept of armories for storing the guns that you can check out for hunting season or target practice. Time and fewer guns = fewer guns to be stolen = less gun crime = law enforcement can regain the upper hand = your nasty neighbors are packing fewer pistols = fewer killings = less fear and shrinking buyers market = fewer gun sellers = declining lust for lead = time and eventual population decline of those who prefer cold steel to warm skin.
With time and declining deification of the gun, maybe our great-grand children will have a chance to live. Or perhaps ammosexuals simply do not care. In which case they are sociopaths.

I had heard the following and then the info was apparently covered up.

By the finger of a non-documented visitor, a bullet ricocheted off the pavement and killed a woman on Santa Monica Pier. Is it true that the gun was stolen from a federal agents car?

Such gun owners should be criminally charged.

[beevul]

84. Sigh...not this nonsense again.

Every stolen gun is a second ammendment violation of the words "well regulated". And, unless one is willing to argue that the founding fathers were careless or meaningless with their words, a stolen gun is should be absolute proof that the gun owner has abrogated that 2nd amendment right.

Sigh...not this nonsense again.

The second amendment, like the rest of the original bill of rights, restricts only government exercise of power, and grants no rights.

But don't take my word for it, take the words of the framers themselves, in the preamble to the bill of rights:

THE Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution

http://www.billofrights.org/

[branford]

86. Huh? The -only- way a stolen gun is a violation of the Second Amendment

is if the government itself took the gun without due process of law and adequate compensation.

Do you understand the nature of the Bill of Rights? It protects the People from the government infringing on our natural rights. It's most certainly not a list of laws restricting or regulating the People.

[Crunchy Frog]

92. "Responsible" gun owners, SECURE YOUR FUCKING FIREARMS!

[aikoaiko]

97. I can't see blaming/punishing the theft victim for future use of stolen items by criminals.

I've had my car stolen (no guns in it) and used in a crime. I'm glad the police didn't arrest me for not locking my car doors and made me an accessory to the crime.

That said I support gun owners keeping their firearms secure; more so for the sake of curious children and stupid adults who snoop in people's glove boxes/consoles.

[aikoaiko]

99. I understand your position on stolen guns. Does that apply to other stolen items used in crimes?

Last edited Tue Sep 1, 2015, 12:08 PM - Edit history (1)

I'm interested in knowing how far your legal rationale goes?

[friendly_iconoclast]

103. To put it gently, your interlocutor seems to have found your question to be awkward

[Orrex]

100. One partial solution would be...

to make it a crime for a gun owner to fail to report the theft of a gun within, say, 48 hours of discovering the theft.

Any responsible gun owner would easily be able to do this, since I'm sure that the responsible gun owner responsibly knows the location of his guns at all times, and he responsibly knows if one goes missing. Also, I'm sure that he responsibly keeps a record of the guns' serial numbers for responsible insurance purposes, etc.

Barring extraordinary circumstances, failure to report the theft would either be an admission that the responsible gun owner had failed to keep track of his guns in a responsible manner, or else that he responsibly knew that the gun was stolen and responsibly chose to do nothing about it.


Since I've been told previously--right here on DU--that guns are a favorite target for burglary and that even a vaunted gun safe won't stop a determined thief, it follows that a responsible gun owner will go to responsible lengths to guarantee the safefy of his weapon.

This proposed law won't stop all crimes using stolen guns, of course, but responsible gun owners could hardly object to a requirement that they responsibly keep track of their guns.