The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > Law and Civil Rights

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old July 11, 2011, 08:05 PM   #26
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Rights leave it to you to choose or not to use, as you see fit, laws mandate and quite often leave big tire tracks over rights. - See California, Chicago

You may feel you might resort to whatever, not all of us fit that description nor should our rights be restricted because of what someone else might or might not do, further if everyone in the office was armed how far are you really going to go?
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 11, 2011, 08:14 PM   #27
Edward429451
Junior member
 
Join Date: November 12, 2000
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 9,494
It's very simple really. Those who can't be trusted will not trust others as a rule so you can't carry in fed buildings.
Edward429451 is offline  
Old July 16, 2011, 03:44 AM   #28
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
SSA & VA offices...

I'm a former US government employee(US Dept of Veterans Affairs) & I've also been in a few SSA & VAMCs in other locations.
When I had to deal with some SSA issues in my area, I went to the main office near me. To be honest, some of the people in the waiting room were making me feel uneasy. A few were clearly drunk or intoxicated. Some acted unstable or off their meds. A few smelled like they haven't had a shower since Clinton was POTUS.
My point is that not every person in the general public is going to follow laws or rules. Citizens should have the lawful right to the 2A & to bear arms but some public places like courts, office buildings, jails, schools, etc need these mandates to keep the peace & have law and order.
I'd rather have an alert deputy or armed security guard "watching my six" then square off with every nutcase, wierdo or wacko in the joint.
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old July 16, 2011, 08:58 AM   #29
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
My point is that not every person in the general public is going to follow laws or rules. Citizens should have the lawful right to the 2A & to bear arms but some public places like courts, office buildings, jails, schools, etc need these mandates to keep the peace & have law and order.
I'd rather have an alert deputy or armed security guard "watching my six" then square off with every nutcase, wierdo or wacko in the joint.
Being insane is a medical disqualification to carry a firearm. I have been to my local VA medical center several times and yes it’s kind of an adventure. Still the Bill of Rights gives me the Right to Bear Arms and if we are to allow this kind of regulation then what is to say our other rights can’t be suspended just because we enter an area or building.


I understand you can’t just walk into a crowded building and announce "Fire" when no fire exist but what if we applied the same level of restriction to Free Speech that we have applied to firearms you would probably have masses of people protesting in the street. Imagine walking into a area or building and you have no right to speak AT ALL which would be the same level of restriction we have with firearms.

But let’s take this one step further for the point of illustration.


The people you see at the VA looking for treatment are all Veterans who sacrificed health, limbs and lifespan to protect our nation and its freedoms. Many may have a drug problem, many may be drunk, some insane and some gravely injured or diseased to the point that you wonder how they can even function. This is the price these veterans have paid for our rights and freedoms and to keep us safe from the evils of this world and many of these problems are directly related to the stress and horror these patriots endured while serving our nation. Yet we not only deny the unfit and mentally ill from carrying weapons here we also prohibit the less disabled and even those with no physical or mental disabilities. The price paid for these rights is right before our eyes and yet we have no thought of their payment for these rights but rather worry about some illusion of a sense of security.


I myself walk with a limp and I have been directed by a doctor to not run as my knee deteriorates from too many years or running and carrying heavy loads and jumping off the back of 5 ton military trucks in fully body armor with a rucksack and weapon. I have worked guarding some of our nation’s most destructive weapons and done other duties for my nation that required secrecy, integrity, honor and reliability and yet I too even with advanced weapons training and a CCW permit have no legal right to carry in the VA despite a 2 decade + spotless record.

So once I leave the confines of the VA or the Post Office or other place that I am legally prohibited from carrying a weapon I am stuck. If someone or a group of thugs wants to harm or rob me I have little ability to run more than a few yards and I have been prohibited by law from carrying a weapon that the Bill of Rights of our nation says I have a right to carry in my own defense.
I am prohibited from enjoying the right that I spent my very body and youth to defend. - Tell me is that not a crime on some level?


I understand people want to feel safe and I understand some people have real problems that may make them a danger to others but once you get past the TSA officers at the VA screening desk who is there to stop the mentally ill from taking your life. Prohibited people need to be prohibited until they are healthy enough to carry, and no further.

We once had a document talking about inalienable rights; we need to get back to being that nation... My right to bear arms should not be confined due to someone feelings when I am on public lands or in a public place or public building. We paid for our rights with our lives, our blood and or bodys what more must we do?
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; July 16, 2011 at 10:30 AM. Reason: Little more to add.
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 16, 2011, 09:40 PM   #30
WANT A LCR 22LR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 5, 2010
Posts: 389
" No matter how responsible you believe you (or your fellow man) are, law abiding people can get upset and resort to violence when provoked...and I think I've been close to being that provoked at the DMV before. "

And there you have it folks, the reason firearms are prohibited in fed offices is because the service is so bad. ..

In other news, does anyone know when the fed building ban was instituted? Were post offices later added to the ban or was that from the start? None of the post offices I've been in lately have any "no gun" signage , has anyone seen such signs or is this a "you are supposed to know" law?

Also, some rural post offices are housed in part of a larger building, would the entire building be off limits or just the post office portion? ( I'm thinking just the post office portion )
WANT A LCR 22LR is offline  
Old July 16, 2011, 10:18 PM   #31
Aguila Blanca
Staff
 
Join Date: September 25, 2008
Location: CONUS
Posts: 18,414
Quote:
Originally Posted by BGutzman
I understand you can’t just walk into a crowded building and announce "Fire" when no fire exist ...
Sure you can.

But, just as you have the freedom to do so, you also have the freedom to accept that doing so will get you arrested for making a false report, and possibly for inciting a riot.
Aguila Blanca is offline  
Old July 17, 2011, 03:55 PM   #32
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
I work in a federal office. The ban has nothing to do with your rights or perceptions of rights. It has to do with the safety of the employees and other citizens who are there on lawful business.

When you come to see me on federal business, I appreciate it when you don't bring a weapon with you. You don't need it. I'm going to treat you with respect and do what I can for you. But I have the obligation to perform my duties and tell you the same thing I tell any other citizen without having to be concerned you may pull a weapon or become belligerent. I'll support your right to carry in a federal building just as soon as you can personally guarantee the demeanor, behavior, intellect, educational level, and capacity for reason of every other citizen.
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old July 17, 2011, 04:18 PM   #33
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
When you come to see me on federal business, I appreciate it when you don't bring a weapon with you. You don't need it. I'm going to treat you with respect and do what I can for you. But I have the obligation to perform my duties and tell you the same thing I tell any other citizen without having to be concerned you may pull a weapon or become belligerent. I'll support your right to carry in a federal building just as soon as you can personally guarantee the demeanor, behavior, intellect, educational level, and capacity for reason of every other citizen.
You express a need to feel safe.... so do I but the difference is I have a right to bear arms which is how I feel safe as I have no guarntee that you will act as you are requesting of others and you could go "postal" (no disrespect to the post office intended).... The point of the 2A in part is you have no guarntee of safety except the "ARMS" you are legally allowed to own have and carry in your defense. Further all federal employees that I am aware of have sworn an oath to uphold and protect the constitution of the United States... This oath does not just refer to the physical document but it also refers to protecting and defending the meaning of its contents.

If we could legislate proper human behavior into being a reality 100% of the time we would have no criminals but unfortunately reality is far different... Lots of laws on the books about not murdering people and commiting crimes and similar laws against speeding and yet all these laws and we still have these crimes....... The laws banning firearms only stop law abiding citizens...

You have a choice where you work I do not have a choice about going to most government office to attend to whatever need. The other part of the equation is if someone truly wants to do some evil they can simply wait to whatever person leaves the building.... It is only an illusion of security against criminals and a force field of law against lawful citizenry.
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; July 17, 2011 at 04:31 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 17, 2011, 05:05 PM   #34
kilimanjaro
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2009
Posts: 3,963
What nonsense. When someone comes to my place of work to discuss a business matter, then make a point of unbuttoning your jacket so I can see they're are packing, raise their voice when they don't get what they want, even though it's illegal to give it to them, tell me I'm an 'elite', 'fat cat', or whatever rhetoric they believe in, 'out to get you', ad nauseum, or believe I'm likely to 'go postal', they are using a firearm to intimidate, back up a paranoid belief system, instead of being a rational adult capable of doing adult business. You personally may be the most patriotic, rational citizen in the country, but the law of averages apply. When some people interact with what they perceive as Big Brother, their behavior and thought processes change. Not to mention if you get to carry, I think I should get to carry, too. Now how do you think that's going to work out down at the IRS or SSA?
kilimanjaro is offline  
Old July 17, 2011, 05:21 PM   #35
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
What nonsense. When someone comes to my place of work to discuss a business matter, then make a point of unbuttoning your jacket so I can see they're are packing, raise their voice when they don't get what they want, even though it's illegal to give it to them, tell me I'm an 'elite', 'fat cat', or whatever rhetoric they believe in, 'out to get you', ad nauseum, or believe I'm likely to 'go postal', they are using a firearm to intimidate, back up a paranoid belief system, instead of being a rational adult capable of doing adult business. You personally may be the most patriotic, rational citizen in the country, but the law of averages apply. When some people interact with what they perceive as Big Brother, their behavior and thought processes change.
I am not saying that you’re making up facts to fit your need but I have never ever seen a person with a CCW or CHL take an action such as you have described. I also think it’s interesting that you choose to use the words "paranoid belief system". So now I have to be paranoid to enjoy my rights under the constitution? Hello? That’s why it’s the constitution, so I don’t need each individual’s permission.... Its a right....

If someone really flashes a weapon as a threat display then I suggest contacting law enforcement. In my experience with CCW its unheard of..


I’m curious if we should apply your logic to our other rights if you would find them also to be of value but for the sake of the forum I will forego that question. Who knows maybe your just having a bad day.....

If the jobs truly that bad maybe its time to look for something fresh.... And no you dont have to be paranoid to want to carry a weapon....
__________________
Molon Labe

Last edited by BGutzman; July 17, 2011 at 05:38 PM.
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 17, 2011, 06:51 PM   #36
Dan F
Member
 
Join Date: July 13, 2011
Location: MD *gah*
Posts: 57
It is interesting to me that so many protests against civilians' carrying is stated in terms similar to those of Kilimanjaro above:
Quote:
The ban has nothing to do with your rights or perceptions of rights. It has to do with the safety of the employees and other citizens who are there on lawful business.
I think this is the crux of the entire debate about concealed carry. Many people feel "unsafe" thinking about having a civilian, purposes/temperment unknown, sitting across from them with a concealed weapon, and don't want to have to face the idea.

It doesn't matter that CCW supporters can demonstrate statistically that they are among the MOST law-abiding of citizens... people still think in terms of "there is a potential rampage-shooter across from me... if a ban on guns is posted, then I'm safe from him because he obviously will have been dissuaded from carrying one despite his tendency to spontaneously commit MASS MURDER".

Speaking for myself, I think someone across from me when I carry is actually safer than they'd be in front of even a LEO (if I witness the someone commit a felony in front of me that doesn't threaten my or another's life, I won't attempt an arrest, which can get rough for the suspect). And of course, if a rampage shooter just happened to step into the office while I was there...

Unlike critics of CCW that oppose the idea generally in favor of the total illusion of safety a societal ban provides, at least security in Fed buildings might actually limit or eliminate "illegal" guns (security is never breached, right?), so someone such as Kilimanjaro might actually face fewer or no guns in the office. Maybe... who knows. I think it's irrelevant. Why should Fed buildings be specially exempted? Does anyone think that someone in a mall store's complaints department is always treated respectfully and politely? What about the old canard of "fender-benders" leading to "blood in the streets"?

This is not to say I have no sympathy with Kilimanjaro... some jobs are more replete with as-... um, creeps, than others, to be sure (I've worked with psychiatric populations for over twenty years, so I've dealt with more than an average number myself), and being threatened in a fully believable way by one, or more than one, in the course of a day is a crappy way to have to spend your time. But before I'd go with a "gun-free zone" I'd actually endorse Kili's other idea... let him carry at work (however likely or unlikely it might be to implement). If someone flashed a weapon at me, to "bolster" their "argument", I'd want something better at hand than the 5 minute wait for security (assuming you could get the initial call in). Whoever it was just crossed the line from client-seeking-and-possibly-deserving-help to felon-asking-for-permanent-retirement-from-Planet-Earth.
Dan F is offline  
Old July 19, 2011, 11:03 PM   #37
Justice06RR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 21, 2010
Location: Central FL
Posts: 1,360
So you can just wait to shoot a Fed employee when they walk out of the building, hospital, etc.

Insane right? If a non-LEO employee can't carry in a 'prohibited' area they themselves are helpless inside or outside the building.

Well many "laws" don't make sense anyway.
Justice06RR is offline  
Old July 19, 2011, 11:32 PM   #38
m17s_guy
Member
 
Join Date: February 1, 2011
Location: Georgia
Posts: 92
It all boils down to the same phrase that can be applied to any law on the books. Criminals are called criminals because they commit crimes. Therefore you can rightfully assume that they don't follow the laws... A law disallowing a law abiding citizen from carrying a defensive weapon at any point is dangerous IMHO, because it makes for more victims who could have stopped a situation before it escalates into a catastrophe. Legislating gun control does nothing, because if someone wants to go into a building with the specific intent of committing an assault or murder with a firearm, they will shoot the guards at the door and proceed into the building to find the selected target. regardless of laws.
__________________
if at first you dont succeed, get a bigger hammer!
m17s_guy is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 01:24 AM   #39
ClydeFrog
Junior member
 
Join Date: May 1, 2010
Posts: 5,797
Laws...

You don't have to agree with the laws you just have to follow them!
If you are unhappy with laws or rules or SOPs, then run for elected office & change them.

This is what makes America great!
ClydeFrog is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 07:41 AM   #40
pstrlipscomb
Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2011
Posts: 71
Either we have the right to bear arms everywhere or we have the right to bear arms nowhere! In other words, we either have the right to bear arms, or we merely have permission to bear arms where someone else deems it safe.

While our current horde of flimsy-spined cowards enforce a limited permission, the men who sacrificed their lives, their honors, and their fortunes to win their freedom and ours called it a right that should not be infringed. By the way, they had no fantasies about a gentle government; they had just killed thousands of men to allow the building of a civil government which respected the rights of the citizen.

The arguments for limiting CCW are the same as the arguments for eliminating CCW. Woe to the hypocrite that obtains a permit to carry a firearm then argues to keep others from carrying theirs to his place of business!
__________________
I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me. - Jesus Christ
pstrlipscomb is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 12:21 PM   #41
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
Is this another thread about a well-regulated militia or did I get off on the wrong floor. Let me see here. Looks like another discussion about whether or not government employees can be safe at work or not.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 12:33 PM   #42
pstrlipscomb
Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2011
Posts: 71
Government employees are not segregated from the general population in the Bill of Rights, so they are afforded no "special" protection. We do go to great lengths (including using guns) to protect officials that face known and potential threats, so why can't I go into the same public places with protection? As a matter of fact, I believe the Bill of Rights was designed to prevent special rights/privileges/protection for people in government because of the corruption such disparity created in the government from which they had just freed themselves.

Should the guy at the post office be taken better care of than the bum on the front steps of the post office? By the way, the same laws concerning assault protect them both with or without a gun ban. Of course a postal worker feels awful helpless when the bad guy ignores the sign. He just gets to sit there and sweat until SWAT comes up with a good plan. Oh, wait, bad guys don't ignore the signs! How silly of me! And of course none of the employees ever ignore the signs and go "postal" either! Huh; I will have to think this over some more...
__________________
I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me. - Jesus Christ
pstrlipscomb is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 02:40 PM   #43
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
Well, the constitution and the bill of rights were written to replace the articles of confederation, which has resulted in a national government with next to no power. But I rather imagine a lot of people here would prefer it that way.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old July 22, 2011, 03:41 PM   #44
BGutzman
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2009
Location: Frozen Tundra
Posts: 2,414
Quote:
Well, the constitution and the bill of rights were written to replace the articles of confederation, which has resulted in a national government with next to no power. But I rather imagine a lot of people here would prefer it that way.
I didn’t realize basic rights of being a human and a citizen as outlined in our founding documents were prohibitive of a strong central government..... I thought they merely gave the government clear areas where it had little or no power.. ie limit of power...

I think that you can have a strong central government and honor the Bill of Rights and Constitution but that cannot happen until we have a re recognition that the government does have clear unsurpassable limits that it cannot exceed.
__________________
Molon Labe
BGutzman is offline  
Old July 26, 2011, 07:05 PM   #45
pstrlipscomb
Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2011
Posts: 71
to bgutzman

Amen!
__________________
I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me. - Jesus Christ
pstrlipscomb is offline  
Old July 27, 2011, 06:01 AM   #46
BlueTrain
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 26, 2005
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 6,141
I am not arguing whether or not there are basic human rights but whether or not a strong central government is desirable or not. I'm not sure that there has ever been a strong government followed by a weaker (gentler, kinder, etc.) government when there had been a revolution or rebellion, which may be beside the point. About all of the civil wars and rebellions I can think of resulted in governments that were stronger and in recent years, more intrusive and controlling than what existed previously. When there have been non-violent revolutions, that didn't seem to happen, although the resulting governments may not have been all that perfect. But such things have happened a few times in the last 400 years.

But what the basic human rights are may not be as obvious as all that in the first place.
__________________
Shoot low, sheriff. They're riding Shetlands!
Underneath the starry flag, civilize 'em with a Krag,
and return us to our own beloved homes!
Buy War Bonds.
BlueTrain is offline  
Old July 27, 2011, 09:09 AM   #47
pstrlipscomb
Member
 
Join Date: March 18, 2011
Posts: 71
If I still worked in federal building I would rather be armed when the madman finds me hiding under my desk than hope SWAT gets him before he can pull the trigger. Whether it is Columbine or the recent Norway shooting we see that gun-free zones are prized targets because the madmen of the world know they can hurt a lot of people before anyone can stop them. They know they will be stopped, but their mission will be accomplished, and they work that into their plan. Nearly every madman has planned to make a statement by going out in a blaze of glory or hanging out in a court room for years. My wish is that if I become their target, I cut short their glory mission.

The madmen we fear the most seek out gun-free zones; it seems to me that you put people in an unsafe working environment when you declare it to be a gun-free zone!

I trust you with your car and your gun; please do the same for me.
__________________
I am the way, the truth, and the life; no man cometh to the Father but by me. - Jesus Christ
pstrlipscomb is offline  
Old July 27, 2011, 10:00 AM   #48
brickeyee
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 29, 2004
Posts: 3,351
Quote:
So, isn't lawfully carrying a firearm, for which I hold a state-issued license, for the purpose of self defense a "lawful purpose"? Thus, I believe that the widely cited 18 USC 930, if tested in court (and I cannot afford to be the test case) would likely NOT hold up if applied to a person lawfully carrying with a CHL.

Good luck with that argument.
You are invited to be the test case.

Find someone with money to burn.

"Lawful purpose" is NOT what YOU want it to mean, but what Congress intended it to mean when it passed the statute.

You "state-issued license" has no weight on Federal property unless the Feds decide to accept it (and they are not required to).
brickeyee is offline  
Old July 27, 2011, 01:33 PM   #49
motorhead0922
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 30, 2010
Location: Missouri
Posts: 635
I don't believe anyone has to risk arrest by walking into a federal building with an otherwise legal weapon. A suit can be filed to have the policy changed and signs removed, on grounds that personal protection is justified.

Has, say, the NRA tried this?
motorhead0922 is offline  
Old July 27, 2011, 01:58 PM   #50
aarondhgraham
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 1, 2009
Location: Stillwater, OKlahoma
Posts: 8,638
There was no real reason for it,,,

The ban was a knee-jerk reaction to a few postal employees who went nuts.

So in the interest of appearing to do something,,,
Our government initiated another useless prohibition.

Why did they do it?,,,
Because they could.

Aarond (the cynic)
__________________
Never ever give an enemy the advantage of a verbal threat.
Caje: The coward dies a thousand times, the brave only once.
Kirby: That's about all it takes, ain't it?
Aarond is good,,, Aarond is wise,,, Always trust Aarond! (most of the time)
aarondhgraham is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 05:25 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.11807 seconds with 8 queries