Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
 
Old 08-11-2016, 05:52 AM   #41
Curmudgeon
 
BaltimoreLurker's Avatar
 
City: Stoney Creek, MD
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Moon Dance
Vessel Model: 1974 34' Marine Trader Sedan
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 2,615
Quote:
Originally Posted by BruceK View Post
The issue this thread (and its predecessors) seeks to address would not exist if USA had uniform gun laws. The conflict between state gun laws must be a nightmare for US TFers.

We have a lot of that here - the conflict between State and Federal laws. I was in Portland a few months ago during their Rose Festival and Fleet Week. There were a few Coast Guard cutters on display. And this in a town where there is a weed shop every few blocks. I thought this was pretty funny in a sort of sad way.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	20160611_124717.jpg
Views:	39
Size:	74.6 KB
ID:	55131  
__________________
Advertisement

BaltimoreLurker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 07:23 AM   #42
Guru
 
ranger42c's Avatar
 
City: Maryland
Country: USA
Vessel Model: 42' Sportfish
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
Also, the second amendment is about a militia being necessary for a free state/country. Well, we have military.

The other interpretation is that it's an individual right in order to protect The People from an over-reaching government, and from its existing military forces.

IOW, a "militia" is not necessarily about defense against foreign incursion, although that certainly is one potential use should it come to that. Otherwise, that's what the standing military is for.

These days, hard to envision a militia comprised of armed individuals -- with access only to piddly-a$$ weaponry -- being able to resist effectively, but then again the Afghanis seem to do somewhat OK at it... (and see It Can't Happen Here, The Moon is Down, Red Dawn...)

For non-U.S. readers: it might help to understand our Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights; it recognizes individual rights that are known to exist by nature of citizens being human beings. Free speech, self-defense, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. -- not because of the piece of paper -- but rather because we are people.

-Chris
__________________

__________________
South River, Chesapeake Bay
ranger42c is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 07:26 AM   #43
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by ranger42c View Post
The other interpretation is that it's an individual right in order to protect The People from an over-reaching government, and from its existing military forces.

IOW, a "militia" is not necessarily about defense against foreign incursion, although that certainly is one potential use should it come to that. Otherwise, that's what the standing military is for.

These days, hard to envision a militia comprised of armed individuals -- with access only to piddly-a$$ weaponry -- being able to resist effectively, but then again the Afghanis seem to do somewhat OK at it... (and see It Can't Happen Here, The Moon is Down, Red Dawn...)

For non-U.S. readers: it might help to understand our Bill of Rights doesn't grant rights; it recognizes individual rights that are known to exist by nature of citizens being human beings. Free speech, self-defense, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, etc. -- not because of the piece of paper -- but rather because we are people.

-Chris
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 07:32 AM   #44
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
Also, the second amendment is about a militia being necessary for a free state/country. Well, we have military.
I think you missed out on the last decade or so of case law on this one.

The Supreme Court already found that the right to keep and bear arms is vested in individuals, not the military.

Reference District of Columbia Vs Heller 2008

Regardless of anyones opinion about what is "right" the Supreme Courts ruling settled the issue once and for all.

As to your argument about limiting rights, yes your rights can be limited, so long as the basic right is not infringed on.

Back to the issue of boaters who are traveling through an area... I beleive that eventually the courts will find that individuals have the right to have aboard their floating home any firearm that they might choose to have in their dirt home. This decision will be based on Heller, and all it will take is someone being charged, and wiling to run this through the legal process.

The Supreme court has also found in Heller that while the right to keep and bear arms can be limited, this limitation does not extend to banning all handguns. I believe that this same rational will be applied to semi automatic rifles, but that question has not been asked of the court yet to the best of my knowledge.
__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 08:24 AM   #45
Senior Member
 
catalinajack's Avatar
 
City: Edgewater, MD
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Catalina Jack
Vessel Model: Defever 44
Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 316
Quote:
Originally Posted by ksanders View Post

I think you missed out on the last decade or so of case law on this one.

The Supreme Court already found that the right to keep and bear arms is vested in individuals, not the military.

Reference District of Columbia Vs Heller 2008

Regardless of anyones opinion about what is "right" the Supreme Courts ruling settled the issue once and for all.

As to your argument about limiting rights, yes your rights can be limited, so long as the basic right is not infringed on.

Back to the issue of boaters who are traveling through an area... I beleive that eventually the courts will find that individuals have the right to have aboard their floating home any firearm that they might choose to have in their dirt home. This decision will be based on Heller, and all it will take is someone being charged, and wiling to run this through the legal process.

The Supreme court has also found in Heller that while the right to keep and bear arms can be limited, this limitation does not extend to banning all handguns. I believe that this same rational will be applied to semi automatic rifles, but that question has not been asked of the court yet to the best of my knowledge.
The Heller decision established only that there is an individual right to own and keep ready a handgun for defense in the HOME. It established no right beyond the confines of one's home. In fact, the decision almost invites new laws restricting gun possession outside of the home. In fact, Scalia's statements in the decision make this clear. I would encourage all to read the entire decision. I think this is why the NRA has not challenged the newer, much more restrictive laws found in Maryland and Connecticut for fear of a SCOTUS ruling that unfettered gun rights stop at one's doorstep. Stay tuned. Sooner or later a jurisdiction is going to pass legislation restricting possession outside the home except for hunting, shooting at ranges, and other specifically defined use, perhaps including licensed carry.

Now, should any reader think I am an anti-gunner, I am not. I own several guns including a Mossberg pump that I will be keeping aboard while long distance cruising.
catalinajack is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 08:57 AM   #46
TF Site Team
 
ksanders's Avatar
 
City: SEWARD ALASKA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: LISAS WAY
Vessel Model: BAYLINER 4788
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 3,929
Quote:
Originally Posted by catalinajack View Post
The Heller decision established only that there is an individual right to own and keep ready a handgun for defense in the HOME. It established no right beyond the confines of one's home.
I agree completely. I have also read the entierty of the Heller decision, and many many others.

All one has to do is show that their boat is their home.

How is your home defined??? To someone living on a boat, it is the only home they have. It's very easy to use the language in Heller to make the claim that as long as you live on your boat, you have the right to defend it, just like someone that lives on land.

I wont delve into the broader issues you raised, since this is about firearms as loopers pass through state jurisdictions.
__________________
Kevin Sanders
Bayliner 4788
Seward, Alaska
www.mvlisasway.com
ksanders is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 09:29 AM   #47
Guru
 
jleonard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,677
Quote:
All one has to do is show that their boat is their home.

How is your home defined??? To someone living on a boat, it is the only home they have. It's very easy to use the language in Heller to make the claim that as long as you live on your boat, you have the right to defend it, just like someone that lives on land.
My boat is my weekend or summer HOME.
No different than a cottage. Or an RV. Or a tent.
Probably doesn't apply to a park bench or steam grate.
__________________
Jay Leonard
Attitude Adjustment
40 Albin
Mystic,Ct
jleonard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 12:24 PM   #48
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 12,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by jleonard View Post
My boat is my weekend or summer HOME.
No different than a cottage. Or an RV. Or a tent.
Probably doesn't apply to a park bench or steam grate.
One slight difference between your boat and your home....it moves.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 12:44 PM   #49
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 12,526
The reality is the bill of rights is a very short and simple appearing document for very complex questions, argued every day in public and in courts. Regardless neither the 1st or 2nd amendment grants unlimited or uncontrolled rights, just rights.

The third amendment shocks students when talking about quartering soldiers in your homes. Apparently during that time, there were soldiers who thought that was their right whether or not in war.

The fourth through eighth are all about the judicial process.

The other 17 amendments after the Bill of Rights are quite a hodgepodge and reflect various times and changes, but the one I find most unique is the 27th, which was proposed in 1789 and ratified in 1992.

Maybe we need a new constitutional convention, except I doubt we could ever reach agreement on anything today. So, what we have is a constitution and bill of rights that isn't always clear as it applies to today's world and instead of restating what it really means, the courts try on a daily basis to figure it out.

Smart men can easily differ in their opinions as to how to interpret and apply the amendments as they can many laws. It's like participating in a meeting and thinking you were in agreement and finding out later that two of you have entirely different interpretations of the agreement.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 01:11 PM   #50
Guru
 
jleonard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 2,677
Quote:
Originally Posted by BandB View Post
One slight difference between your boat and your home....it moves.
Doesn't matter. It qualifies for the irs, etc.
__________________
Jay Leonard
Attitude Adjustment
40 Albin
Mystic,Ct
jleonard is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 01:33 PM   #51
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 12,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by jleonard View Post
Doesn't matter. It qualifies for the irs, etc.
It may.....some do. But the IRS has their own set of rules. Oh, but do they. Then so does every state and every municipality.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 02:09 PM   #52
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 12,526
Wifey B: Just to show the complications are not just on guns and a far more pleasant subject although I'm sure no less controversial.

The subject is Women going topless. Women on a boat topless. Where are they legal? Where not?

There are only three states where going topless is absolutely deemed illegal, although probably could be fought in them. There are 15 with mixed laws. Then 32 where by state law it's legal but then some municipalities say it's not. Many rights laws to be argued although nothing in the constitution about it. Or is there? Is it freedom of speech and expression? What if it's part of one's religion? But here's how complicated it can be. NYC, we established, doesn't like guns. It's perfectly legal for a female to walk the sidewalks of NYC topless. Scout Willis recently did so but although that was legal, she got upset because Instagram wouldn't allow the photo.

What about thong bikinis? There are periodically crusades and at one time a Florida law was proposed specifying the width of the piece. Now, who is going to enforce that? Thong police? Would they walk up to a girl and say, "I need to measure."

Point is that it's not simply gun people with problems due to all the different laws. I read the other day someone got arrested for cursing a police officer, but turned out it was perfectly legal there.

People think because you have topless in Miami Beach and generally not on the beaches of Fort Lauderdale that there's a difference in laws. No, it's legal in Fort Lauderdale.

It's legal in Canada. There's even a list much like the gun list of places the law has been tested and topless found ok in the US.

For those who need something to look forward to, August 28 is Go Topless Day. If you want to know where events are being held, there is a BoobMap on gotopless.org. Yes, there is actually an organization. Not quite as big as the NRA. Should be bigger. Much better topic. No one's ever been killed by....well, actually they have....I take that back.

Does anyone have any idea when they travel where it's legal to turn right on red?

Back to the founding fathers and mothers who didn't get credit. They left bazillions of laws to the states. Seems we had a war once over some of those issues. But in today's world, the thing most obvious those founders didn't anticipate was all the movement. It would be simple if we'd just stay put, stay home and watch tv as god intended or something. (Ok, old line with space flight where lady said we had no business going into space but should stay home and watch tv as god intended...I couldn't make such stuff up if I tried). Actually that rivals the local DA who appeared on television saying that he had been to see a particular movie 3 times and become more convinced each time it was obscene. Why did he keep going back then?

Hopefully I lightened this up a bit. Actually we do have one state we all live in, the State of Confusion.
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 02:27 PM   #53
Guru
 
cappy208's Avatar
 
City: Cape Cod
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Slip Aweigh
Vessel Model: Prairie 29
Join Date: Oct 2013
Posts: 1,126
There's a topic to ponder: Rights on red are allowed in states that allow it.

In states that allow it it is either: Legal to turn right (or left) on red UNLESS marked otherwise.

But in New York it's the above way EXCEPT in the 5 boroughs where it's the opposite! No right on red unless it's marked so!


Now for rotaries. Traffic circles. Roundabouts. In New Jersey oncoming traffic has the right of way. But in Mass traffic ON the circle has right of way exiting!

Silly states. Can't agree on red lights or rotaries. I give up on guns.
cappy208 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 03:03 PM   #54
Guru
 
BandB's Avatar
 
City: Fort Lauderdale
Country: USA
Join Date: Jan 2014
Posts: 12,526
Quote:
Originally Posted by cappy208 View Post

Silly states. Can't agree on red lights or rotaries. I give up on guns.
You think of the times. There were only 14 states. It took days to travel between them. We think of the ten amendments as the Bill of Rights. There was actually an 11th that was not ratified then and is still pending.

If today was the founding day and you were trying to put this whole thing together, I ask you. Would you have 50 states? No way, Jose. Maybe 10 provinces like Canada? New England wouldn't be all those states, it would be one. And Delaware? Not a state or province. Then what things would be Fed and what left to provinces? You'd have far more federal laws and fewer conflicting state laws. Now you might well still have a province get angry and try to leave.

They never could have imagined today's communication or travel. Had one written of things as they are today, that would have been science fiction and so far out there, no one would have read it. Dismissed as garbage.

I can hear this conversation:

Writer: We need to keep in mind that one day we could have 50 states and everyone could be driving and flying back and forth and all watching the same television and all on the internet.

President: You must have gotten ahold of some bad moonshine. 50 states? Flying? And what is television and internet?
BandB is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 06:01 PM   #55
Guru
 
O C Diver's Avatar
 
City: Fort Myers, FL... Summers in Crisfield, MD
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Slow Hand
Vessel Model: Cherubini Independence 45
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,760
Actually think the 50 states thing works pretty well. Don't like the direction your state is headed, leave. The ability to move, IMO, has actually reduced some of the extreme at both ends. Your state wants to oppressively tax you, there are states without income tax. NY figured that one out the hard way.

Ted
__________________
Blog: mvslowhand.com
I'm tired of fast moves, I've got a slow groove, on my mind.....
I want to spend some time, Not come and go in a heated rush.....
"Slow Hand" by The Pointer Sisters
O C Diver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 06:26 PM   #56
Master and Commander
 
markpierce's Avatar
 
City: Vallejo CA
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Carquinez Coot
Vessel Model: 2011 Seahorse Marine Coot hull #6
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 10,129
Why would the second amendment included in the Bill of Rights be needed to protect the military's right to bear arms? The "people" consist of individual citizens who were intended to keep the right to bear arms.

"Assault rifles" use a round designed to shoot animals dog-sized or smaller, so-called "varmint" cartridges. Typical hunting rifles use much more powerful cartridges. Just because certain firearms look militaristic doesn't necessarily mean they are more deadly than those designed for civilian use. If shooting a moose, a 338-caliber Winchester Magnum round would be much more suitable than the 22-caliber round used with the AR-15 "assault" rifle.
__________________
Kar-KEEN-ez Koot
markpierce is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 06:27 PM   #57
Guru
 
Mule's Avatar
 
City: Fort Pierce
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Florita Ann
Vessel Model: 1982 Present
Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 1,749
A rifle is a long gun. Semi auto or no. That pesky 2nd is still in force in the USA. So I ask, why should they be on my boat in NY, Mass and wherever unless I invite them on? If they demand to come on, do not they have to tell me what they are looking for (potty usually)? Doesn't that Pesky Constution come into play concerning probable cause?

So if the cops start an illegal search when on board for potty issues and find my pistol and 5.56 AK47 rifle they are way out of line. Seems to me our Constitution still applies on boats in the USA, after all isn't it called the Constitution of the United States of America. That includes boats within our borders doesn't it?

Accually, all of this is is not likely, I am an old, white haired white man. Not the demographic that gets mistreated by cops if reasonably sober. Not to worry
Mule is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 06:40 PM   #58
Guru
 
O C Diver's Avatar
 
City: Fort Myers, FL... Summers in Crisfield, MD
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Slow Hand
Vessel Model: Cherubini Independence 45
Join Date: Dec 2010
Posts: 4,760
Wish they would go back to profiling and leave us law abiding old white guys alone.

Ted
__________________
Blog: mvslowhand.com
I'm tired of fast moves, I've got a slow groove, on my mind.....
I want to spend some time, Not come and go in a heated rush.....
"Slow Hand" by The Pointer Sisters
O C Diver is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 07:04 PM   #59
Guru
 
psneeld's Avatar
 
City: Avalon, NJ
Country: USA
Vessel Name: Freedom
Vessel Model: Albin 40
Join Date: Oct 2011
Posts: 15,525
Quote:
Originally Posted by O C Diver View Post
Wish they would go back to profiling and leave us law abiding old white guys alone.

Ted
Ya gotta watch that particular crowd...didn't they start the last revolution?
psneeld is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-11-2016, 07:09 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
Drake's Avatar
 
City: Seabrook, Texas
Country: Independent Republic of Texas
Vessel Name: Small World
Vessel Model: Defever 50
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 447
Quote:
Originally Posted by psneeld View Post
Ya gotta watch that particular crowd...didn't they start the last revolution?
Yep. Won it, too.
__________________

Drake is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
firearms, guns

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off





All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:38 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0
Copyright 2006 - 2012